Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2007-08-19T21:28:37Z

Baruch:

== Examples ==
How is Limbaugh a person with disabilities? And how is hating Ann Coulter the same as hating women? I hate many men, but I don't hate men as a concept. Seems [[deceit|deceitful]] overgeneralization to me.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 18:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not defending the liberals attacks on Coulter, mind you, but it seems to me that it's not hate speech. I read over your homosexuality articles, and you seem to agree with me that people have an overbroad definition of what constitutes a hate crime, and hate speech. However, this article is guilty of the same overgeneralization! In your own words, speaking out against a gay man isn't hate speech; just so, speaking out against a woman isn't hate speech against women. Would you like me to correct this article accordingly?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, most of what has been directed towards Coulter is indeed hate speech. They seek to apply false motives to her words, then repeat forever those falsification until people cannot tell what is false and what isn't, like the "Faggot" and "Jersey Girls" incidents. It is an organized leftist plan to marginalize and discredit her.

Definitions of Hate speech on the Web:

* type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.
www.historycentral.com/Civics/H.html

* Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:49, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

TK, I fixed your erroneous tabbing. But you miss the critical point: such speech must be ''because of'' race, ethnicity, etc., not just incidentally related to such traits. By your definition, saying "homosexuality is a sin" would be hate speech. That's a result that neither of us want.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*This isn't a Court of Law, Baruch. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:13, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Nor is it, apparently, a court of reason. I'm fighting a losing battle, so I'll go back to contributing. I'm here for the class, anyways, but maybe you guys should take some time to look over your reasoning.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 17:28, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Hate speech

2007-08-19T21:06:41Z

Baruch: Cleared some real bad misspelling

'''Hate speech''' is said to be widely provocative speech to denigrate a legally protected class or group of citizens defined by legislation. These protected groups can include gender, race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, disability, and sometimes age. While language to protect other victim classes has been proposed, the [[Democrat|Democratically]] controlled [[110th Congress]] has rejected protections against the military, pregnant and battered women, or the homeless. Under some legal codes, hate speech can be considered a [[hate crime]].

Under a new Swedish law, any person who demonstrates disrespect (Swedish: “missaktning”) for people’s sexual orientation may be sentenced up to four years in prison. Needless to say, although the Bible is clear about God’s love to fallen mankind and that “God so loved the world….” there are many passages in the Bible that warns about sodomy and its dangers to both individuals and to society at large. Those passages – although expressing disrespect for the depraved act of sodomy - may erroneously be interpreted by some people to express disrespect for the people who engage in such activity. Or as the the Kalmar Court verdict against Pastor Green reads: “It is the opinion of this Court that Åke Green, through his statements, has deeply offended the homosexuals as a group and the purpose of his sermon was clearly aimed at showing disrespect for the homosexuals as a group.” [http://www.akegreen.org/]

==See also==
*[[H.R. 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007]]
*[[Hate crime]]

[[category:politics]]

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-19T20:56:53Z

Baruch: /* George Clooney and Charlton Heston */

== This should be merged ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Couple of points/comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Please! ==

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

== Kyoto and Spain ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rob, I respect you for your work on the site, which has become apparent to me only in a few days here. But your reply is still nonsensical. Hypocrisy is distinct from a lack of contrition. Is this not obvious to you?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2007-08-19T20:51:47Z

Baruch:

== Examples ==
How is Limbaugh a person with disabilities? And how is hating Ann Coulter the same as hating women? I hate many men, but I don't hate men as a concept. Seems [[deceit|deceitful]] overgeneralization to me.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 18:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::I'm not defending the liberals attacks on Coulter, mind you, but it seems to me that it's not hate speech. I read over your homosexuality articles, and you seem to agree with me that people have an overbroad definition of what constitutes a hate crime, and hate speech. However, this article is guilty of the same overgeneralization! In your own words, speaking out against a gay man isn't hate speech; just so, speaking out against a woman isn't hate speech against women. Would you like me to correct this article accordingly?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:10, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

*Unfortunately, most of what has been directed towards Coulter is indeed hate speech. They seek to apply false motives to her words, then repeat forever those falsification until people cannot tell what is false and what isn't, like the "Faggot" and "Jersey Girls" incidents. It is an organized leftist plan to marginalize and discredit her.

Definitions of Hate speech on the Web:

* type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them.
www.historycentral.com/Civics/H.html

* Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against someone based on their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication.
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:49, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

== Missing the Point ==
TK, I fixed your erroneous tabbing. But you miss the critical point: such speech must be ''because of'' race, ethnicity, etc., not just incidentally related to such traits. By your definition, saying "homosexuality is a sin" would be hate speech. That's a result that neither of us want.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-19T20:43:55Z

Baruch: /* George Clooney and Charlton Heston */

== This should be merged ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Couple of points/comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Please! ==

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

== Kyoto and Spain ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

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

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

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

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

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

And yeah, this seems to be something more like hate speech than hypocrisy. I don't see his nasty comments about Heston as hypocrisy at all, just major jerkitude!-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 14:02, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The fact that he admitted it was in poor taste, yet insisted it was still funny and showed no remorse for doing so makes it hypocricy <nowiki>[sic]</nowiki>. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
I looked up hypocrisy, and it means, "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." He nowhere says that what he did was nice, while pretending it wasn't; nor does he say that what he said was funny, but believes it wasn't. He was an a--, and a real jerk, but not a hypocrite. Conflating various bad traits isn't a very appealing trait, yourself.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:04, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
::The subtle difference between a hypocrite and your average run-of-the-mill liar is that when the hypocritical behavior is exposed the hypocrite generally has no idea that they have been engaging in behavior that '''is''' hypocritical. That is the whole point to being a hypocrite; being blind to one's own misdeeds, or contradictory behavior. [[User:Samwell|Samwell]] 16:40, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Doesn't seem to me that Clooney did either. He said his joke was in poor taste, but still funny. I think it was neither, but that's not a hypocritical statement, just a jerky one.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:43, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2007-08-19T20:10:42Z

Baruch:

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-19T20:04:14Z

Baruch: /* George Clooney and Charlton Heston */

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

2007-08-19T17:49:31Z

Baruch: Should this article be deleted? If not, I undeadended it

'''"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"''' is one of the longest, if not longest sentences using only one [[homophone]]. In this case, buffalo means the city, the animal, and the verb meaning to overawe or intimidate. Replacing "buffalo" meaning animal with "person" and the buffalo verb with "intimidate," "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" can be translated as "Buffalo people [that] Buffalo people intimidate [also] intimidate Buffalo people," or "People from Buffalo, which are intimidated by people from Buffalo, intimidate people from Buffalo."
[[category:linguistics]]

Bulimia nervosa

2007-08-19T17:48:57Z

Baruch: undeadend

'''Bulimia nervosa''' is a [[disease]] where the individual fears becoming fat, and therefore eats large quantities of food, and then proceeds to force themselves to vomit the food back up.

[[category:psychology]]

Atheism

2007-08-19T17:48:06Z

Baruch: Undo revision 271433 by Special:Contributions/Vistatan (User talk:Vistatan) wp dump

[[Image:Nogod.jpg|right|175px]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]].
<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>

== Types of atheism ==

Atheism is often divided into two types: [[strong atheism]] and weak atheism. The principle difference between the two forms of atheism is that strong atheism retains the burden of proof, asserting that there is affirmative evidence or reason to deny the existence of God, while weak atheism asserts that [[theists]] have the burden of proof, and that theists have not provided sufficient reason to justify belief in God. In other words, strong atheists claim they can affirmatively show that God does ''not'' exist, while weak atheists claim only that theists cannot show that God ''does'' exist.

The difference between these two types of atheism can cause some confusion in [[debate]] between theists and atheists. Often, an atheist will attempt to justify the conclusion of strong atheism with arguments supporting weak atheism, falling into a [[non sequitur]] fallacy. Similarly, theists sometimes attempt to challenge weak atheism with arguments against strong atheism, falling into a [[straw man]] fallacy.

Atheism is also sometimes divided into "practical atheism" and "theoretical atheism." The key difference between the two is that while theoretical atheism bases its belief on theoretical and philosophical argument, practical atheism bases its belief on the allegation that God or the gods have no meaningful impact on the life of the atheist (cannot be seen or heard, do not answer prayers, etc.), and that therefore, whether or not any God or gods exist, they are non-existent ''for all practical purposes''.

== Proponents of atheism ==
Atheism is an ancient point of view -- neither "modern" or "revolutionary." In fact, atheism is older than both [[Christianity]] and [[Islam]].

Many people have been called atheists throughout history -- in fact, Christians were alleged to be atheists in the first century, because of their denial of the Greek pantheon. However, while Christians denied the existence of the ''Greek'' gods, they ''acknowledged'' the existence of the ''Christian'' God. Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, 2nd century b.c. Similarly, [[Socrates]] was accused of atheism because he denied the pantheon, despite his myriad references to God throughout the writings about him. Therefore, atheists must be understood with reference to ''which'' gods they disbelieved.

Prominent atheists and atheist schools of thought include:
* Carvaka school: an atheistic and materialistic offshoot of [[Hinduism]] in the 6th century b.c.
* Samkhya school: an atheistic school of classical Indian philosophy, originating in the 6th century b.c.
* Diagoras: Greek philosopher who denied the existence of the Greek pantheon
* Epicurus: Greek philosopher espousing [[materialism]], and stated that, even if the gods exist, they do not interact with humans and are therefore non-existent for all practical purposes;
* Lucretius: Greek philosopher espousing materialism, and stated that man should not believe in the gods because their ideas about the gods and their fear of death made men unhappy;
* [[Karl Marx]]: founder of Communism;
* Friedrich Nietzsche: Prominent 20th century atheist philosopher;
* [[Lenin]] and [[Stalin]]: Early Communist leaders in Russia;
* [[Mao Zedong]]: Chinese Communist leader;
* Paul Kurtz: founder of the Council of [[Secular Humanism]]

== Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism ==
[[Image:134t.gif|thumb|150px|left|The psalmist [[David]] wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."]]
The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ([[Genesis]] 1:1). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp</ref>

Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - [[Psalm]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])

The psalmist David also stated that "The The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalm 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:20 (KJV)
==Criticism==
===Strong Atheism is Illogical===
Theists often point of that strong atheism is illogical, in that it claims to prove a universal negative.[[Image:Image-S070812.jpg|thumb|175px|right|[[D. James Kennedy]]]]
Dr. [[D. James Kennedy]] wrote the following regarding the illogicalness of atheism:
{{cquote|Atheism is what is called a "[[universal negative]]." One of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a universal negative....You would have to examine every part of the universe....

By the way, you would have to be very, very fast because, who knows, this God, these angels....may be very, very fast, and just after you get somewhere, they may have left for another part of the universe.

This means that you would have to be [[omnipresent]]. You would also have to know everything about every part of the universe, so you would be [[omniscient]]. Then, just at the point when you proved that there was no God, you would also have proven that you were one.<ref>http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419</ref>}}

When pressed, most atheists will concede this point. However, weak atheists respond by shifting the burden of proof from the atheist to the theist. They argue that in the debate over whether something does or does not exist, in the absence of any scientific proof one way or the other, the burden of proof would lie with the person arguing for existence. Simply claiming that you know god exists carries no weight--in the words of founding father and Deist Thomas Paine, writing in the ''Age of Reason'', “ ... it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”

===Atheism is contrary to reason and evidence===
Theists often criticize atheism as being contrary to persuasive argument and evidence. [[Arguments for the existence of God]] include:
* [[Teleological argument]]: The universe exhibits overwhelming evidence of deliberate, intelligent, purposeful design, which implies an [[intelligent design]]er;
* [[Cosmological argument]]: Every event in our universe necessarily has a cause. However, it is impossible that there should be an unending chain of causes going back. Therefore, there necessarily must be a cause ''distinct'' from the universe as we know it which is capable of causing all things and is itself uncaused. That [[First Cause]] is God.
* [[Ontological argument]]: Since existence is inherent to the definition of God, it is impossible to conceive of God without conceiving of Him as existing;
* Historical arguments for the existence of God: Arguments stemming from historical accounts and archaeological evidence;
* Experiential arguments for the existence of God: Arguments based on personal experience and human intuition;

===Atheism is contrary to human intuition===
[[Image:Sartre1.gif|thumb|150px|right|[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]]]
Theists often criticize atheism as being unnatural and contrary to the natural inclinations of humans. As evidence, they point to the alleged tenuousness of atheism in some of its more notable adherents. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading atheist of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:
{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.<ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] which is a type of atheist.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref><ref>American Scientist May 1977:323</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

===Atheism is Immoral===
Theists often criticize atheism as being both associated with, and a justification for, immoral activities. For example:
====Atheists in America Are Generally Less Charitable====
[[Image:112006top.jpg|thumb|Atheists in America generally give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theist]] Americans.]]
The [[Barna Group]] found the following in regards to atheist population in America and charitable giving:
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref>}}

In 2003, Arthur C. Brooks wrote in ''Policy Review'' the following:
{{cquote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/pg_2 Policy Review, Oct-Dec 2003 by Brooks, Arthur C]</ref>}}

ABC News reported the following:
{{cquote|...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2</ref>}}

====Atheism and Immoral Views====
The Barna Group found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely than theists in America to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; getting drunk; having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married; having an [[abortion]]; living with someone of the opposite sex without being married; using profanity; gambling; looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>

===Atheism and the Existence of Evil===
Atheists state that the existence of evil is a problem for [[theism]] which holds to a good and powerful God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html</ref> [[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil.<ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

===Atheism and Communism ===
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "[Religion] is the opium of the people".<ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html</ref> Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

===Atheism and Questions of Origins ===
Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]]. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

== Atheist Population as a Percentage of Various Countries Populations==
Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. In the United States, however, another 14% of the respondents identified themselves as agnostic indicating that 18% of the U.S. population do not ascribe to theistic views.<ref>In addition, 6% declined to say; and 3% indicated they were unsure of their beliefs.</ref>

== American Population's View of Atheists ==
Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to for shared vision or want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== Well Known Atheists ==
Well-known atheists include Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov, [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[Ernest Hemingway]], and [[David Hume]].

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

== Notes ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Bona Fide Occupational Qualification

2007-08-19T17:47:50Z

Baruch: undeadend

Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ) enables an employer to discriminate based on gender with respect to filling a particular job without being liable for discrimination under the [[Fourteenth Amendment|Fourteenth Amendment's]] [[Equal Protection Clause]]. A BFOQ only very rarely justifies [[discrimination|discriminating]] based on race. A rare example is hiring an actor of a particular race to fill a specific role in a movie or entertainment production.

An example of a BFOQ to justify excluding men from a job might be in hiring assistants to work in a women's bathroom or locker room.

The burden is on the employer to prove a legitimate BFOQ if it makes distinctions based on race or gender.
[[category:law]]

Bobby Darin

2007-08-19T17:46:09Z

Baruch: undeadend

'''Bobby Darin''' was a [[singer]] who was famous during the 1950s and 1960s. He was a big band and [[swing]] musician, especially.

