Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monster

2007-11-01T01:53:46Z

Borofkin2: /* Liberal Deceit */

Somebody screwed up the references.

== Mockery and Pastafarianism? ==

{{QuoteBox|The Discovery Institute has argued that the FSM is an attempt to mock "traditional religion."[3] Indeed, self-professed believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster have called themselves "Pastafarians".}}
I don't quite get the connection between those two sentences. How does them calling themselves "Pastafarians" argue for or against FSM mocking traditional religion? I get that the entire thing is (intelligently) designed to mock a whole bunch of stuff, but those two sentences made me go "Huh?" in the current form. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:It's not the designation of themselves as Pastafarians but their establishment of FSM as a deity which is the mockery. Anyway, it's a good parody and I always get a laugh out of it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, those are my thoughts, too. Just found those sentences next to each other a tad confusing. Thanks for verifying/clarifying. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:13, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Food for thought==

Finally a theory I can sink my teeth into. I can't stomach much of the tripe that evolutionists bring to the table.

*If naturalistic laws do not explain life's origin, then life must have been created. This theory is called intelligent design. (back cover of [http://www.amazon.com/Intelligent-Design-Evolution-Molecular-Knowledge/dp/0976639408 Intelligent Design or Evolution? Why the Origin of Life and the Evolution of Molecular Knowledge Imply Design])

This doesn't mean that ID can explain the origin of life, but rather that ID asserts naturalism can't either. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

The whole problem with this ID discussion is that both attackers and defenders of ID don't see the difference between the scientific and the religious domain. The scientific domain describes WHAT happens, and here the only theory available is evolution. The religious domain however, describes WHY it happens, and here everybody should be free to find an explanation. Christians will say God coordinates the whole process, while atheists will say it is just a natural process, where everything happens by accident and without a deeper meaning.{{Unsigned|Carcoke}}
:Your analysis is incomplete. The [[Bible]] does indeed say what happened, and in what order. It even says ''when'' it happened. Oh, sure, estimates of the "when" vary, with a range of about 320 years (215 years for the Sojourn in [[Egypt]], 60 years for the birth of [[Abraham]], and 45 years for the chronology of the Divided Kingdoms Northern and Southern). But you can't get around this simple fact: that the Bible contains back-to-back narratives of human history that span the entire time from [[creation]] to the Crucifixion and about thirty years after that. It is the only single source that can make this claim (although ''[[The Annals of the World]]'' reviews history from multiple sources to cover the same period).

:Now the distinction you draw is all very well. But when the Bible ''does'' make a statement on the ''what'' and even the ''when'' as well as the ''why'', you have to deal with it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:So what will you do when the Bible says one thing, and the Koran, Talmud or another religious scripture tells another thing. You may ''believe'' that the Bible is right, but you can't tell other people that they ''have to'' deal with it. Otherwise you say that the Bible (and with it Christianity) is superior to other religions, which seems a very dangerous statement to me.

::See [[Debate topics]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:31, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==FSM and ID criticism==

Critiques of [[Intelligent Design]] should be discussed at [[Talk:Intelligent design]], and they should be aimed at improving the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:56, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==A tangle of pasta==

ID opponents argue that [[Intelligent Design]] claims to explain the origin of life, and contrast this "claim" with Pastafarians' nonsensical explanations of [[Global Warming]], [[gravity]] and [[UFO]]s.
*Which opponents have argued this?

Self-professed believers have called themselves "Pastafarians" (reference to FSM's "noodly appendages").
*Very funny, but hardly encyclopediic.

FSM is used by [[atheist]]s, such as [[Richard Dawkins]] [http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html], as a modern version of [[Russell's teapot]].
*This needs to be fleshed out before mentioning it.

A book was released in 2006, to explain most of the idea.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-03-26-spaghetti-monster_x.htm</ref>
*If there's really a book, is it about the parody itself, or is it a critique of [[Intelligent design]]?