Some of his hits:
*If I Were a Carpenter
*Splish Splash
*Beyond the Sea

==External links==
*[http://www.bobbydarin.net/main.html Official Bobby Darin Website]

[[Category:Musicians|Darin, Bobby]]

Bobby Darin

2007-08-19T17:45:52Z

Baruch:

'''Bobby Darin''' was a singer who was famous during the 1950s and 1960s. He was a [[big band]] and [[swing]] musician, especially.

Some of his hits:
*If I Were a Carpenter
*Splish Splash
*Beyond the Sea

==External links==
*[http://www.bobbydarin.net/main.html Official Bobby Darin Website]

[[Category:Musicians|Darin, Bobby]]

BTU

2007-08-19T17:45:16Z

Baruch:

Btu is the abbreviation for [[England|British]] thermal unit(s), a unit of energy. It is used worldwide in the power, steam generation, heating and air conditioning industries. Scientists conducting research and teachers prefer the term of the joule (J), which is an SI unit of energy.

As a unit of power, BTU per hour (BTU/h) is understood, but often (as on barbecue grills) the "per hour" is omitted and simply BTU is used.
[[category:energy]]

BTU

2007-08-19T17:45:04Z

Baruch: undeadend

Btu is the abbreviation for [[British|England]] thermal unit(s), a unit of energy. It is used worldwide in the power, steam generation, heating and air conditioning industries. Scientists conducting research and teachers prefer the term of the joule (J), which is an SI unit of energy.

As a unit of power, BTU per hour (BTU/h) is understood, but often (as on barbecue grills) the "per hour" is omitted and simply BTU is used.
[[category:energy]]

Blind studies

2007-08-19T17:40:41Z

Baruch: First edit I've been allowed to make in 12 hours?!

Experiments in which the participants do not know whether or not they are a part of the control group.<ref>Wile, Dr. Jay L. ''Exploring Creation With General Science''. Anderson: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.

2000</ref>

Blind studies, or double-blind studies, are more likely to pass [[peer review]] standards of scientific quality evaluation.
==References==
<references/>
[[Category:science]]

Talk:Liberal hate speech

2007-08-18T22:38:31Z

Baruch: New page: == Examples == How is Limbaugh a person with disabilities? And how is hating Ann Coulter the same as hating women? I hate many men, but I don't hate men as a concept. Seems [[deceit|dec...

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-18T18:02:06Z

Baruch: /* George Clooney and Charlton Heston */

== This should be merged ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Couple of points/comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Please! ==

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

== Kyoto and Spain ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

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

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

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

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

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

And yeah, this seems to be something more like hate speech than hypocrisy. I don't see his nasty comments about Heston as hypocrisy at all, just major jerkitude!-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 14:02, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-18T16:42:05Z

Baruch: /* George Clooney and Charlton Heston */

== This should be merged ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Couple of points/comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Please! ==

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

== Kyoto and Spain ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

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

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-18T16:38:56Z

Baruch: /* George Clooney and Charlton Heston */

== This should be merged ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Couple of points/comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Please! ==

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

== Kyoto and Spain ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

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

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2007-08-18T16:10:19Z

Baruch: George Clooney and Charlton Heston

== This should be merged ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Couple of points/comments ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Please! ==

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

== Kyoto and Spain ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

I looked at the citation dropped for the premise that Clooney said that Heston deserves Alzheimers... but the real quote says nothing like it! Clooney says that Heston deserves what others "say" about him, not that he deserves a disease, and the link to the quote provides the quote wholly without context. As much as I hate Clooney, isn't it a little dishonest to supply an out-of-context quote, and then provide your own context?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 12:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia

2007-08-18T03:50:59Z

Baruch: /* Example of Pro-Gay Bias */

{{protect|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive1]]
[[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive2]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive3]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive4]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive5]]
 [[Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia/Archive6]] 

== What if Wikipedia editors were to remove some instances of bias? ==

It strikes me that dedicated Wikipedia editors might seek to restore their image by rooting out bias. Hypothetically speaking, if an item on this list is later repaired by an editor so that it is no longer true, should it be forgiven and removed from the list, or kept as a reminder of past transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

: If the correction reflects bias, as in removing smears against [[Democrats]] but not against [[Republicans]], then obviously that is another instance of bias. How about an unbiased commitment by [[Wikipedia]]??? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:: And if the correction does not reflect bias? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:57, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, if the bias is cleaned up, then I'd love to eliminate the examples and reduce the size of this list, hopefully even to zero. But I'm not naive about the liberal bias at Wikipedia, and I doubt an unbiased clean-up effort is even possible there. Feel free to prove me wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:31, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Perhaps other editors disagree with your stance. Some entries are written in past-tense, implying that Wikipedia has since cleared instances of bias from at least those articles. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 04:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

It isn't actually possible to reduce this list to zero, partially because of incomplete info and partially because some of the examples are past issues. Without getting into arguing about what's valid or not...
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>3 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>4 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>5 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>8 has been corrected. Twice.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>30 is no longer true as worded. (It may still stand as a criticism if rephrased.)
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>34 is no longer true. That said, looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voting_Rights_Act&diff=120080583&oldid=120073659 a version from March 3] I can't find this call to participate in a political march. Am I missing it?
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>35 is the description of a past sequence of events; it is uncorrectable.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>38 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>42 is unreferenced.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>43 is no longer true; [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism that article] is now only in an eponymous category and a handful of maintenence/cleanup categories.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>44 has since been corrected; it even cites Conservapedia.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>47 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>49 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>52 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>56 has since been partially corrected: the article now mentioned his daughter in the lead, wikilinks "double first" to explain it to unfamiliar readers, his time as Dean of Christ Church is now in his article (it was in the Christ Church, Oxford article), the grammatical error in the lead is gone, and the Britannica 1911 source is now made explict. His lineage is still described in detail.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>60 has since been corrected.
*<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.

There are seventeen examples on the list that have either been corrected or lack sufficient information to be acted upon. This is not including the criticisms that have been made by third parties (and thus persist even if they have been acted upon).

To say that Wikipedia is able to reduce this list by cleaning up the articles in question is a bit disingenuous. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 06:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Arguing without end, and discussing the wallpaper (what if's) while the house is flooded, is another form of [[deceit]]. The fact that hundreds of Adminstrators allowed the bias to begin with, and in most cases added to it, is indictment enough. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:09, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Are you opposed, then, to Aschlafly's suggestion that in the unlikely event that Wikipedia manages to satisfactorily remove bias from an article referred to on this list, that its entry on the list may deserve to be forgiven in favour of focusing on remaining and future transgressions? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: I am confident that Sysop TK and everyone else here would welcome an end to the lynch-mob approach by Wikipedia, and we would let bygones be bygones '''if there is a real change''' there. That would entail an unbiased cleaning of the smears and errors and perhaps a rule change at Wikipedia to prevent recurrence.

: Obviously that has not happened, and probably won't because of the intense [[liberal]] bias of the Wikipedia editors. In the above list of alleged corrections, only 3 out of the most important 29 examples have been corrected by Wikipedia. Two of those corrections were concerning powerful individuals, and thus may simply reflect Wikipedia's protecting its self-interest. So that leaves only one genuine correction out of 29. That's a far cry from a sincere effort by Wikipedia to stop its National Enquirer-stuff. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:22, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Out of interest, which are the most important 29 examples? [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 12:49, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

: You can't be serious. Try 1-29.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I was entirely serious. The list does not indicate that it is in order of importance, and it seems that new entries are added to the start of the list, so I assumed they were in roughly chronological order. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Bronzefinger|Bronzefinger]] 13:28, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps what needs to be "worked on" is thinking like that shown above? Instead of just tackling the problem, the discussion is diverted by a need to rank which items are the most important! Surely one cannot believe that sort of obsessive need to become completely mired in endless discussions about the discussions, serves WP or its readers well? Wiki's (all wiki's), in general, seem to attract users who use debating tricks too much, and pay too little attention to doing what is forthright, IMHO. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Today's front page asks when Wikipedia will clean up its sixty-five instances of bias. I'm sure there's some overlap between Conservapedia editors and conservative Wikipedia editors, who would be more than happy to try and improve Wikipedia. What guidelines do you suppose Wikipedia should follow in order to absolve itself from this list of complaints? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 15:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates, I cannot see that happening. It is like trying to push a Donkey Cart uphill, along with the Donkeys. Possible, but extremely difficult, unless he is now prepared to state some "absolutes" of right and wrong, truth and fiction. This he has been resistant to do, deciding to run with the sixties commune style of mobocracy, where a 14 year old editor has equal weight, in theory as well as practice, with that of a Nobel Laureate. Without that, people there will continue to be "rat-packed" by the roving bands of thought police, demanding a world-view, secular progressive agenda, and getting it by tying everything they disagree with into a never-ending argument and a series of arbitrations, panels, commissions and reviews, all the while personally attacking them, second-guessing their posts, etc. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Many of these aren't even legitimate cases of bias. If #1 is, then Conservapedia is guilty of the same sort of thing on its [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (linking John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them). A bunch are instances of past vandalism that have been corrected (ie #4, #34), though obviously the past cannot be undone. #6 is a legitimate criticism, but hardly an example of liberal bias. In #7 the instances are hardly comparable (the former being a news blurb for a day, the latter being a substantial issue that has been widely referenced, nor would I compare an illegal act with someone's sexual orientation). For a site that complains that Wikiepdia isn't concise enough (and I generally agree with that) there's an awful lot of criticism for not mentioning certain details (#11, #23). #32 is flawed, as it compares 8% athiests with 35% atheists, agnostics, seculars, etc., nor is the references Wikipedia page a stastically relevent scientific survey. #41 highlights an unnecessary detail included in a Wikipedia article, but if referenced is hardly "gossip" (and still not bias). The newspapers really have to take the rap for #63; no newspaper should use Wikiepdia, or any wiki (or probably any encyclopedia) for a source without backing up the claims elsewhere. They would have been rightly criticized for using Conservapedia as well. As for #45 (many of Wikipedia's articles having no educational value), I've come across ''many'' articles here that are too brief to really have any educational value at all. On top of that, the number of articles on pop culture here is growing rapidly (as I thought it would). I haven't even looked at most of the examples (and I'll get a bunch of a certain amount of legitimacy to them). If you're going to put this on your front page you should probably look into it a bit more closely. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:17, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:*As for "pop culture" articles, I delete many on sight, but you do have a good point. Comparing that particular thing, on a new wiki like CP, as compared to an established and mature one like WP, is a bit unfair, no? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:27, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Well, many comparisons are going to be inequitable. Wikipedia's more serious offenses (Seigenthaler, Zoeller) are due to its too big to completely police for cases of vandalism and malevolent edits. Conservapedia can do a much better job, being much smaller. As for pop culture, this brings up a question: what is Conservapedia's deletion policy? I haven't seen one. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:53, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Daily Historical Quote:
'''"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law."'''-- Sir [[Winston Churchill]]
--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:04, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I take it from the use of that quote that you don't have a deletion policy. And I take it from your other statement that sysops can delete at will any article that they feel is inappropriate. Fair enough. However, I don't think this policy (or lack thereof) is sustainable. As you clearly have [[Monty Python|some articles on pop culture]] and [[Transformers|not others]] it seems only a matter of time before there is serious disagreement among sysops as to what is acceptable and what isn't. Eventually something will have to be hammered out that addresses these subjective descrepencies. While ten thousand regulations might be too much, I feel you will need more than 8. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

** Very true. If you have too many rules, how can you expect people to obey them all? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:13, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't really feel like getting into a debate about whether such-and-such points are right or not. My point is merely that it's disingenuous to say that Wikipedia can do anything to reduce the length of this list, since when corrections ''are'' made, the criticisms turn into "Well, you didn't fix it until we pointed it out." [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:52, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*Exactly so! So, if their policies were changed by Jimbo himself, that wouldn't be happening nearly so much, that long delay in righting wrongs posted as fact. The point is, the built in bias of the Adminsistrators there, too many cloned from the same idealogical POV, leads them to ignore such items, as they assume them to be correct. That is what a mob school of thought is. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:58, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

No, "ManInBlack", I've been clear that a sincere effort at reform by Wikipedia would result in deleting entries from this list. We hope and pray for that sincere reform. Obviously that has not yet happened, starting with example 1 here and proceeding to dozens of other examples. Isolated, biased corrections by Wikipedia, such as its acting in self-interest to remove smears of powerful people, is not sincere reform.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:What sort of sincere effort for reform would lead to the removal of #49 or #52? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 19:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Hm, I've been thinking. Item #4 on the list refers to Fuzzy Zoeller, who sought to take legal action against the editor or editors who posted the smears, since it's the editor rather than the Wikimedia Foundation who would be liable for making the edits. This would suggest that it's only the editors who made the smears against "powerful people" who have anything to worry about, not Wikipedia itself. In that case, surely editing Wikipedia to remove smears on powerful people can only be in the interest of the editors who added those smears, not Wikipedia or the editors who removed them later on. Am I missing something? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 19:47, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Folks, this discussion is getting tiresome. I've been clear already, and we don't waste our time here on frivolous chatter. Look again at our Point 1. Enforce Wikipedia's own rule against guilt-by-association and clean it up there. If you can't even do that, then please don't waste our time here. If you can do that, then do it and let's then efficiently clean up and remove the remainder. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:54, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:The problem with Wikipedia is that it does not acknowledge its [[liberal bias]]. It is so concerned with achieving "consensus" on policy, that it forgets that it is not possible to have a consensus on [[fact]]s. Originally, Larry and Jimbo agreed that Wikipedia would remain neutral when there is a dispute over what the facts are about anything. That eventually and gradually turned into allowing groups of users to create a "consensus version" of an article with a point of view which '''cannot be overturned'''.

:The new policy is that even if an article has a POV, no one is allowed to create another article with a different POV - even if the sole reason the extra article is created is to fix the bias in the first article. The alternate POV can be "legally" suppressed: one can neither create an alternate article to ''describe'' another POV, nor can one wedge the alternate POV into the first article. This is how they perpetuate the bias in key articles such as theory of evolution (in favor), intelligent design (they're against it), and global warming (they insist there's a [[scientific consensus]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:57, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes. "What is "wrong" at Wikipedia is systemic. Without Jimbo making fundamental changes in his personal ideas about how the place operates" as I said above, and nobody can refute that, because it is indeed factual. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the issue is that the title of the article is being confused with the subject. Many of the entires here are factual omissions or other problems that don't reflect bias so much as the potential for vandalism or simply the fact that Wikipedia isn't a complete project. The lead even acknowledges this; "silly gossip and blatant errors" aren't bias, and neither are unconscious omissions. (Otherwise, the absence of CP articles on figures like [[John C. Frémont]], [[George Wood Wingate]], [[Nelson W. Aldrich]], and [[Thomas Edmund Dewey]] would establish that WP is more conservative than CP, which is plainly silly.)