The parody was created to mock the teaching of [[Intelligent Design]] in Kansas science classrooms. <ref>[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/celebrating_christmas_at_the_c.html “Celebrating” Christmas at the “Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster” - Evolution News & Views]</ref>
*Too obvious for words.

I explained what's wrong with each thing I cut, using bullet points. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:44, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:[http://www.http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Flying-Spaghetti-Monster/dp/0812976568/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0836771-4873759?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178347449&sr=8-1 Yes,there really is a book.] It is both an expansion of the parody and a critiqque of Intelligent design.[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 02:46, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Deceit ==

Could someone explain how this category demarcation is appropriate? I can grant you the "liberal" part (though I personally think that there's nothing actually liberal about it), but there just is no evidence of [[deceit]]. Using the word deceit implies that they are hiding their motives; they say they are a parody religion and they say precisely what their motives are. Maybe a link to the site would help, so you can see for yourself? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 10:53, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

I believe that they are deceitful because they are really atheists and rather than saying they want God out of the classroom, they make this ridiculous parody that mocks religion and God. That seems like deceit to me --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:41, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

:It's fine if you believe it, but this is an encyclopedia not an op ed section. The [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Comandments]] state "Everything you post must be true and verifiable" and "Always cite and give credit to your sources" and "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."
:If we take a look at the official site, we find the following statement:
::Q: Are you an atheist / heathen / what?
::A: I don’t have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science. Teach Creationism in school, fine, but don’t teach it in a science classroom...."
:So if you want to make the claim that he is flat out lying, you need some way to back that up, other than just a gut instinct. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:10, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Seems more like liberal satire to me. A lot of liberals use satire and snark to make conservatives sound dumb. In fact, you might want to create a new category, "liberal slander," or something like that, and this article might be better suited for that then deceit.-[[User:Darius|Darius]] 13:16, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

:Satire, yes. The creator of the "religion" (and it's "followers") openly admit that Pastafarianism is supposed to be satire. I still don't think anything more serious (such as deceit or slander) has been properly shown, however. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:16, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
::I think it's more [[liberal hypocrisy]] than [[liberal deceit]]. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:53, 31 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-07-24T01:44:02Z

Borofkin2: /* Definition? */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Andy... falsehoods? ==

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:''opposition to a strong American foreign policy''
:where in that ''WORK IN PROGRESS'' [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a ''strong'' American foreign policy? Many ''Liberals'' may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a ''strong'' American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals'' so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''liberals'' believe and are not an encyclopedic description of ''liberal'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is time someone unlocks this article. [[User:Order]] 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

: First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. [[User:Order]] 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives ''precisely'' because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neoclassical liberalism==
I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Silly" Definition? ==

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

=="American Liberal?"==

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous.
eg.
-taxpayer-funded abortion
-censorship of prayer in classrooms
-a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Which of the above three examples of [[liberal]] beliefs do you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...
:::I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

''This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).''
:Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

== Template ==

Could an admin add <nowiki>{{Political ideologies}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page? thnx, [[User:MfD|MfD]] 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

[[User:TK|TK]], why did you revert the last comment by [[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. [[User:Order]] May 21 11:40 (AEST)

*Order, I have an old saying: ''"Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!"'' The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25

*Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship of prayer in classrooms?==

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --[[User:Catfish|Catfish]] 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wennberg, you're in [[liberal]] denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:: School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==edit suggest==

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article [[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Emotive distinction ==

The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Slight syntax change==

I propose that this sentence: ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' ''be changed to read '''The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'.''' The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practice [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:TK, you send way too much time with Aschlafly. Or was this meant to be ironic. [[User:Order]] 24 July

::We've come very far in the past several months; when I first started virtually every page read either "a lberal is a leftist," or a "leftist is a liberal." After much hard work, I think we actually have some substance now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::There are plenty of examples of liberal thought, but there isn't even an attempt at a definition of "Liberalism in the US today". - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-07-24T00:23:27Z