It may be helpful to better organize this list, categorizing each entry (or ordering it chronologically, or dealing with it in prose instead of as a numbered list), so it isn't quite as much a grab-bag of randomness. Right now, it feels a lot like a nitpicky rant, and it's very difficult to sift through it to find a way to fix things (or even to tell what's new).

Many of the things on this list can (and generally have) been fixed uncontroversially. It would be helpful to make it easy as possible to identify points that still need to be fixed and/or are new and make it clear why they're a problem, if your genuine goal is to enact change on Wikipedia. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:03, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ah yes, that's the ticket. Excuse us, this article is still a work in progress. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:08, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::Indeed, I'm not on any crusade to whitewash commentary on Wikipedia; I just want to use that commentary to is utmost. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

ManInBlack, take a look at Point 1. If you can't or won't fix it on Wikipedia, then don't waste our time here.

You're like an apologize for a lynch mob who says something good about the mob. It's still a lynch mob hanging people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:24, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:I don't think I could make the case that associating someone with the John Birch Society is smearing them, I'm sorry. It's taken as assumed here that such association is a smear, with no real stated reasoning behind it. (I guess it's self-evident if you're familiar with the politics in that area?)

:It's not as though I haven't looked at this list for things to fix; I fixed some of the Henry Liddell stuff, removed a bunch of ridiculous unsourced allegations from an article on TBN, and (while I didn't get the idea from here) I was the one who closed the final AFD that got rid of the disgraceful Brandt article.

:I am broadly sympathetic to criticism of Wikipedia, and I try to act on it when I can. The organization of this list, with open and closed cases mixed freely, and different - often contradictory - problems scattered all over, does not lend itself to use.

:It comes down to your goal. If your goal is to make Wikipedia look bad, mission accomplished. That a big, impressive-looking list and its nature lends itself to nothing on the list getting resolved ever because nobody can make heads nor tails of it. If your goal is to enact change on Wikipedia, then some organization would make it significantly more useful. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:37, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, here's some criticism you can fix: the link to the ''New American'' at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism of Berlet] has been broken for two years and nobody's fixed it. I'd fix it, but they'd only add another year to my ban. And personally, I think they deliberately want the link broken. Here's why: It links to an article entitled ''Propagandizing the Police'' [http://www.jbs.org/node/735] which says this,
:::" Berlet published a column in ''Overthrow'', an organ of the militant, far-left Youth International Party (Abbie Hoffman’s “Yippies”)..."

::Now considering [http://www.attacreport.com/ar_terror/tframe.php?region=namerica&group=yip this site] says Yippies are a [[terrorist]] subsidiary of the National Lawyers Guild, of which Berlet was VP, it's not surprising he'd write for their journal. And what would happen to Berlet's status as the inhouse resident expert on politcal affairs, if it was discovered he was published in an extreme and terrorist publication?

::So, beware if you dare fix that link, you will be a marked user, stalked and harassed, if your contributions do not tow the party line. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:16, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:::So, um, what's the problem and why? [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 23:46, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
::::The text of the Berlet entry uses the John Birch Society's ''New American'' allegedly to give balance & criticism. The quoted text even puts Berlet at odds with the Anti-Defamation League. But when you click on the link to read the source document, the link is broken. The source document, ''Propagandizing the Police'', cites Berlet as having written for extremist publications. I was banned likewise for using a different source that cited Berlet writting for another extremist publication (See [[Guardian]], here in CP). If Berlet writes for extremist publications, he cannot be used as a source for anything other than his own organization, Politcal Research Associates. Yet Berlet literally authored the entire Dominionism series (look at the Template under "critics" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dominionism] or you can check the contribs any page in the series).

::::IOW, Berlet cannot be cited for anything in Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia's attribution policies, written by SlimVirgin, which state, "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I [SlimVirgin] was the author of'''." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

::::Oddly, SlimVirgin is Berlet's staunchest defender.

::::Oh, as to the smear in the Brandt entry, the neologism "conspiracist" has been documented to be Berlet's own invention. Berlet created Wikipedia's "Conspiracist" entry, and cited himself. Berlet called Brandt a conspiracist, so using his own neologism is another policy violation in the Brandt case (all this I called attention to ArbCom, Jimbo, and Foundation two years ago). The John Birch Society in WP is slandered with Berlet's neologism as "conspiracist." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Okay, short version. What link is broken, and where should it link? I'm not diving into all of this for your sake, but if there's a broken link, I'll fix that. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 01:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Footnote 15 here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet] should link to this [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Good luck. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:14, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Right now, the link links to a New American article, so I don't see the problem. I'm not really comfortable digging deeper, as I know nothing about the subject matter. (This is part of why the list could stand to be better organized; I'm patient enough to dig through it for stuff I can fix; others may not be.) [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 00:32, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Yah but the link is broken, a 404 dead end page comes up. I provided the link to the cited article above. You're not telling me you're afraid of a bunch of [[Stalinist]]s, are you? Stalin's dead, the KGB is defunct (moreless) and these people are just a bunch of bullies and wannabe's. So what if the ArbCom Chairman & Berlet go back 37 years [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Nobs01_and_others/Proposed_decision&diff=29531355&oldid=29476030|] to that KGB front organization, the [[National Lawyers Guild]], it's not like the old days where they'd arrange an accident for you or ship you off to the [[Gulag]]. All they can do is ban you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:38, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::I don't make a practice of intervening in situations where I don't feel I can practically explain my actions. There's a difference between taking a risk of getting in a big fight because I honestly believe in the cause and doing the same on the frankly confusing say-so of someone else. I'm sorry. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:14, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Face facts. You're afraid of SlimVirgin.

::::::::::What more evidence do we need, of WP high level Admins in the Cabal bullying people, promoting disinformation, and getting clones and cronies to coverup thier dirty work than your appearance here on this talk page? You've been presented the facts, and the evidence, yet refuse to do a simple maintance chore of fixing a simple broken link. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Generally, it's more effective to respond to "I don't feel I have enough information to help you" with more information, not vague insinuations of cowardice. I didn't come here to get into a fight about subjects I'm not well-informed about, either. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 15:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::<s>Ok, so there's a broken link here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#_note-14 (footnote 15)] that is supposed to link here [http://www.jbs.org/node/735]. Simple maintance chore. It's been broken for two years.</s> [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::Nevermind. Some courageous soul fixed it. I'd love to find out who, and follow the remainder of his editing career. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::It was WP editor SallyForth123 yesterday. Didn't take long to get a response, they're accusing her of being a robot. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet] And the revert war is on in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=148678523&oldid=148678342 ''Criticism of Berlet'']. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:49, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
<---

Typical. Look at the reactions. ''Deja vu'' all over again:

:"I suggest you explain '''what you plan to do on the talk page first'''... doing these massive edits... you have introduced errors, and you have also added unsourced material. Since this is a biographical article of a living person, you need to tread very carefully. I suggest you discuss your proposed changes first on the talk page, and try to get consensus....

::"My edits were not massive: they were all trivial....

:"I suggest you take it easy on this article – if you want to edit it, do it in small bits, that are easy for others to inspect and follow. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SallyForth123#Your_edits_to_Chip__Berlet]
[[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:59, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Here's some material User:SallyForth123 could insert. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChip_Berlet&diff=28878750&oldid=28868907#CounterSpy]

== Number 1 ==

The "guilt-by-association" charge seems to rely on the [[John Birch Society]] being a Bad Thing. [[Liberal|Some]] people may think the JBS isn't a Good Thing; but on the whole, it seems, (to the well informed) a group of like minded individuals similar in message and scope as [[Eagle Forum|some]] other conservative groups. Being associated with it, even by simply being a member or having gained some measure of support from the society for a position or an act of some sort, doesn't seem to render one less desirable. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 15:34, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am old enough to remember the JBS back in the sixties. Since then, I haven't found it particularly in the forefront of "Conservative" groups, nor particularly relevant to most Conservatives. I believe the membership numbers show this to be true. But I do see it mentioned often in Liberal blogs, and whenever Liberals wish to point up something about Conservative's being "fringe" or out of the mainstream political thought. Odd. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 15:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Wikipedia itself says that guilt-by-association is against the rules when debating someone. Yet Wikipedia supports and defends the use of guilt-by-association to smear [[conservatives]] in their entries. Wikipedia adheres to rules and ethics about as much as a lynch mob does. Guess what: intelligent people abandon both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:48, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Per WP's own rules, the JBS is not an extreme group, or it's publication, ''The New American'' considered extremist. Under WP attribution policies, an extreme source can only be used to when writing about the same organization. The citation to the ''New American'' in the criticism section of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Berlet#Criticism_of_Berlet Chip Berlet#Criticism] has been there for years, and I doubt very much if even Berlet's defenders would allow it to be removed, if anyone is familiar with this long running controversy. In fact, if anyone cares to investigate it, I would wager that John Birch Society publication was placed there by SlimVirgin herself. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:05, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==hypocricy?==
As I pointed out above, if "guilt" by association is such a problem at Wikipedia (still not sure what exactly the "guilt" is in this case), then it should be removed here. The [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page links John Kerry to the National Humane Society merely because he received a high rank from them. ''Exactly'' the sort Wikipedia is criticized for. I'd change it but the page is locked. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:PortlyMort, the National Humane Society reference is *not* in the entry about John Kerry. Wikipedia does smear conservatives with guilt-by-association in their own entries. And [[liberals]] insist on keeping those smears there, despite its own rules against it. Bottom line: no credibility for Wikipedia anymore. No intelligent contributor is going to be part of a guilt-by-association smear machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::So guilt by association is okay here as long as it's only in certain articles? So it's not in the Kerry article, but it's still in Conservapedia. I wouldn't care myself (it's certainly arguable if mentioning a politician's score from a special interest group is a smear or simply reporting statistics; saying "Senator Fancypants has a 85% rating from the Seirra Club" or "Congressman Popcorn has a 90% rating from the NRA" doesn't seem terribly unfair, though context would be a fator), but this site seems to think it's some sort of cardinal sin. And if it is then you should remove the Kerry reference. So it's not on Kerry's page, It's on the [[Liberal hypocrisy]] page (ironic, as it seems to illustrate some hypocricy here). [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 19:25, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::: PortlyMort, you miss the point. Guilt-by-association is a smear when it appears in the entry for the target of the smear. This is what [[Wikipedia]] does, and intelligent contributors will continue to leave [[Wikipedia]] as long as it continues that practice. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:54, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

::::It seems I do miss the point. Why is ''only'' a smear when it appears in the entry for the target, but not on any other page? This is making up the rules as you go along. A smear is a smear, regardless of what page it appears on. If it were in the debate or conservapedia or talk space you'd certainly have a point, but it's right there in an article. Are you saying if "Senator Noodle closely associates with Nazis" appears on the Senator Noodle page it's a smear, but if on the Nazi page it says "Nazis have been known to associate with Senator Noodle" it's not? I really do not follow that logic at all. And I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm just trying to understand the reasoning here. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 13:39, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

===the facts===
User:SlimVirgin wrote:[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Willmcw_and_SlimVirgin/Evidence#Response_to_suggestion_that_I_violated_NPOV_and_AGF]

: "An extreme political website should never be used as a source for Wikipedia except in articles discussing the opinions of that organization or the opinions of a larger like-minded group," '''a passage I was the author of''' back in March. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources&diff=11048345&oldid=11048287 466]

User:SlimVirgin authored in the Chip Berlet mainspace:
: "these groups compile lists of organizations and individuals for police intelligence divisions, and then the police are expected to use that information to keep tabs on such people, who may have done nothing more than express a political view the ‘watchdogs’ disagree with," Wilcox told ''The New American'', which is published by the [[John Birch Society]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chip_Berlet&diff=9210097&oldid=9210042 diff]

Hence, according to the author of Wikipedia's own Attribution policy, the John Birch Society and it's publication ''The New American'' are acceptable, mainstream sources for Wikipedia, and cannot be considered extreme. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::It's related to this. [http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?FormMode=Detail&ID=161&EID=174780-8192004] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:48, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Number 65==

*''<nowiki>#</nowiki>65 doesn't have any references explaining ''when'' Wikipedia linked PIR to Holocaust denial, and I can't find it in the history. Neither of the two references in the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_Information_Research&oldid=145296102 current version] have any such accusations.''
:This is directly related to Wikipedia longstanding dispute with Daniel Brandt, and the Wikimedia Foundations unwillingness to require certain "priviliged experts" (a) be required to following WP policies, and (b) refusal of ArbCom to take sanctions against the most blatant and incivil conduct.

:The reference you cannot find is available right from CP's main space page [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921] Let's extract it, and count the violations of Wikipedia's own policies. Further, this slander and defamation, which [[Jimbo Wales]] himself was aware of, stood for ''at least'' 18 months. Extracted:

::''"Between 1990 and 1992, three members of Brandt's PIR advisory board, including [[Chip Berlet]], resigned or were removed after complaining that another board member, [[L. Fletcher Prouty]], was '''openly working with and defending [[Liberty Lobby]] and the Holocaust denial group the [[Institute for Historical Review]]''', which republished Prouty's book ''Secret Team''. '''According to Berlet, Brandt defended Prouty, and brushed off complaints that he (Brandt) was promoting alliances with right-wing [[conspiracy theory|conspiracist]] groups, some of which Berlet considered antisemitic or even pro-fascist'''. <ref>Dan Brandt, "An Incorrect Political Memoir," ''Lobster'', No. 24 (December 1992); Chip Berlet, "Right Woos Left: Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected," Cambridge, MA: Political Research Associates, 1991.[http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9-23.html]</ref>

:Look who inserted the information, Mr. Chip Berlet, aka User:Cberlet. I personally was banned for one year for '''citing ''Washington Post'' criticism of a publication Berlet was working for, the editor of which was on Berlet's Board of Advisors.''' And my citation of the ''Washington Post'' criticism was adjudicated as '''a personal attack''' against another user. Let's count the number of WP violations of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff,]which Jimbo Wales was aware of, that were allowed to remain for 18 months.
:#personal attack against another user
:#citing self
:#violation of BLP
:#violation of Reliable Sources
:#using a self publishing source
:#using a marginal, fringe, or extreme source
:#Wikipedia is a not a battleground
:#Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion
:#experts do not occupy a position of privilge
:Wikipedia has a long way to go before it cleans this one up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Have you been to the Daniel Brandt article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&oldid=138512310 lately]? The Brandt situation was disgraceful, and I'm ashamed to say it persisted for so long, but that issue is finally resolved. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 18:56, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

*"Resolved" according to whom? And after such a horrible, long process of obfuscation and denial, who can say there was any fair resolution at all? Justice delayed is indeed justice denied. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:00, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think we should note the situation persisted for a year and half until I posted #65 here; then it was rather quickly resolved, because I exposed exactly the root and core of the a dispute as cited above. Now, what action has been taken against blatant violations of policy CP exposed with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Brandt&diff=55132392&oldid=55131921 this diff]? As another editor stated somewhere above, "there certainly seems to be a lot of undue emphasis on Berlet's writings on wikipedia, which are widespread." [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia#Chip_Berlet] Widespread indeed. The first action that probably needs to be taken is him being banned permanetly, and then ''all'' his contributions meticulously reviewed. I would venture to say, Berlet has had a hand in numerous examples cited on this list.