Borofkin2: /* Definition? */

Talk:Liberal

2007-07-24T00:22:51Z

Borofkin2: /* Definition? */

{{protected|Aschlafly}}

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1]]
[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2]]
== Wikipedia Citations ==

*'''It is never acceptable to use citations from Wikipedia here on the Conservapedia, per Aschlafly'''

== Andy... falsehoods? ==

Andy, I can't find anything wrong with the paragraph that you deleted. It properly contrasts the difference between "liberal" in the classical economic sense, and "liberal" in the TV-punditry sense. It also appropriately treated the civil rights era. Is the only thing wrong with that paragraph that you don't like it's implications?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:47, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Where do we go to report vandalism by a mod? --[[User:BobD|BobD]] 02:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:''opposition to a strong American foreign policy''
:where in that ''WORK IN PROGRESS'' [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf] cited, can proof of the above claim be found? Define a ''strong'' American foreign policy? Many ''Liberals'' may disagree with the current foreign policy but that doesn't necessarily imply they have problems with a strong American foreign policy. What is the definition of a ''strong'' American foreign policy? In all fairness it must be said that the page does start with ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals'' so virtually anything could be added to the list. All the same such edits seem to be what the editor thinks ''liberals'' believe and are not an encyclopedic description of ''liberal'' thoughts or tendencies. Such edits contravene [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment]] 5: ''Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry''.
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 06:47, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:: It is time someone unlocks this article. [[User:Order]] 17 April, 11:25 (AEST)

The statement that the label liberal stands for right-wing in Europe is utter nonsense. Neo-liberalism restricts the more general liberalism to economic topics. As a result, neo-liberals and conservatives have much in common regarding freedom of economy and influence of the state. This is, however, far from right-wing. A separate topic is the nationalliberal movement in Austria, which includes some right-wing, anti-foreigner standpoints.

: First, I have to agree that 'liberal' in Europe doesn't refer to the extreme right. The FPOE under Haider was indeed a bit far to the right when compared to the other liberal parties. However, the Dutch VVD, the Danish Ventre Parti, or the Polish Platforma Obywatelska, or the German FDP are all center to center right. And they are characteristic for an important poltical force, the self-identify as 'liberal'. It should be added that some countries have in addition a, often smaller, center-left liberal party. [[User:Order]] 20 April 23:55 (AEST)

These definitions certainly need clarification especially as it seems to be used as a pejorative term in the USA. In the UK the Conservatives were seen as the party that backed the aristocracy and big business while Labour (UK spelling) backed trade unions and the welfare state. Far from being a libertarian, Liberals were the party of the individual but took a middle way to the property rights and a welfare state that catered for the unfortunate as well asproviding universal healthcare and education.[[User:Ian St John|Ian St John]] 14:02, 9 May 2007 (EDT)
:Precisely part of the problem. Europeans & Brits (as we've seen reported in the European press during the elections of GW Bush) create an unfair & biased resentment against American conservatives ''precisely'' because of their prejudice against a titled noble aristocracy -- something forbidden by the US Constitution. Yes, European & American views of "conservatives" are different in "common usage". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:43, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Neoclassical liberalism==
I'm not sure that "sexual freedom" was an aspect of neoclassical liberalism. Ditto for equal rights independent of race or sex. The Enlightenment liberals were for limited democracy -- they certainly did not jump to extend these rights to women or non-whites. In fact, many even feared giving power to the lower classes. [[User:Ylmw21|Ylmw21]] 23:34, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== Split? ==

I recommend this article being split into two separate articles. One on Liberalism (as in the ideology that many Republicans have, including lassiez-faire economics), and one on Liberal (as in the label used in American politics that has a meaning more similar to Progressiveism). [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 16:22, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Silly" Definition? ==

What's wrong with those definitions? How are they "silly," Aschlafley? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:04, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