::The problem in WP isn;t just a flawed edit here or there, it is an institutional problem, a policy stance that allows some editors to slander and promote disinformation with immunity, even when it's brought to the attention of ArbCom. the Trustees, and the benevolent dictator. And when it is exposed, the reprisal and banning happens to the whistleblowers. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:::My hunch was exactly correct: Bias #1 states, "Wikipedia uses guilt-by-association far worse than Joseph McCarthy ever did. Wikipedia smears numerous persons and organizations by giving the false impression that they are associated with the John Birch Society (JBS). Examples include:
:::*anti-communist Fred Schwarz, merely because JBS agreed with him[2]

:::This guilt-by-association was written & inserted by none other than Mr. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, 13:27, 1 April 2005 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Birch_Society&diff=11776105&oldid=11760190]

To answer the question, "What action has been taken against blatant violations of policy[...]in [such and such diff]", the article is now long-gone, and Wikipedia has enacted a strict policy to try and deal with articles about living people.

The entire Brandt article debacle was a disgrace to Wikipedia by any standards. I misunderstood the somewhat vaguely-written and -attributed listing in #65, taking it to mean that it was a separate, additional issue with the PIR article. As far as I can tell, the list still hasn't changed, and misattributes the mess to the PIR article, without making the context clear. It's certainly a fair criticism and belongs on any list of Wikipedia's failings (although I'm not entirely sure how it establishes some sort of bias), but the current version of this list doesn't make it clear what actually happened to someone who doesn't already know. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 21:18, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

:Berlet has a long stream of slander victims, ArbCom knows he does this, so does the Board of Trustees, and so does Jimbo. And SlimVirgin, Jayjg, and Will Beback all work as a tag team with him. Fred Bauder, ArbCom Chairman. is a fellow former National Lawyers Guild member and has known Berlet for almost 40 years. When Berlet's malicious conduct is brought before ArbCom, the accusers are banned, And Berlet feels even more justified & reinvigorated.

:Who else are known vicitms? Dr. Dobson, D. James Kennedy, Payul Weyrich, Tim LaHaye for starters. Last winter I was in correspondence with User:Baby Dweezil, whom Berlet was trying to get banned. Every indication is is that Baby Dweezil is most probably Dr. Lenora Fullani, not only the first black, or the first black woman, but the first and only women who achieved ballot status in all 50 states for the office of President of the United States. This woman is a living historical figure, yet Berlet has been viciously slandering her for 20 years. When she tried to mitigate the slanders in WP, the old lynch mob led by Berlet & SlimVirgin got rid of her. And then Berlet has the audacity to claim he's for minority and women's rights. It's outrageous the way Wikipedia embraces this fraud. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:45, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==Article talks only of American statistics==
There are conservatives outside the US. All the statistics here say things like "n% of people in are not athiests" as some kind of claim for bias, however the statistics for other countries are different, particularly in Europe. {{unsigned|Mrescher}}

== 65 Findings of Bias ==

With nearly two million entries on Wikipedia finding 65 that are claimed (claim leaves room for disagreement on whether these are actual cases of bias) to be biased is really remarkable. That leaves a bias rate of .0000325 percent. A truly remarkable rate given the free wheeling nature of what they do and provide. I beleive that such a rate doesn't prove that Wikipedia is biased but rather proves what a great job they do to maintain an open, factual online reference. I would challenge Conservapedia to meet such a high standard while maintaining an open and free environment for all voices.

--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 14:49, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't be ridiculous. You know that nobody has read every single article on Wikipedia. 65 reflects the number found out of the representative number reviewed. This is the method that sysop (and former WP bureaucrat) Ed Poor used to compare CP and WP: picking a certain number of random articles from each. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:50, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're not trying to say that those 65 examples were all found using a random article search, are you? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:21, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The vast majority of Wikipedia is either (1) copied directly from an out-of-date public domain encyclopedia, (2) complete junk about rock music, Hollywood figures, or obscure towns, or (3) pornography. Wikipedia welcomes this stuff to try to drive up its internet traffic for the for-profit search engine that its leaders are building. Our examples of bias here do not draw upon this vast majority (and useless) portion of Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:31, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Wow. You really have no idea what you're talking about, do you? Actually, very few articles are copied from public sources: it was about 8% several years ago, and as Wikipedia has more than doubled in size since then. Included in that figure (in fact, the ''vast'' majority) of that 8% are articles on "obscure towns", mostly pulled directly from the 2000 census. Since Wikipedia has grown, and the number of small towns has not, that figure is probably closer 3%. Rock music and Hollywood figures are certainly well-covered, but nowhere near the "majority". Going through 30-some random articles just now I found maybe 5 that fit the bill (a pretty large number, but nowhere near the majority). As for porn, well, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly Wikipedia covers all sorts of sexual stuff that Conservapedia does not, and it has articles on many porn stars (too many, certainly), but combined they are a miniscule amount of the nearly 2,000,000 total entries on the site. Even this stuff would not meet most people's definitions of "pornography". In any case, my question wasn't answered as to whether Dan was implying that the random article generator was used to make the list, because it clearly was not. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 17:48, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::: You're clueless about what drives traffic to Wikipedia. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:52, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Hmmmm, let's see, what drives traffic to Wikipedia? Well, google for one. Also people who want to look up stuff on all sorts of topics but don't want to pay the fees commercial encyclopedias charge, or want to find stuff on the "fluff" that the othres don't cover at all (yes, I'm sure looking up Pokemon, Harry Potter, rock bands, and the like does bring a lot of traffic to Wikipedia, but not all of it by any means). And anyone who wants to look for porn will be ''very'' disappointed with Wikipedia. There are so many places to find porn on the internet; searching an encyclopedia would be silly (unless someone gets their jollies out of reading prose text giving colorless definitions of sexual acts, but most people are looking for photos and video of hardcore bonking). So what does drive traffic to Wikipedia? You seem to be an expert on it. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 18:00, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Oh really? Then explain why you have articles on [[homosexuality]], [[Molly Ringwald]], [[Rush]] and [[Hebden Bridge]]. Would this be an example of [[deceit]]? [[User:Noemi|Noemi]] 17:47, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's one other source, this [http://www.publiceye.org/research/biblio/Right_Chrono_Bib.html this stuff], the author of whom we've proven writes for extremists publications, inviolation of WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT. Yet the Foundation wants this junk in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::::: I checked twenty random pages - probably not statistically accurate but I thought it might give some idea. We have six people (1 sportsperson, 3 historical figures, 1 fictional character, 1 celebrity) two european buildings, two American cities or states, two video games and one music album. We also have a Christian musical award, a year of the Islamic calendar, a mental disorder, an asteroid, a political foundation in India and an oil company in Vietnam, and a racehorse.
::::: Now, I do the same on Conservapedia. We have four articles on science (one each of genetics, physics, chemistry and medicine), three on geography or foreign nations (including Islam and the Middle East), three articles on religion, two articles on history, and two on law or law enforcement. We also have one conservative think tank, a neoconservative writer, a Shakespearean play, an animal, a rock band, and one other.
::::: From this small sample set, it should be clear that Conservapedia has quite a different approach than Wikipedia. If nothing else, the people it attracts are more likely to be interested in traditional encyclopedia material like science and history, than in stuff like video games and cartoons. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 08:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Interesting, although what your study does not take into account is that Wikipedia also has entries (probably much more complete ones) on the subjects you found in Conservapedia. At least, I'd wager they do; I can't be sure without knowing specifically what they are. Wikipedia has nearly 2 million entries (I say "entries", not "articles") compared to Conservapedia's 15,000 entries. Your study shows that Wikipedia has much mroe fluff. Of course it does; no one denies that. The implication that therefore Conservapedia has more serious topics, because more come up in a random search, is erroneous. If even 2/3 of Wikipedia's articles were fluff or substantially problematical (and that is by no means true), it would still have more than 600,000 more articles on encyclopedic topics than Conservapedia, most of them containing ''much'' more information (I certainly agree that Wikipedia could really use some more conciseness, but many articles here are grossly inadequate). And keep in mind that your pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse. Most people go to encyclopedias to look up a specific topic, not to hit the random article button. If someone looks for and finds a decent article on the [[Battle of the Nile]], fine. That it may share hard drive space with thousands of articles on albums doesn't really matter. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 10:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::I have to come to the defense of [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. If the question is which encyclopedia has the higher fraction of serious topics, the approach is actually a good start. If you however want to measure the relative quality, you might want to do the following: First get a random sample in Conservapedia, and then lookup the corresponding article in Wikipedia, and compare those. And then get a random sample in Wikipedia, and compare those article with the corresponding ones in Conservapedia. But I still think that getting random samples is a good start. Maybe we should in the future agree on an experiment before we conduct it. [[User:Order]]
::::::::I did this before. The result was that Wikipedia's articles tended to be much longer and more comprehensive. However, Wikipedia's had a sizeable head start, it's been argued and a longer entry isn't necessarily better. Some of the Wikipedia articles are more verbose than strictly necessary. --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:51, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::I am glad to see that finally someone has started to get actual numbers, even if 20 is an admittedly small sample. Kudos [[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]]. This is much better than second guessing and hearsay. [[User:Order]] 31 July 22:25

::::: The real test of an "encyclopedia" is how clearly and concisely it explains something to an inquiring student or adult. Any objective evaluation of Wikipedia entries in terms of their ability to teach has to give Wikipedia an "F". I know that may sound harsh, but as a teacher who once used Wikipedia entries in a course, I see that as the inescapable, and unfortunate, conclusion.

::::: The famous, widely publicized comparison between Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica in ''Nature'' in 2005 missed the most important measure of an encyclopedia: its ability to educate in an efficient manner. While the publicized report claimed that Wikipedia was superior to the Britannica in terms of accuracy, in fact there is no question that Britannica is infinitely better than Wikipedia in its educational value. But that news report, which bordered on defamation, ignored that key measuring standard and as a result destroyed the Encyclopedia Britannica. The loss is everone's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Actually, the report found that Britannica was more accurate, as everyone expected it would be. The surprise was that they were realitively close. Of course, the study looked at specific articles in a specific field; it was hardly very broad or comprehensive. And the accuracy of the study itself has been criticized. This, however, does start to address the ''real'' problems of Wikipedia, not the "it's nothing but porn and rock bands" fallacy. I'm sure Britannica is more accurate; the advantages of Wikipedia are that it's free and it has many more articles. Additionally, some believe that Wikipedia's longer (on the average) articles cover more information, and are therefore better. Of course, this is highly debatable, and I tend to disagree, in many cases at least. Sometimes more is better. To pick a random article, I'd say the Wikipedia article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesday_book the Domesday Book] is better than [[Domesday Book|the one here]]. It has more information, and if it's more than someone needs, they can stop reading after the first couple paragraphs. And lest anyone in a glass house strat throwing stones, Conservapedia has articles from the way too "[[George VI|concise]]" to the [[USS Achernar (AKA-53)|overly wordy]]. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:09, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

"And keep in mind that '''''your''''' pop culture entries are growing quickly. I've seen plenty of movies, celebrities, minor characters from fiction, etc. here, but having them does not make the articles on other topics any worse." Nice to see by the use of "your" what you are here for, PortlyMort. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:50, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Example of Pro-Gay Bias==

The category allowing users to self identify as heterosexual was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Heterosexual_Wikipedians deleted] because it served no useful purpose, yet the exact same category for homosexuals was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/July_2007#Category:Gay_Wikipedians kept]. We should add this to the list.[[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:24, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

*I agree. Added. That entire list has many interesting items. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:42, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. If anything, having only a "homosexual" group brands them as abnormal, as everyone else is assumed to be normal and heterosexual. There's a homosexual group without a heterosexual group for the same reason that there are gay bars but not "straight bars". All bars are by default assumed straight, and so are editors. It's an interesting case of what could possibly be bias, but it's not really pro-gay.

--[[User:Choronzon|Choronzon]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
:Sheeesh, don't people ever get tired of talking about homosexuality? Yes. It exists. It alsways has, and it always will. And no, it has not always been regarded as acceptable conduct. Yes, the Greeks and other ancients were opnely gay,and there '''''is''''' a reason ''why'', based upon human experience, that gay behavior was legislated against by ''both'' God, and man.

:Why can't we leave the discussion at that? Every day, gay gay gay gay gay gay gay is all we hear? Really, it gets quite tiresome. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:53, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

What reasons are those, that gayness is legislated against by God and man?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 23:50, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

==Anti-Homeschool bias==

Another category that was deleted was the list of users who are [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/June_2007#Category:Wikipedians_who_homeschool homeschooled]. Again, the claim was that the category wasn't useful, but I think that wiki wants to prevent homeschoolers from organizing so that we can't share ideas. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 17:27, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== A word about wikipedia ==

It is '''people''' who write the articles, and since many (as you Americans call liberals) are using wikipedia and editing it, it is simply unavoidable that a small bias will show. Do take into account the VAST numbers of articles and compare them to the ones that are biased I am pretty sure it wont be a big percantage. How can this be corrected? By going in there and editing for yourself and make sure that you can back up your claims with reliable sources. Obvious transgresions by the administrators of wikipedia can be taken higher up, all the way to the top. And if someone believes that every single administartor all the way to the top is currupt advocate of the devil who only wishes to hide the truth...then I can only say your probably paranoid. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 20:40, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I know Jimbo, and so does Ed Poor. He sets the marching orders for institutionalized Liberal bias, on the part of the very top echelons of Bureaucrats. They in turn advance users who they trust and share like interests and ideas to Sysops. It is only natural. However this is why they have the entrenched bias they do. Biased articles about Conservatives and those whose POV they disagree with, languish unchanged for days or weeks, and endless arguments and reviews are oftentimes needed to remove the bias vandalism. And that is why Conservapedia exists, and other wiki-type encyclopedias and information sites. I think that is a good thing. Does bias exist here on CP? Of course it does. So if there is left-leaning bias on some WP articles, and right-leaning bias here at CP, that is a good example of a free marketplace, no? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:06, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

**Have you done anything to reduce the liberal bias on wikipedia? --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 21:11, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

That's a stupid question, [[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]]. It's the equivalent of asking a businessman in the garment district of [[New York City]] whether he's ''done'' anything to counteract the baleful influence of the [[Mafia]]. Or maybe it would be like asking me, for example, whether I've ''done'' anything about the [[sin]] that runs rampant in the [[Episcopal Church]], and has been running rampant for more than forty years, that prompted me to leave it and find a proper Baptist church.

Where I come from, we have proper uses for organic fertilizer, and ''im''proper uses.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:19, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

I have personally attempted to correct some liberal bias on Wikipedia but found that to be hopeless. My factual additions to an entry that related to education and evolution, which were not even about the theory itself, were reverted within 60 seconds. Other factual edits, like my additions there to an entry about Wikipedia itself, were gradually altered and removed over time. Wikipedia is beyond salvage value at this point.

Sometimes something becomes so broken that it makes more sense just to throw it out and get something new. Wikipedia, with all its bias and gossip and pornography and leadership trying to profit from a new search engine, is at that point. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Property

2007-08-18T03:46:01Z

Baruch:

The idea of "Property" builds from a concept of personal ownership (disputed by [[liberals]] and [[communists]]). That which is owned by a person is that person's property. In American and British law, a ''corpus'' of law is used to descry ownership that traces back, at times, many centuries.

Inherent in the American way of life is the rule that a human being can never be property, a belief built upon the conservative belief in the [[sanctity of life]].

Property

2007-08-18T03:45:40Z

Baruch: New page: The idea of "Property" builds from a concept of personal ownership (disputed by liberals and communists). That which is owned by a person is that person's property. In American and Briti...

The idea of "Property" builds from a concept of personal ownership (disputed by liberals and communists). That which is owned by a person is that person's property. In American and British law, a ''corpus'' of law is used to descry ownership that traces back, at times, many centuries.

Inherent in the American way of life is the rule that a human being can never be property, a belief built upon the conservative belief in the [[sanctity of life]].

USS Beaverhead

2007-08-18T03:42:57Z

Baruch: spellign error

The USS '''Beaverhead''' (AK 161) was laid down on 15 June 1944 at Richmond, [[California]], by Kaiser Cargo, Inc., under a Maritime Commission contract (MC hull 2106); launched on 2 September 1944; sponsored by Mrs. T. H. Purdom, Jr.; and commissioned on 3 January 1945, Lt. Comdr. Olin F. Weymouth, USNR, in command.

The [[cargo]] ship fitted out at the Naval Supply Depot at Oakland, Calif., and then underwent a brief conversion at the Naval Sea Frontier Base, Treasure Island. Beaverhead departed the San Francisco Bay area on 22 January bound for San Pedro, Calif., and shakedown. At the conclusion of that training, she conducted a post shakedown availability at the San Pedro Harbor Boat Co. between 8 and 14 February. On the 20th, the ship got underway from San Pedro bound for the Admiralty Islands. She arrived at Manus on 15 March but remained only until the 18th, moving via Hollandia in New Guinea to the Philippine Islands. She arrived in Leyte Gulf on 28 March. Over the next eight months, Beaverhead plied the waters of the Philippines, supplying various American bases. Although operating principally in that archipelago, the ship on occasion, voyaged to Borneo, Morotai, and Manus.

Ultimately, Beaverhead sailed for home on 5 December. She transited the Panama Canal on 19 January 1946 and arrived in New York 11 days later. She moved to Norfolk during the second week in February and was decommissioned there on 8 March 1946. The ship was turned over to the Maritime Commission for disposal on 13 March 1946, and her name was struck from the Navy list on 28 March 1946.<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b4-list.htm]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

User talk:Learn together

2007-08-18T03:32:00Z

Baruch: Thanks

Hey there, Learn together. I noticed that you added a <nowiki>{{speedy</nowiki> template to [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]]. I removed it, and as a courtesy, would like to let you know that nominating ''any'' article for deletion requires an explanation as to why you think it should be deleted (see Category:Speedy deletion candidates or [[Conservapedia:Articles for Deletion]]), and an AFD template certainly would have been more appropriate. Tagging established articles in the "Essay:" namespace without justification is frowned upon. And by the way, thanks for your contributions to [[Roman Empire]]! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Note that [[Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia]] has the prefix "Essay:", noting that it is not an encyclopedia article, but rather an unofficial essay. And it was authorized as a response to [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]] (yes, liberals are just as prolific as creationists here, and make most of the useful edits :P). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

== Clinton Revert.... ==

I jumped in since Dan was headed to bed, and tried to answer some of your questions, here: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DanH#Reverts]] --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:58, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:Sometimes it does seem as if they are instantly checked! It had me puzzled for a bit as well. What happens is, many regular users have a window opened here [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hidemyself=1&limit=600]] to "Recent Changes" and refresh it periodically. Also, from your "Preferences" you can enable "Watch this Page" and set a limit even on how many. Then whatever page you edit, or manually choose to "watch" will show up in your Watch List. Since Dan had previously edited the Clinton page, it was on his, undoubtedly. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:15, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

==Good Job==

Thank you for your excellent edits. Keep up the good work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:09, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Jesus ==

Fantastic work on the Jesus Christ article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Saint Andrew ==

Fine. It is done now.

I agree to do that. If I did redirect it was because "Ian St John 11:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)"
complain about [[Andrew]] and [[Philip]] along. I have the intention to make the six articles that are left to complete the 12 Apostles. Next time the name will be for example: "Bartholomew the Apostle".

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:15, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

== Highlighting Links ==

Hi

Thanks for your comment. I knew that and it's logic. For sure I agree with it.
Could be a mistake if there is one or two made by me.

Have you fixed them or do you want me to search?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:38, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

Done. I hope to see you soon as a Sysop!!! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:38, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

Just wanted to be clear that I was agreeing with you. Not sure if you were responding to me or [[User_talk:GodWarrior|GodWarrior]] when you wrote [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAtheism&diff=163608&oldid=163593 this]. [[User:HeartOfGold|HeartOfGold]] 14:59, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== My pleasure ==

It has been an honor. Thank you indeed.

== Edit summaries ==

I appreciate this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Dawkins&diff=170855&oldid=166181 edit], and concur. While I also neglect make edit summaries, I want to encourage you to make use of the edit summary box. This probably sounds like the pot calling the kettle black, but I assure you that I do endeavor to follow this advice, and I encourage you to do the same. It makes reviewing edit histories of articles easier. Thanks for contributing. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 01:22, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Compliment ==
Excellent work on the Rather article.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 12:58, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Global Warming, et.al. ==

You might want to consider this [[http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette]] when making larger changes to articles. Not that I am disagreeing with your additions to the "Warming" article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==
Could you improve my pathetic excuse-of-an-article on [[Justinian]]? It seems he is someone you would know much about.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:21, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Sorry! ==

You got caught up in the removal of some other stuff! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:27, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== I agree with you==
The atheism article is better as you have it. The agnostic stat is not going to be included, and the citation is not needed.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:47, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
::Your quality contributions to this site and especially the history articles have earned you a place in the highly coveted and extremely prestigious "Bohdan's notable Users" category. Keep up the good work.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Atheism ==

What's the problem with my edit to the [[atheism]] page? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 22:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive the edit notes tell you rather directly, what?

(cur) (last) 02:55, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (→Atheist Population - '''Stop confusing "uncertain" with "agnostic'''") 
(cur) (last) 02:53, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) (move up "origins" section) >br>
(cur) (last) 02:52, 28 May 2007 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs | block) ('''The term "atheism" also includes uncertainty about whether God exists or not, that is, people who never believe in God or actively deny His existence''') 

--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:01, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
:Most of those weren't my edits. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't really see it as a tangent. "Atheist morality" is included in the page and morality is part of philosophy. In fact, I don't think you can talk about morality without being philosophical. As far as not including enough philosophers goes, I think the group I gave was pretty complete- at least as far as an Ethics101 class would go. You'll be hard pressed to find many Philosophers who base morality on religious doctrines in the last few hundred years- in fact, the entire spirit of the Enlightenment was against such thinking. Now we call those people "theologians." I'm sure there are some, but they have not had much impact. You mentioned C.S Lewis, but he is not considered a very good philosopher by anyone's standards (though "Studies in Words" was nice) and he did not put forward a rigerous study of ethics, besides "God in the Dock," which is fairly obscure. As such, I'd like to put it back. Of course, I'm new to this wiki and don't want to move in too aggressively to your space, so I thought I'd say something here. --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 02:10, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Don't be afraid to edit, but please realize the scope of conservapedia is to go beyond the 'ethics 101' class into meaningful and important people and viewpoints that are not represented. There were many more than a handful of philosophers in the last couple hundred years and simply removing those who invoked religion by reclassifying them as 'theologians' (as if one can't be both) is the type of slight of hand that conservapedia tries to avoid. And, I think you'll find that there are many people who take a different view on C.S. Lewis' philosophy than the one you presented. ;-) Reverts or alterations of edits are not personal attacks and please don't take personal offense. Enjoy your stay. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I read that and found it very discouraging and narrow minded. Does this wiki make an attempt at objectivity, or is it simply a conservative partisan answer to its liberal partisan counterparts? --[[User:ThunderBunny|ThunderBunny]] 03:03, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

:Again, theologians can be philosophers. I am sorry if that understanding is too 'narrow minded' for you. To answer your second questions, yes. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:25, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

== Answer ==
Your contibutions have been high quality. I would support you.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 13:25, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

*I have answered you on my page, but I am afraid you are not on any list I can see.....:-( --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 03:57, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Solomon ==
Hi, I checked out your [[House of David]] article and followed the first link to [[Solomon]]. In your article it gives his lifespan as 970-931 BC, whereas in the Solomon article it says 965-925 BC. I am not sure which one is correct, but figured you'd be a good person to ask to look into it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:24, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

== Article for your attention please==
[[Four Emperors Era]] needs work and it seems like you would know about it. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 20:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:nice work LT [[User:Bohdan|bd]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:03, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::Glad you like it ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:04, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

correction made. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:50, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:Glad I could help [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:58, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

==Sorry!==

LOL!! I'm very sorry. I just happened to be browsing the Conservapedia wanted pages and decided to make that page. I had no idea you were already making it. That is the funniest coincidence. ''':P''' --[[User:BethanyS|BethanyS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk]] 12:19, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

==Intuitive page naming==
Please try to be more intuitive when naming an article, particularly regarding people of Ancient Rome - just one of many examples is your choice of article name for '''Antonia''' ... your article is actually about [[Antonia Minor]], who also had a sister named Antonia, [[Antonia Major]]. Simply creating a page called Antonia, particularly with regard to Rome, is like creating an article called '''Bob''' or '''Smith''' and expecting ''your'' choice of subject to be the only one of any importance or significance historically or culturally. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:I believe you will find that there is much literature in antiquity for Antonia Minor and little for Antonia Major. I have sought to make the Roman history section friendly and easy for those wanting quick flowing information. In that regard I've created the articles that allow quick movement back and forth in a simple form to get a feel for the interconnectedness. If it would come to a point where more obscure persons in Roman history start having their own articles, and thus there is more than one Antonia, then the format can certainly be changed, but since you are talking literally thousands of entries with many thousand more events that would also have to be entered to start including auxillary Roman figures, it would appear to be a structure that has no body.

:I also find you method of change and do not discuss to be rather rude and inappropriate for a cooperative effort. I have discussed and been involved in renaming both for articles written by others and for articles I've written. It's usually not that difficult to discuss a new direction to go and both be on the same page working together. Again, I ask you to please consider that for the future. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:51, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

::You are missing the point! If you just created each article with the correct name at the outset, then it would not matter what happened afterwards, whether further articles were created or not. It doesn't make the section more easily navigated by having only half of a name and it increases the workload later of having to fix all the links to point to the correct name. Please consider ''that'' for the future. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 12:04, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:::I am afraid you are missing the point. This is a cooperative effort. I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions. You are my peer, not my boss, and your views are views like any other person that should be discussed. I don't even treat my workers with the heavy handed methods that you use, and I am their boss.

:::If people come to look up things on Conservapedia you have to keep their attention quickly. Many are not going to be computer savvy and are not going to want to go through different screens picking who they want from lists imported from wikipedia of multiple entries that don't even exist on our system. We have one Antonia entry right now. It doesn't hurt to have that pop up. At least that was my view when I created it and I'm the one who spent the time to put it into Conservapedia and tie together a fluid interlocking of the people of ancient Rome at that time that allows easy look up. The key is to get ourselves up to the point where other edits will ultimately be necessary. That is my opinion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:38, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

<strike>::::"I find you to believe that your view = the right view and all others must bend to your decisions." Hello Pot, meet Kettle. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:54, 13 June 2007 (EDT)</strike>Okay, LT, I'll try to be more considerate when editing; yell me on my talk page if you spot me getting over-enthusiastic in any particular areas. Shalom :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, and God's blessing to you as well. I'm sure this small distraction will not keep either of us from using our talents to continue to improve conservapedia ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:20, 15 June 2007 (EDT)

*Why are two of my favorite editors arguing? Can't we get along? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:02, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

:Point taken, B :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:07, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

*You guys thank Bohdan profusely! I saw this earlier, and decided I was going to check back, and if it was still going, decide the arugment my way! ;-) --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:31, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

==Uribe Human Rights Abuses==
Ok, I will obtain several sources from mainstream media, I think the source I listed is fine but I will obtain more. Just because Uribe is conservative doesn't mean we should let him committ gross violations of human rights. Authoritarianism is wrong whether left or right. Terror doesn't have an ideology --[[User:FreedomandLiberty|FreedomandLiberty]] 11:05, 13 June 2007 (EDT)
:It's not my call as to what is an acceptable source, but a sysop has already determined that your current source is inadequate, so putting it back after removal is not going to work. Please be considerate of the forum you are editing and its standards. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:10, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Ok we now have CNN, Amnesty International, and the NY Times. Or is that not mainstream enough. I'll see if Fox News puts out a story on Uribe. Maybe thats the only news network "mainstream" enough.

== Contact.... ==

This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.