=="American Liberal?"==

Liberal is an absolute term. There is no difference in a liberal in one country and another. This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous). Also, most of the statements listed are rediculous.
eg.
-taxpayer-funded abortion
-censorship of prayer in classrooms
-a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
Also, this artical would lead individuals to believe that all Liberals are clones of one another that have identical beliefs. Maybe "American Liberal" is supposed to mean Democrat, but even if that was the case the NDP has a platform that does not match what is posted in this artical.--[[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] 14:19, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Which of the above three examples of [[liberal]] beliefs do you dispute?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

::All of them. I have yet to see wide spread support for tax funded abortion. Also, liberals are fine with individual prayer in schools, just not group prayer or teacher lead prayer. Also, I wouldn't say liberals are any more for a living constitution that conservatives. Conservatives expand on the constitution by acting as the world police and placing military bases overseas...
:::I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats, and I've personally seen the damage done to the military's morale when liberals are in positions of power and authority over the military. And it was Colin Powell who stated that the world is sick of us being the world's police force, "but just who do they call when they need a cop?" [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:02, 20 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Karajou, you made a huge slip up in this statement: "I've been in several military bases that were placed there by Democrats."Democrats are not the same as a liberal and from your statement you are saying that they are the same. You even use the words interchangeably.--[[User:Penguin|Penguin]] 23:00, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

''This would be like saying an American Christian and Canadian Christian are fundamentally different (which would be utterly rediculous).''
:Perhaps, but an American Liberal is still to the right of a Canadian Liberal (and Canadian Conservatives as well).--[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 20:53, 22 May 2007 (PDT)

== Template ==

Could an admin add <nowiki>{{Political ideologies}}</nowiki> to the bottom of the page? thnx, [[User:MfD|MfD]] 00:51, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== Censoring Talk pages? ==

[[User:TK|TK]], why did you revert the last comment by [[User:ResistanceFighter|ResistanceFighter]] on the talk pages. I thought the Talk pages were for discussion, and I didn't expect that someone would revert comments. I'd expect you to reply to his comments, not remove them. [[User:Order]] May 21 11:40 (AEST)

*Order, I have an old saying: ''"Caution! Be sure brain is engaged before putting mouth in operation!"'' The last comment there, FYI, was from the user BrianCo, who was blocked for being a vandal, and ResistanceFighter was his sock. Now, instead of posting here, just to gain exposure for your sly little ad hominem attack on me, you could have sent an email or gotten me on IM, or even posted on my talk page. Now, I expect an apology. This bit of foolery is certainly not adult or professional. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 08:30, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: What is sly and ad hominen about my question? It was a fairly neutral question about why a comment was removed. I saw that a comment got removed without comment. And I asked you why? You could have added the explanation that you gave now already when you removed the comment. It appeared, and not just to my brain, as if a comment was removed without giving a reason. And that was exactly what you did. And even if it was a sock puppet, I still can't see why you did remove the comment without giving a reason. Wouldn't the normal procedure be to block the sock puppet, and revert vandalism if it happend. [[User:Order]] May 25

*Not necessairly here, Order, especially if one is busy, old, and it slips their mind. So I guess we see the same situation differently. No harm, no foul in that. Sorry is I was tarter than usual...trying times around here, and elsewhere. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==Censorship of prayer in classrooms?==

Since I can't edit the main page, I'll comment here. This is a caricature--teachers may not lead prayer, but students can pray in public schools if they want. Now, if they are talking out loud, they might be dealt with the same as a student talking out loud about everything else. But that "ban" is not content-based. Students can pray in school, read the Bible, talk to their fellow students about God and theology, and, for that matter, can read the Koran and pray toward Mecca (again, provided they aren't disrupting class.) So, I have to ask you ... why does this article have such a cartoon-like description of liberals' stances on "prayer in classrooms?" --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:38, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

::You know the old saying: "As long as there are geometry tests, there will be prayer in school." --[[User:Catfish|Catfish]] 20:09, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