Return to Main Page.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Emailuser" --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:41, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

== Ralph Reed, et. al. ==

*You are making me concerned. Please don't make me concerned. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:48, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

::I didn't understand what you were talking about until I read the edit. My edit, as I understood it, was only for links. I did not mean to put back ridiculous information. It appears I accidentally added the links to the previous version and not the most recent. Thank you for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 10:52, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== courtesy notice ==

I liked your [[Praetorian guard]] article and I have found that your articles are well written at Conservapedia. Conservapedia is experimenting with uncited templates in order to help increase the useability of our articles as a reference resource. I put a uncited template on your [[Praetorian guard]] guard and as a courtesy I wanted to let you know. Thanks for all the fine work you have done at Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for the courtesy notice Conservative. I am pleased you liked the article and I'm pleased for your kind words towards the work I have been able to contribute. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:49, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== Thank you for being so gracious to my request and I have another request ==

Dear Learning together,

Thank you for your kind response to my previous request. I found another article that you had significantly contributed to and I was hoping you could squeeze in some time to cite this article: [[Marcus Aurelius]]. Again, thank you for all your contributions to Conservapedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:28, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you again for the kind words. Unfortunately, while I have sources, I also have accumulated knowledge over time which is a bit harder to put as a reference. I've put the main sources I'm using to augment that knowledge. I'm not sure what the bibliography format should be for books as I've checked other articles and found multiple forms. Please let me know if there is an agreed upon standard that I should emulate. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:11, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry to come in uninvited, but that had been a problem for me too. I think I just copied the format from a different article, and kept using it. Perhaps this is a question for Mr. Schlafly. If there isn't a standard for this, I think there should be. Congratulations on your over 1000 contributions. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:25, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
:::It is always good to hear from you my friend. You are a great benefit to Conservapedia and I am glad to see your work is well received by so many. Everywhere I look, you are keeping on top of things. Blessings always ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks for the compliment LT. Your work is greatly appreciated. Have a look here. This article seems like one for you to make: [[Amoz]]. perhaps you would want it? I could always try it if your too busy. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::I've expanded Amoz, although there wasn't much to put. The Bible doesn't say anything about him except as a title for Isaiah "son of Amoz". [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:40, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== John the Baptist ==

You reverted Jinka's edits on the John the Baptist article. I have undone your reversion and protected the article. Before the article is unprotected, we need to have a discussion on the article's talk page, and I believe it should start with your reply to Jinkas. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] [[User_talk:Crocoite|Talk]] 11:03, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:The usual protocol when a revert is done is to keep the old version until a discussion in talk can create concensus. Your decision to revert and protect is questionable. The information stated as fact is Mormon doctrine and believed only by the Mormon Church. To state it as fact was and is inappropriate. I do not question your religious beliefs, but if articles are going to be changed to present your church's views as fact when they are not supported by a single other Christian denomination, then we will have problems. I have not noted you doing this in the past, and I hope this is merely a misunderstanding and will not be part of a new trend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:27, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::"Historically, only until recently have Mormons wanted to be called Christians, preferring not to be included with Christian denominations which Joseph Smith said were, "all wrong...all there creeds were an abomination in his sight, and that those professors (Christians) were all corrupt." (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith, 2:18-19)
:::In the past Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormons) have preferred to be called "saints." However, in the recent years the LDS church has spend millions in an intense public relations campaign aimed at moving their church into the mainstream of Christianity. The political and economic benefits of Mormons being included in the mainstream of Christianity are obvious. Further, for Mormons to be accepted as traditional Christians would greatly aid in their proselyting the members of Christian denominations into the LDS church. This is why the LDS church is trying so hard to present themselves as Christians and trying to overcome the stigma of being a cult." [http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::"The god of the Mormons is not the God of the Bible. To the Mormons, Jesus, is the first born son of an exalted "man" who became the god of this world. According to LDS church teaching, their god was first a man who became a god. The man-god of Mormonism was then made the god of this world because of his good works on another planet somewhere out in the Universe. He "earned" godhood, and was thus appointed by a counsel of gods in the heavens to his high position as the god of planet Earth. The Mormon god of this world was a man, like all men on earth. This is what the celestial marriage and the temple vows are all about. LDS men, by doing their temple work, are striving for exaltation by which they too shall one day become gods. Their wives will be the mother goddesses of "their" world and with their husband will produce the population of their world. This is the Mormon doctrine of "eternal progression."

:::Note the following quote is from the Mormon, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1, page 123, made by the LDS Apostle Orson Hyde:

:::"Remember that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, a mortal like we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has arrived at the point were He is.""[http://www.bible-truth.org/arelds.htm]

:::I'm sorry, but Mormonism ''isn't'' Christianity, and editing Christian articles to present the Mormon doctrine is just plain wrong. Sorry, but thast's the way it is. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::I'm not going to question Crocoites deeply held religious beliefs or how he would define himself. But when a choice is made to push those beliefs to overlay mainstream Christian thought and act like it is a natural part of the Christian understanding, then I have a problem. I am pleased to have you as an ally in this Fox. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:43, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

*Can I express how truly disappointed I am in your actions? Here you need partners, colleagues, not an ally. To be in a leadership position here, or anywhere, one needs to rise above their personal beliefs, and build consensus. Shutting others out of that process builds distrust. Now you see where this has all gotten you, eh? The question now is, what will you be willing to do to repair the damage done to your reputations... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::I am sorry Terry, but I stand by my actions. The choice to lock the article by a sysop when there was no edit war in place and after himself reverting back to the questionable edit set this off. One common theme that came across from the talk section was that no one who commented believed the locked version was appropriate as written. If left to the natural editing process, myself and the original contributor would have come to an article that pretty much matches what is there now, and without the hassle. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:16, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*So there was no need for your posting to Rob, et.al. was completely unnecessary, wasn't it? I wouldn't continue to stand by your inappropriate actions for too long. You know I have been supportive, as I have with Fox, but you both have severely tried me in your poor judgements in handling this. Way too divisive. Way too strident and alarmist. You always have the option with me, you know, to email or IM, otherwise my posts are public, but just as candid. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:40, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::That is correct; there was no need to post to anyone and it would not have occurred, until the article was improperly reverted and locked with an inappropriate edit in place. I tried talking to Crocoites; I got nowhere. I said I'd take it up to Andy; he said go ahead. Instead of going for the top, I decided to go to the sysop level, and my solicitations for extra input were done in good taste, not 'the sky is falling'. Let's not forget either that during the entire time Crocoites has never tried to defend his actions, only stated he is going to leave because he's personally hurt.

::As you know Terry, I am in a leadership position in the "real" world. We expect people to defend actions that they take, or else don't take them. In the case of a mistake, admit it, and move on. I've seen the "I'm hurt" argument in place of constructive explanation. It doesn't fly. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:29, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

*Since Crocoite is a Sysop, the next level would have been Andy. You can keep talking all you want about what you think is "right" according to how you think, how you believe, but my point here is what was right for CP. Now, I expect you to be repairing this. Perhaps a writing plan? I will wait to hear from you. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::If I didn't think it was right for CP Terry, I wouldn't have done it. Junior High kids coming to CP would have thought that was a natural part of John the Baptist. There was no indication that it had any difference in weight or belief from the earlier Biblical sections. I've found there is a higher tier of sysops based on their time, experience, and editing privileges. Even now my friend, you tell Bodhan, who is a sysop, that you have dibs on me for a project even after he asked me first. And you know what, none of us will question that because you are deferred to for your greater experience and time on CP. I don't know what you mean below about showing I can contribute for the greater good. I have over 1200 edits over a large spectrum of topics. Day by day even I'm not sure which directions I'll be taken. I'm not sure what part of the body of my work would not show the greater good in your sight. I'm a volunteer here contributing because I can help out, and I do. If there is some other way you feel I can be beneficial, then I'm happy to hear it, but this is your baby. You can always email me if you have specific things you wish to discuss. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I'm not sure how much information is available on these characters, but could you go through this list of Roman emperors here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Roman_Empire] and add what you can? I would try, but I'm not very good at my Roman history. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:20, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

:I will be happy to help my friend. I'm afraid I've gotten behind on the things I've wanted to do. Finishing up the Emperors is on my list. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:36, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps, Bohdan, you could ask someone else, as I have prior dibs on Learn Together for a writing plan, etc. He will need to demonstate to me his ability to work for the greater good, rather than specific issues, before he can participate in what you want, my friend. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Contest ==

Could you be interested in being in the contest?

Could you join Team 1? [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Team_contest/Team_one Here]
Thanks. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:31, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:I would be honored my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:43, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Ok, in my next turn you will be in. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:53, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

:Whoops, sorry, I didn't understand what was occurring and simply placed myself on your team. Please forgive my oversight. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:55, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit: [[Conservapedia:Team contest|Basis]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:51, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Please contact me by my E-Mail. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:33, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work. Keep going. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 02:55, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Please visit:

[[Team1:Players]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:31, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:49, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

Welcome back... --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 00:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Joaquin, both for the "Excellent work" and the "Welcome back" ;-) I have a few things I need to do, but I still intend to add many more contributions before it ends. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:38, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

Good work, my friend. Team 2 is not far from us. I think we still have a chance to win. Keep pushing. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 19:33, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

----

We have two articles that are in a good position in Google:

[[Andrew Mellon]] 76 among 142 000.

[[Fruits of the Holy Spirit]] 14 among 37 500.

Do you think you could help to improve them in order to get a better ranking?

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:11, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:58, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Scotland==
I agree with your reasoning and have unlocked Scotland. [[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 17:21, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you, I appreciate it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== turkey ==

That may not be an "official" reason, but it is most certainly a reason for protest. Can we put it back in? [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:17, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:Look at it now and tell me if its better. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 21:32, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I think that's much better ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:41, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== French and Indian Wars ==

Hey, I've done a basic cleanup on the two articles. I'm about to head out of town for the rest of the week, so I don't have time at the moment to do much more, so if you have the time and the inclination you might want to give them some attention. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 14:02, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

==Falklands==

Hi LearnTogether. I just reworded your update to the Falklands article a bit so that it reads better, let me know if you don't like it. Note that many of the Argentinian casualties were sailors, not soldiers. 655 is the official number, do you have a source that says its called into question? I couldn't find one (after not very long looking, I have to admit). Thanks [[User:Ferret|Ferret]] 17:03, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have a fine edit Feret and I'm glad you added your input. I have no problem with it. The question as to casualties is the source itself - the Argentine government at the time which wildly misled its people as to the course of the war and had a very vested interest to keep the numbers low after losing to Great Britain. It's a bit like trusting Hamas casualty numbers. Peace to you, and may you continue to make many fine edits. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:15, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== Division by zero ==

You can divide by zero, but the calculation is effectively meaningless as the answer returned is always infinity. This is why calculators and Excel display an error message when asked to perform this function. Hope this helps. --[[User:Marshall|Marshall]] 19:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)

== 1500 ==

I hope after the Contest you would have 3000. :) --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:56, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll try my best my friend. ;-) Best wishes to everyone in the contest, but either way Conservapedia wins. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:03, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

You need to make a new page for Contest Personal Record. Take a look [[User:Joaquín Martínez/Contest|here]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:20, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I already thought of that. You have blocking privileges.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:29, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

: Thank you Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:57, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

==Team page==
Try it now LT; if it still bounces you, yell Joaquin - I'm slipping away for a couple of hours of kip ;) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 21:19, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Fox, you're the man! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:33, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I haven't been contributing much lately. I've been very busy with work, family issues and Toastmasters. I would appreciate your input on the new section at the Team 1 contest page. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:28, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

:You have it, and any contributions are appreciated. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:37, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Welcome template==
<nowiki>{{welcome|sig=~~~~}}</nowiki>

[[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:40, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

== Stlphotog ==

[[Lutheran Church]] is also copied from a Wikipedia article. More info is on Aschafly's talk page. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:13, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am surprised because it is not especially well written, but thank you. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]]
::He did a rather poor job of concealing his plagiarism; it is partially rephrased or summarized in places. [[User:AManInBlack|AManInBlack]] 13:15, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I've rewritten the article. Hopefully now it is unique to Conservapedia. Thank you again for catching this violation and your efforts on following through. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:45, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== request for help ==

Can you help me with the footnote section of [[evolution]]. Right now 1/2 the footnotes are just bare links. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:32, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

:I am sorry my friend, but that article is protected to people like me. ;-) Best wishes though, it's looking better all the time. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:27, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== "The Earth and Its Peoples A Global History." ==

Why not just post the book in its entirety instead of the 81 - and counting - three sentence fragments from it you've posted so far? [[User:PFoster|PFoster]] 23:37, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'll be happy to answer you... when you have taken the time to show that you wish to improve Conservapedia by making 81 new entries of your own. Peace. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:41, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
::He was a troll/sock and won't be making ''any'' new entries! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:22, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Somehow I didn't think that would be his cup of tea. ;-) Thank you my friend! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Thanks==

Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 10:34, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
==I see==
You're working on the LXX, I started [[Latin Vulgate|Vulgate]], should we be thinking of adding a category such as '''Bible versions'''? [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:28, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

:I think that's a good idea. Put it as a subcategory under Bible. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:30, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Go right ahead, I can't even find the list for categories! [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 13:41, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Done ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:18, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::::That was a good idea. I protected the 2000 election because of walter repeated false changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 14:33, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::Thank you my friend. ;-) I was hoping I wouldn't have to block him. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:35, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

== question ==

I don't know how to copy and download pics to Conservapedia. Can you show me how to do it? If I am not able to understand your directions can you download some pictures for me? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:40, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

==defaultsort==

Thanks for your work default sorting entries! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:You're welcome Dan. ;-) I kind of came across them by accident, but when I see them I try to clean them up. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:06, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== I didn't ==

I didn't copy from Wikipedia or any place against policy.--'''[[user:FellowChristian16|Fellow]]Christian[[user_talk:FellowChristian16|16]]''' 23:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Winners ==

Congratulations. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:20, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Congratulations! We won! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:11, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Did they give any totals my friend? Where can we check them up? Thanks! [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:13, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::Good question...I'll see what I can find and get back to you asap! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 11:14, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thank you Deborah ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:16, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Congrats! I just looked at recent changes and it looks like it's NE Patriots night... --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 23:32, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hey, you did all the work Tash! As I'm putting in the sorts, I can't believe how much effort you put into filling out bios on so many players! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:33, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

Renoir:

Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==take page v. user page==

When both pages are blank, don't you think you are getting worked up over nothing? Honestly - the user hasn't made any indication of how he wants his castle to be utilized. You're making assumptions for him, which seems to intrude heavily into his autonomy. --[[User:TGlennRet|TGlennRet]] 02:01, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::Unless you have been given express permission, one way is right and one is wrong. It's not getting worked up. It's trying to help you understand Conservapedia rules and etiquette. Other wikis are into that sort of trampling each other thing, but here we try to be respectful and civil. I'm sure if he requests his user page to be used, that no one will have a problem with that. Another point that you may wish to consider is to avoid 'ping-pong' conversations, we try to keep the writing on one talk user page. If you had responded to me on your page, I would have seen it just as well with the fuller context. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Categories, Etc. ==

*You might want to check this out: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment#Wikilinking_of_dates]] I would like your thoughts as well, particularly in regard to the categories and wanted page list, via IM or email, at first, until we build some direction. Perhaps I can even compel you, Aziraphale, BrianCo and Mr. Rayment into a productive chat session! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 16:19, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Block powers? ==

Please take a look at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Religion&diff=250801&oldid=250328 this]. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you for your astute eye. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:22, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Not sure if [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Was_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=prev&oldid=250808 this] is a problem, but the user changed another user's comments on a talk page. (I reverted the change, but keep an eye on the guy.) {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:23, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Same page, earlier [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3AWas_the_European_colonization_of_the_Americas_good_for_the_native_people%3F&diff=250799&oldid=211259 edit] also problematic. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:24, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

[[User:MichaelaHunt]] is vandalizing. Could you also protect a few pages for me? [[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]] and [[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]. thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 02:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*LT, please refer all requests from PheasantHunter to me, okay? He is very adept at playng the system, and that is exactly what he has been doing. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:02, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I'd appreciate it if you brought such gossip and innuendo to me before posting it on other users tal pages. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:00, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==My Niger edits==

Just for the record, that was a screw up on my part, not an attempt at vandalism. I meant to end the white house website with .gov, not .org...I had no idea that parody site even existed. As a school librarian, I'm plagued by the white house .com site, which is a porno site. I will be more careful in the future. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:All of us can make mistakes. I'm sure if you have good strong edits in the future that it will long be forgotten. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

==Final Scores==

Well...it's taken a while, and I hope it's not too late, but I finally have the final scores. In the end, it came out 9618 for Team1 and 5384 for Team2. And you may want to know, the judge particularly said you and Fox "worked your tails off and made a Team 1 victory." ([[User talk:DeborahB.]], "Scores") So thanks for all your help! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 23:38, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:Thank you, it was an honor working with everyone. I'm glad I could help my team... and of course Conservapedia ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:16, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== [[France]] ==

Hi,

I changed again the formulation of the sentence about expats; I think "have left France" sounds like a definitive choice and is not an appropriate formulation.