: Wennberg, you're in [[liberal]] denial. Group prayer in the classroom is prohibited, and individual prayer out loud is nonsensical. Please defend or oppose the law, but don't deny it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:12, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:: School-sponsored prayer is illegal. Students can pray if they want to, whether alone or as a group, as long as they are not being disruptive. Students also can't get up and read a book in the middle of class, in unison, either. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 21:44, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

==edit suggest==

one suggestion that globalism be bracketed so it links to the article [[User:Foxley|Foxley]] 16:07, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

== Emotive distinction ==

The definition of liberal as 'weak' should be in there somewhere, as like it or not it has become a subtext in the political culture as influential as any points of substance. But to include that emotive definition in the same page as political philosophies of other countries could be too confusing. This could tie in with the idea of partitioning the article into two sections. unsigned comment by [[User:TraitortotheCause ]]15:25, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

==Slight syntax change==

I propose that this sentence: ''Many of the following views are held by Americans who consider themselves 'liberals' ''be changed to read '''The following views are often associated with those who consider themselves 'liberals'.''' The way it reads now suggests that all liberals hold all of these views, when this is not the case. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 01:06, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

== Some problems with Views ==

The following items from the list of views need some work:
* a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written - This item is confusing. The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court (per the Constitution), so presumably everyone who agrees that the Constitution is a fair and valid basis for the U.S. system of government accepts the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution. What's the point of this sentence? If this sentence exists purely to accent the gun control bullet point, then perhaps they should be merged into "gun control per a specific re-interpretation of the Constitution as defined by ''U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).''"
* globalism - Globalism is awfully broad, and some aspects of globalism are clearly opposed by most liberals, and supported by most conservatives. If we're talking about international governmental bodies, then we should call that out specifically.
* opposition to a strong American foreign policy - This is clearly a subjective take, and has no place in an encyclopedia. I'd suggest re-wording this to refer to the generally anti-war stance of liberals to avoid using subjective language. There are many liberal foreign policy platforms that could be considered "strong" by many definitions of the word.
* support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right - This is poorly worded from the legal standpoint. A better wording which does not rely on the word obscenity (which is specifically loosely defined at a federal level, and is left to "community standards") should be chosen. Overall, the statement is correct, just not precise enough.
Hope this helps. -[[User:Harmil|Harmil]] 16:47, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== "Strong" foreign policy ==

I'm not trying to troll or anything, but when you say a "Strong" foreign policy, do you mean a militaristic one, that openly supports coups of legitimate government, like the one that America has used for the last 50 or so years?
If not, then what DO you mean by "strong"? [[user:Tanktunker]]

*I would say if America stands for anything, it should stand for freedom. As John F. Kennedy, that famous [[Liberal]] said: "We will go anywhere, pay any price, bear any burden, to further the spread of freedom", or something like that.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:22, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
**He said "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.", nothing was said or implied about invading foreign countries or replacing governments, be it through military might or more secretive operations, usually carried out by government agencies like the CIA. {{Unsigned|User:Tanktunker}}

The mainspace now actually has compromise language offered by Andy [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=110419&oldid=104466]. We could always bring back "''opposition to American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF). </ref> which advocates human rights <ref>[http://www.forward.com/articles/the-%E2%80%98answer%E2%80%99-question-poses-difficult-choices/ "The 'Answer' Question Poses Difficult Choices for Liberals"] by Gal Beckerman, ''The Forward'', September 30, 2005. </ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0118-03.htm ''Looming War Isn't About Chemical Warheads or Human Rights: It's About Oil''], Robert Fisk, Independent/UK, 18 January 2003. </ref> and democracy" <ref>[http://www.un.int/usa/02_131.htm President Bush's address to the United Nations], United States Mission to the United Nations, Press Release #131(02), 12 September 2002.</ref>

with the references, of course. <references/>

P.S. that Kennedy quote is what got us involved in [[Vietnam]]. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:40, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*Tanktunker, unsigned posts will be deleted.
:Rob, I meant by my comment that Liberals are full of [[deceit]] as they applaud such statements by their own Liberals, yet accuse Conservatives of Imperialism when they practice the same ethic. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ironic, JKF said "we will go any where, fight any foe", he didn't say "we will go anywhere except Vietnam..." And when he said "Ask not what you country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" he was specifically talking about the peace time draft. Another irony, JFK was that draftdodger Bill Clinton's idol. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:55, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