Regards,[[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 12:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Default Sort==

Just curious to know what the "Default Sort" thing you're putting on the pages is doing...thanks! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 19:56, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hi Deborah. It changes how they're alphabetized. So an entry for Bill Clinton, instead of showing up under the "B"'s, can show up under the "C"'s, for Clinton. Hope that helps. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, it does...thanks! I just kept seeing it and figured it had something to do with the proper way to do names (last, then first) but I just didn't know how. [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 20:01, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

==Recent Edits==
I changed them cause they were inaccurate. That's all. I'll get permission next time I am gonna change somefink.

:No harm done, it's just a good habit to get into to discuss them in the talk section first. Thank you for taking the time to respond. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Categories ==

Bill, Andy asked me to take charge of the categories. Therefore I would respectfully ask you to refrain from reverting my edits, placing them. Okay? Is there some problem that made it impossible for you to communicate with me directly before doing so? There is a special Sand Box page I emailed you about, where ANY new categories are supposed to be discussed first. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:53, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

:Actually my friend, I don't have an email with the sandbox page. Please send it to me. By the way, that wasn't a new category. I had noticed that there was both a "Probability and Statistics" and a "Statistics" category. I was attempting to consolidate based upon what already existed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Just go to my user page, click the link there....happy to have another aboard! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:45, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::I am happy to help my friend. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:52, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Hey ==

Thanks for the welcome.

I look forward to contributing to conservapedia, especially on the heated topics of creationism & devilution.

--[[User:Rolloffle|Rolloffle]] 14:44, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Categories==

Good catch. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Percival_Lowell&action=markpatrolled&rcid=282250] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:53, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

== Are You My Mommy? ==

Or, at least, my "handler?" After the other night where you said TK told you come talk to me, I wasn't sure who to go to with stuff. On the off chance that you are, would you please take a look at [[User:Aziraphale/categories]]? That's where I post issues that, as a non-sysop, I can't fix. (And no, that wasn't a subtle hint, me no want-y the sysop-y :p) There's a template and a few categories that need a-fixin' at this point.

If you're not the person for me to talk to, please just let me know. I don't actively try to ruffle feathers. Thanks! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 19:44, 16 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-...you're gonna break some eggs...''

*Hey, don't make me send some of the boys around to "talk to you" okay? If I am sending someone to talk to you, it was simply because I was tied up, and like the man said, I agreed with his request, and asked him to save me some time, is all....because I was tied up, ya know? If I was gonna give you a handler, it would be more like the Jazzman, or Big Ed. Oh, by the way, how's the family doin? :p If you are wanting me to look at something, I need a message, see? I ain't a mind reader, or organized enough to go lookin, see? That's all. See? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:29, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::If, however, you HAD passed me off to a handler, bothering you with this would have defeated the purpose. By doing it this way, the worst case scenario is that I ask a guy a question to which the answer is "no," and then I would go and ask you. By doing it your way, the worst case scenario was irritating you with something that you had already taken care of. Risk management, baby! [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 20:45, 16 August 2007 (EDT) ''<- never concentrate your troops in Australia...''

*Unfortunately, LT isn't a Sysop, however...but maybe sometime soon....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

: ooOOOOooooohhhh... well ''that's'' a whole different kettle of fish. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:43, 17 August 2007 (EDT) ''<-that's all I've got to say about that...''

== Thanks ==

Thanks for the welcome. I like your user name. Can you tell me how to use the descriptive labels on your user page? I'd like some.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 23:31, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Bellatrix-II

2007-08-18T01:36:19Z

Baruch: fixing dead-end article

A [[warship]], Fleetwood was was laid down on 16 October 1944 at Oakland, Calif., by the Moore Drydock Co. under a Maritime Commission contract (MC hull 1207); launched on 4 December 1944; sponsored by Mrs. Agatha Bittman; and delivered to the Maritime Commission on 21 June 1945. The Maritime Commission then turned her over to the United Fruit Co. that operated her in the North Atlantic under contract until October 1946. She then was transferred by the Maritime Commission to the Pacific Far East Line, and carried out numerous cargo runs to ports throughout the Pacific, including some in Alaskan waters. After April 1958, she served the Military Sea Transportation Service (MSTS) though the Far East Line continued to operate her. Transferred to the Navy on 22 August 1961, Fleetwood entered the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard to begin conversion to a Navy stores ship. On 13 October 1961, she was renamed Bellatrix and designated AF-62. On 18 November 1961, she was commissioned at her conversion yard, Comdr. Nathan E. Dozier in command.

Following outfitting and shakedown training out of San Diego, Bellatrix departed her homeport, San Francisco, on 3 March 1962 for her first deployment to the western Pacific. She steamed by way of Christmas Island where she provided logistics support for units of Joint Task Force (JTF) 8, then conducting nuclear tests. She spent the remainder of the deployment cruising the western Pacific re-supplying Navy ships by both underway and in-port replenishments. During that time, she visited such ports as Yokosuka and Sasebo, Japan, Subic Bay, Philippine Islands, Kaohsiung,Taiwan, and Hong Kong. Bellatrix returned to San Francisco in June and began an overhaul.

That deployment set the pattern for the remainder of her Navy career. Bellatrix spent the next six years voyaging to the western Pacific to supply the ships of the 7th Fleet. After August 1964, she concentrated upon the fleet operating off the coast of Vietnam to support the American effort to bolster the defenses of the South Vietnamese Republic against the attacks of communist North Vietnam. Bellatrix alternated between brief periods on the west coast of the United States and longer periods off the coast of Vietnam until September of 1968. During preparations for her to receive an overhaul late in the summer of 1968, the Navy decided to decommission Bellatrix. Accordingly, on 30 September 1968, she was decommissioned at Hunter's Point, Calif., and her name was struck from the Naval Vessel Register that same day.

Bellatrix (AF-62) earned five battle stars during the Vietnam conflict.<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b4-list.htm]</ref>

Bellatrix is also the name of a [[star]] [[constellation]], and a character in [[Harry Potter]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

Beaumont

2007-08-18T01:35:15Z

Baruch:

A warship, the steel-hulled yacht Reveler was completed in 1930 at Kiel, Germany, by Krupp Iron Works; she was renamed Chalena and, later, Carola. Acquired by the Navy on 23 January 1942 from Leon Mandel, Carola was renamed Beaumont on 27 January 1942, classified as a gunboat and designated PG-60. Converted to naval service by the Gibbs Gas Engine Co., Jacksonville, Fla.; she was commissioned on 22 June 1942, Lt. Comdr. John M. Cox, Jr., USNR, in command.

After fitting out, Beaumont proceeded to Miami, Fla., arriving on 22 July to begin her shakedown. Upon the conclusion of that period of training, she got underway for Key West on the 29th, arriving there the following day. With orders to escort motor vessels to Caribbean ports via the Yucatan Channel, and then proceed to the Canal Zone and report to Commander, Panama Sea Frontier, for further routing, Beaumont sailed on 2 August. Parting company with her charges soon thereafter having seen them safely to that point on 5 August, she proceeded on to Panama, reaching her destination on 8 August.

After transiting the Panama Canal, Beaumont stood out of Balboa harbor on 16 August, bound for Oahu, T.H.. Assigned to the Hawaiian Sea Frontier, the gunboat reached her new base, Pearl Harbor, on 2 September. For the next three years, Beaumont operated from Pearl on weather station duty, alternating, sometimes with gunboat San Bernardino (PG-59), on stations designated only by the letters “B”, “C”, and “D,” operating between Midway and her homeport, collecting meteorological data in support of the Pacific Fleet’s weather service. The cessation of hostilities found her still supplying information to the weather forecasters, and she remained through the autumn of 1945. Ultimately, she sailed from Pearl Harbor on 5 November 1945, and reached San Francisco on Armistice Day, 11 November 1945, having been directed to report to Commander, Western Sea Frontier, and then Commandant, 12th Naval District, for disposal. She was decommissioned at the Mare Island Naval Shipyard on 19 February 1946.

Designated on 12 March 1946 “to be disposed of,” Beaumont was struck from the Navy list on 28 March 1946, and ultimately delivered to the Maritime Commission’s War Shipping Administration on 20 February 1947.<ref>Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships [http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/b4-list.htm]</ref>

Beaumont is also a major city in [[Texas]].

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Ships]]

Press

2007-08-17T23:57:38Z

Baruch: New page: The press is the amorphous institution known as by other names as the news-media. == Liberal Bias == The press is largely controlled by small, otherwise disenfranchised factions of Americ...

The press is the amorphous institution known as by other names as the news-media.

== Liberal Bias ==
The press is largely controlled by small, otherwise disenfranchised factions of American society like atheists. This subject is covered extensively in the article on [[liberal bias]]. [[Fox News]] is a possible counterweight to the liberal bias, but has itself become increasingly liberal of late.

First Amendment

2007-08-17T23:55:52Z

Baruch:

The First Amendment to the [[Constitution]] of the [[United States of America]] says:

:[[Congress]] shall make no law respecting an establishment of [[religion]], or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the [[freedom of speech]], or of the [[press]]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the [[government]] for a redress of grievances.

This is generally taken as a limitation on the power of the federal goverment with respect to:
#[[freedom of religion]]
#[[free speech]]
#[[freedom of the press]]
#[[peaceful assembly]]
#[[political activism]]

== Conservative Interpretation ==
Liberals often focus on the so-called "establishment" clause, in noting that the federal government cannot endorse or establish a church. However, liberals often overlook the clause explicitly allowing for the free exercise of religion. Conservatives argue that this clause can be interpreted to allow much more leeway to the majority of religious Americans than liberals currently allow.

[[Category: Constitution]]

Atheism

2007-08-17T21:29:33Z

Baruch: /* Well Known Atheists */ wasn't Darwin an Atheist?

[[Image:Nogod.jpg|right|175px]]
'''Atheism''', as defined by the ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' and the ''Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy'', is the denial of the existence of any [[God]].<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>
== Biblical Statements Regarding Atheism ==
[[Image:134t.gif|thumb|150px|left|The psalmist [[David]] wrote: "The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."]]
The writers of the Bible considered the existence of God to be self-evident and [[Moses]] simply wrote: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." ([[Genesis]] 1:1). <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/AnswersBook/existence1.asp</ref>

Accordingly, the psalmist [[David]] wrote the following:

"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" - [[Psalm]] 14:1 ([[King James Bible|KJV]])

The psalmist David also stated that "The The heavens declare the glory of God..." - Psalm 19:1

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans that the creation testifies to the existence of God when he wrote the following:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse..." - Romans 1:20 (KJV)
==Criticism==
===Atheism is Illogical===
Proponents of atheism, most notably atheist debaters, have been attempting to dilute the definition of atheism to a mere lack of belief there is a God or gods.<ref>http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/athart3.htm</ref> This definition, however, is not in accordance with how encyclopedias of philosophy define atheism which state that atheism is a denial of the existence of God or gods.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1998</ref>
One of the reasons why some proponents of atheism have been attempting to dilute the definition of the term atheism is to shift the burden of proof since atheism is inherently a illogical position.
[[Image:Image-S070812.jpg|thumb|175px|right|[[D. James Kennedy]]]]
Dr. [[D. James Kennedy]] wrote the following regarding the illogicalness of atheism:
{{cquote|Atheism is what is called a "[[universal negative]]." One of the laws of logic is that you can't prove a universal negative....You would have to examine every part of the universe....

By the way, you would have to be very, very fast because, who knows, this God, these angels....may be very, very fast, and just after you get somewhere, they may have left for another part of the universe.

This means that you would have to be [[omnipresent]]. You would also have to know everything about every part of the universe, so you would be [[omniscient]]. Then, just at the point when you proved that there was no God, you would also have proven that you were one.<ref>http://www.kennedycommentary.org/default.asp?pg=topicmessage&id=1419</ref>}}

Atheists would respond to this line of argument by simply pointing out that in the debate over whether something does or does not exist, in the absence of any scientific proof one way or the other, the burden of proof would lie with the person arguing for existence. Simply claiming that you know god exists carries no weight--in the words of founding father and Deist Thomas Paine, writing in the ''Age of Reason'', “ ... it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”

===Tenuousness of Atheism===
[[Image:Sartre1.gif|thumb|150px|right|[[Jean-Paul Sartre]]]]
Atheism seems to be very tenuous in some of its more notable adherents. For example, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] was one of the leading atheist of the 20th Century. Yet Jean-Paul Sartre made this candid confession:
{{cquote|As for me, I don’t see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world but as a being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. In short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. Naturally this is not a clear, exact idea that I set in motion every time I think of myself. It contradicts many of my other ideas; but it is there, floating vaguely. And when I think of myself I often think rather in this way, for wont of being able to think otherwise.<ref>http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/apologetics/AP0702W4.htm</ref>}}
[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|left|[[Charles Darwin]]]]
[[Charles Darwin]] wrote in his private notebooks that he was a [[materialism|materialist]] which is a type of atheist.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1877</ref><ref>American Scientist May 1977:323</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states the following:
{{cquote|In 1885, the Duke of Argyll recounted a conversation he had had with Charles Darwin the year before Darwin's death:

In the course of that conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the Fertilisation of [[Orchid]]s, and upon The [[Earthworm]]s, and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of Mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin's answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.”(Argyll 1885, 244] <ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/notes.html</ref>}}

===Atheists in America Are Generally Less Charitable===
[[Image:112006top.jpg|thumb|Atheists in America generally give significantly less to charity than [[theism|theist]] Americans.]]
The [[Barna Group]] found the following in regards to atheist population in America and charitable giving:
{{cquote|The typical no-faith American donated just $200 in 2006, which is more than seven times less than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults failed to contribute any personal funds in 2006, that compares with 22% among the no-faith adults.<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrow&BarnaUpdateID=272</ref>}}

In 2003, Arthur C. Brooks wrote in ''Policy Review'' the following:
{{cquote|The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3647/is_200310/ai_n9340592/pg_2 Policy Review, Oct-Dec 2003 by Brooks, Arthur C]</ref>}}

ABC News reported the following:
{{cquote|...the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation.

Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. And Arthur Brooks told me that giving goes beyond their own religious organization:

"Actually, the truth is that they're giving to more than their churches," he says. "The religious Americans are more likely to give to every kind of cause and charity, including explicitly non-religious charities."<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=2682730&page=2</ref>}}

===Atheism and Immoral Views===
The Barna Group found that atheists/agnostics in America were more likely than theists in America to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; getting drunk; having a sexual relationship with someone of the opposite sex to whom you are not married; having an [[abortion]]; living with someone of the opposite sex without being married; using profanity; gambling; looking at pictures of nudity or explicit sexual behavior; and engaging in [[homosexuality]]/[[bisexuality]].<ref>http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=152</ref>

===Atheism and the Existence of Evil===
Atheists state that the existence of evil is a problem for [[theism]] which holds to a good and powerful God.<ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/evil.html</ref> [[Theodicy]] is the branch of study in theology and philosophy that defends the goodness of God despite the existence of evil.<ref>http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861719540/theodicy.html</ref> In traditional Christianity and Judaism the book of Job is used to explain the existence of evil.<ref>http://apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-job.html</ref> In recent times [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] often cite [[Alvin Plantinga]]'s free will defense in regards to the existence of evil. <ref>http://www.xenos.org/essays/evilpo.htm</ref><ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/handouts/free_will_defense.html</ref> The work of [[St. Augustine]] is also cited in regards to theodicy. <ref>http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5124</ref>

===Atheism and Communism ===
[[Karl Marx]] coined the saying "[Religion] is the opium of the people".<ref>http://www3.baylor.edu/~Scott_Moore/texts/Marx_Opium.html</ref> Karl Marx also wrote: "Communism begins from the outset (Owen) with atheism; but atheism is at first far from being communism; indeed, that atheism is still mostly an abstraction."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm</ref>

[[Vladimir Lenin]] similarly wrote: "A Marxist must be a materialist, i. e., an enemy of religion, but a dialectical materialist, i. e., one who treats the struggle against religion not in an abstract way, not on the basis of remote, purely theoretical, never varying preaching, but in a concrete way, on the basis of the class struggle which is going on in practice and is educating the masses more and better than anything else could."<ref>http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1909/may/13.htm</ref>

===Atheism and Questions of Origins ===
Atheism provides no useful input in regards to origins. [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists state that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and the [[Second Law of Thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe or a universe created by natural processes and argue for a universe created by [[God]]. <ref>http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329</ref> <ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref> A majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the naturalistic evolutionary position since [[World War II]] have been atheists.<ref>Dr. [[Don Batten]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/737/ A ''Who’s Who'' of evolutionists] ''Creation'' 20(1):32
December 1997.</ref><ref>[[Jonathan Sarfati]], Ph.D.,F.M., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3830 ''Refuting Evolution'', Chapter 1, Facts and Bias]</ref> [[Creationism|Creationist]] scientists also assert the [[theory of evolution]] is an inadequate explanation for the variety of life forms on earth. <ref>http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/</ref>

== Atheist Population as a Percentage of Various Countries Populations==
Specific research on atheists conducted in 2006 [http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/allnewsbydate.asp?NewsID=1131 suggests] that the true proportion of atheists is 4% in the United States, 17% in Great Britain and 32% in France. In the United States, however, another 14% of the respondents identified themselves as agnostic indicating that 18% of the U.S. population do not ascribe to theistic views.<ref>In addition, 6% declined to say; and 3% indicated they were unsure of their beliefs.</ref>

== American Population's View of Atheists ==
Research in the American Sociological Review finds that atheists are the group that Americans least relate to for shared vision or want to have marry into their family.
<ref>Edgell, Gerteis & Hartmann 2006</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!
! This Group Does Not At All Agree with My Vision of American Society:
! I Would Disapprove if My Child Wanted to Marry a Member of This Group:
|-
| Atheist
| 39.6%
| 47.6%
|-
| Muslim
| 26.3%
| 33.5%
|-
| Homosexual
| 22.6%
| NA
|-
|Conservative Christian
| 13.5%
| 6.9%
|-
| Recent Immigrant
| 12.5%
| Not Asked
|-
| Hispanic
| 7.6%
| 18.5%
|-
| Jew
| 7.4%
| 11.8%
|-
| Asian American
| 7.0%
| 18.5%
|-
|African American
| 4.6%
| 27.2%
|-
| White American
| 2.2%
| 2.3%
|}

== Well Known Atheists ==
Well-known atheists include Kurt Vonnegut, Isaac Asimov, [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Bertrand Russell]], [[Ayn Rand]], [[Richard Dawkins]], [[Douglas Adams]], [[Ernest Hemingway]], [[Charles Darwin]] and [[David Hume]].

==External Links==
*[http://creationwiki.org/Decline_of_atheism Decline of Atheism -CreationWiki]
*[http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf European Commission report on Social values, Science and Technology, includes info on Religious beliefs]

== Notes ==
<references/>

[[Category:Religion]]
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Conservapedia:American Government Fall 2007

2007-08-17T19:39:16Z

Baruch:

'''Current enrollment: 37 students, 3 teachers'''

"American Government 101" is a 14-week course that teaches the basics of government, both [[federal]] and state. It reviews the [[U.S. Constitution]], including concepts like the [[separation of powers]] among the branches of government.

Students seeking to earn college credit can take the [[CLEP]] or [[AP]] exams upon successful completion of this course.

This course begins in September and already 24 students have enrolled. Please add your user id. (use the signature button above) if you would like to participate in this course in any way, either as a student or as a teacher on this site, and your name will be transferred to a roster. As an enrolled participant, you will have special access to a protected area established for this course.

Teenagers are welcome as students, and advanced college students and adults are welcome as teachers. The primary instructor is [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], who has taught over 10 courses, including one as an adjunct professor at a major law school.

== Enroll here: ==
Add me -[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 15:39, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Hello, I would also like to enroll in this class, and am not sure if this is how to do so. Please let me know! [[User:Janewayne]]

: Welcome! You are student #37. This will be fun and you'll learn immensely. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:36, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

What is this about, how can I enroll? [[User:Cyzward]]

: You just did. Welcome! We start in mid-September, and lectures will be posted here along with assignments, discussion, etc. You will learn American Government better than you thought possible. You are student #36, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I would like to enroll in the American Government 101 class. I am a sophomore in high school.--[[User:Mcpannier|Mcpannier]] 12:26, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Fantastic! Welcome to the class, which will start in September. You are student #25 and you will have special access to a restricted area (namespace) for this course. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

i would like to enroll also...as i always slept through AG classes when younger :) --[[User:Wally|Wally]] 22:35, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Great, welcome! You're student #26 ... or teacher #2 depending on how much you really slept! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:A303springfield|A303springfield]] 00:14, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Fantastic!! You're most welcome! You're student #28, and we have another teacher in addition to myself. We start in September but please feel free to edit here before then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
[[category:government]]
[[category:United States Government]]
[[category:homeschool curriculum]]

--[[User:Blu1001|Blu1001]] 19:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT) This sounds cool
*09:50, 11 August 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Blu1001 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (sock of two blocked useres)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Blu1001

: He's our first expelled student!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Great, I would like to enroll please. I am 42 and am teaching my 10 year old about government. username: CDRobbins

: Great, you count as a new teacher, and your child as a new student. Both of you are enrolled and I'll increment the totals above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

'''ADD YOUR NAME HERE:'''

I have sent an email to Mr Schlafly explaining my desire to enrol. Even though I am a UK high school student, I hope you will still accept me. --[[User:TJ|TJ]] 09:26, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome! It's great having a student from the UK. You are student #35 to enroll. You'll enjoy this and learn a great deal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

== Homework and Contest ==

This course will have weekly homework that will use a point system. Here is the proposed point system and we welcome feedback by our teachers and students about it:

*'''Quality new entry: 10 points'''
**A "quality new entry" includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, and more in-depth content than just a stub. In the case of a dispute, the inclusion/lack of an image can be used as a deciding factor.
**One point of extra credit for having more than six relevant citations.
**A new article is eligible for all forms of credit that can attach to an article--thus, submitting a quality new page with categorization will merit eleven points--ten for the article and one for the cat tag.
*'''Quality edit of existing entry: 4 points'''
**A "quality edit" to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
**One point of extra credit will be given for enclosing the citations in ref tags and including the references tag to define a reference section.
*'''Any new entry: 6 points'''
**Two points of extra credit for submitting an article well-organized into sections.
*'''Small edit of existing entry: 2 points'''
**One point of extra credit for breaking an existing article into logical sections if it didn't already have any.
*'''Categorizing entry: 1 point'''
*'''Adding a link within an entry to remove it from the dead-end list: 1 point'''

Each week a student will be expected to score a minimum amount of points, such as 25 per week (feedback on that total is welcome).

During the course we will also have several weekly team contests, with recognition for teams scoring the most points.

== Syllabus ==

#Constitution
#Bill of Rights and Federalism
#Congress
#President and Bureaucracy
#Judiciary
#Public Opinion
#The Media
#Political Parties and Voting and Elections
#Interest Groups
#Civil Rights and Liberties
#Public and Economic Policy
#Foreign Policy
#Review

== CLEP ==

The [[CLEP]] exam on American Government tests these topics with these weightings:

#30-40%: legal aspects of government, including the [[U.S. Constitution]], [[federalism]], [[separation of powers]], [[checks and balances]], majority v. minority, theories of democracy, the courts, the [[Bill of Rights]], applying the [[Bill of Rights]] against the states, [[equal protection]] and [[due process]]
#30-35%: Three branches of government and how they relate with each other and with interest groups, the media, public opinion and political parties
#15-20%: Political parties and interest groups and elections
#10-15%: Political beliefs and behavior, including how opinions are formed and how opinion influences political leaders. BEWARE: THIS SECTION IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [[liberal bias|LIBERAL BIAS]]

== AP ==

The [[AP]] exam on American Government tests these topics with these weightings:<ref>http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/usgov/topics.html?usgovpol</ref>

#Institutions of National Government: The Congress, the Presidency, the Bureaucracy, and the Federal Courts (35-45%)
#Constitutional Underpinnings of United States Government (5-15%)
#Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (5-15%)
#Political Beliefs and Behaviors (10-20%)
#Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Mass Media (10-20%)
#Public Policy (5-15%)

Note that roughly the bottom half of the above topics are highly susceptible to [[liberal bias]].

== Interesting Issues in Government ==

#a liberal proposed that the next Democratic President add Justices to the Supreme Court. Lawful?
#should Congress limit judicial review, as in ending judicial review of the Pledge of Allegiance?
#the rule against interstate sales tax -- interference with state power?
#free 50 guilty defendants rather than convict one innocent one?
#Electoral college – scrap it?
#postal monopoly – end exclusivity for regular mail?
#line-item veto – constitutional?
#conditional declarations of war by Congress – constitutional?
#immigration - build a wall?
#excluding homeschoolers from public school activities – constitutional? Fair?
#are limits on campaign contributions constitutional?
#should we allow free trade with China? With countries that suppress religion?
#full free speech for corporations? In advertising? In denying wrongdoing?
#should corporations be able to donate directly to political campaigns?
#random drug testing of students in school activities – constitutional?
#equal protection clause – should it protect non-citizens? apply to gender?
#state discounts for residents – violate Privileges and Immunities Clause?
#non-delegation doctrine – can Congress delegate lawmaking to agencies?
#substantive due process – distinguish between economic and social rights?
#English-only laws for basic public school courses – constitutional?
#Title IX: athletes’ gender must be proportional to enrollment – constitutional?
#should the Bill of Rights be applied against the States?

== References ==

<references/>

Conservapedia talk:The Supreme Court

2007-08-17T19:31:27Z

Baruch:

I can't believe that you intend to educate people with this 'course', when 18 words into the course syllabus you lay out opinion like that. Education is ''surely''about letting students make up their ''own'' minds, not shoving preconceived notions down their throats. Since I already know before I would take this course what I will learn- why would I take it? [[User:MissInfo|MissInfo]] 22:08, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

How is it opinion to state that the court became more liberal during that time period? That's a fact. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

What do you doubt, MissInfo? Your comment conspicuously lacks any quotes of anything you deny in the course description. That type of criticism isn't going to persuade anyone here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

:Textbook?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 15:31, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:The Supreme Court

2007-08-17T19:14:07Z

Baruch: /* Enroll here: */

"The Supreme Court" is a one-semester course for those curious about how the Court became so [[liberal]] in the 1960s through 1980s, and for those interested in learning how the Court can get back on the right path for the future.

This course will harness the power of Conservapedia to build an online constitutional law treatise for the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] of the future. Currently the leading constitutional law treatise cites about 3000 decisions, many of which are quickly becoming outdated and overruled by the [[Roberts Court]]. The author of that constitutional law treatise, Laurence Tribe, has announced that he will not be publishing an updated edition in the near future. This course and Conservapedia course will fill that void for the online future.

Questions addressed in this course include:

*what precedents are there now 5 [[conservative]] votes for overruling? Are there 5 votes to overrule ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''?

*which precedents are at risk of being overruled in the upcoming 2007-2008 Term?

*what are the most interesting cases likely to be appealed to the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]? Should amicus briefs be filed for any upcoming petitions?

*will the Supreme Court [[grant cert.]] in the [[gun control]] case, and how will it rule?

*What are the judicial philosophies of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justices?

*What are the worst [[liberal]] decisions rendered by the Court?

This fascinating course will examine critically the worst decisions of the past half-century and consider judicial and legislative corrections to them.

This cutting-edge course will emphasize decisions rendered as recently as this summer and will review cases on the Court's docket for the fall. This course will draw upon the expertise of leading attorneys and activists, including at least one teacher who practices before the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]. Utilizing the full power of Conservapedia, this course will incorporate important news about the Court as it occurs and anticipate issues that will dominate political discourse in the upcoming election season.

By the end of the course students will be far more knowledgeable about the most important government institution in the world: the [[U.S. Supreme Court]]

== Enroll here: ==

This free course starts in September. By enrolling here, you will be able to participate in a restricted namespace to be created only for students and teachers in this class. Both students and teachers should add your id. below to be sure of having a spot in this course:

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:49, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:Blu1001|Blu1001]] 19:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT) This sounds cool

I'm a sophomore student in PA, and it'll be interesting to learn about the Supreme Court in a way that's different from the way they teach us.--[[User:Benefit|Benefit]] 17:18, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: Fantastic. Welcome! We'll start in September and you certainly will learn the Supreme Court in a way you won't see in school!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 15:14, 17 August 2007 (EDT)