*Not so ironic that user Tanktunker was exposed as a petty code vandal tonight. He will not be missed. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:21, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Someone explain to me... ==

How greenpeace is a "liberal organization?" -hoboace

:One of the [[liberal]] views is [[environmentalism]]. Certainly [[Greenpeace]] engages in ''environmentalism'' and therefore qualifies as a "liberal organization". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:48, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Definition? ==

This article contains many examples of what liberals believe, but doesn't contain a definition. The introduction should contain a definition of what a liberal ''is''. The article is incomplete if it only lists views held by liberals. We need to define what makes those views liberal views. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 23:50, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:That's correct. The problem is with liberalism. It is whatever you want to be. A definition today will be outdated tomorrow. It all depends what is 'is'. Shades of grey. No black or white. Slippery than fish out water. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

*The do all believe in one thing, I find: [[Deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:17, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Can we add that to the introduction as a definition? How about this: "A liberal is a person who calls themselves a liberal. All liberals practise [[deceit]]." - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 20:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal

2007-07-23T03:50:02Z

Borofkin2: Definition?

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-07-23T01:44:06Z

Borofkin2: /* Forrest Gump */

I'm just curious how $139m [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business] can be considered "low-budget". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 15:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: $139M in production costs is pocket change these days, Hoji!

: I think Spider-Man is in the top 5, and maybe the top 2, in profitability. It's #7 in domestic revenue, having a much lower production cost than other top movies. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm... out of curiosity, I went and looked at the budgets of some recently-made major motion pictures. ''Transformers'' had a budget of $147m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business]. ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'' (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/business]. ''Ocean's Twelve'' had a budget of $110m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/business]. The latest Bond movie (''Casino Royale'') had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/business]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like ''Sicko'' (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business], or ''Crash'' (which is easily the ''best'' movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==FarenHYPE==

This is about the "greatest" conservative movies, not a list of all conservative movies. I've never heard about that movie before seeing it on this list, and I would hate to think that Michael Moore can cause the production of anything great. As such, I'm removing the movie from this list. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with LiteratiChamp. The film is a response to Michael Moore's Farenhiet 911. One of the measures of a good (in my opinion) is staying power. Moore's film was a political piece that may have spoke to some people in the 2004 election year. Twenty years from now, even ten, it will be little more than a curiousity, and so will Farenhype. At best, they may be remembered as the pioneers of a new film genre, the political screed, but I hope not.--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Forrest Gump ==

National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring [[liberal]] Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:But it's a ''great'' movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:I won't pretend for a second that it's conservative, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm glad you liked it, Hoji, and I admit that I couldn't bear watching it to the end. It was a huge popular hit. But what I did see ''was'' very [[liberal]], almost like a liberal fantasy tale. So much sermonizing about civil rights by ... a white man???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::What do you think about Saving Private Ryan? I was going to add it to the list with the caption "The actions our military will take to save an imperiled comrade". Maybe without the word "comrade", since it's inherently un-conservative sounding.
::And as for Forrest... he's a retard! (proud of my un-PC statement!) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also. The quotes and clips I saw from it had the trappings of liberalism: faithless with a kind of dumbed-down "that's all there is to life" approach. Woe is me and my brothers will be my salvation. "At death there's nothing more" is the message, expect (if you're lucky) some spirit of brotherhood.

::: Tom Hanks is a liberal, big time. Seeing the world through the atheistic eyes of a "retard", with sermonizing about civil rights, was a liberal distortion and fantasy. I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith. As I recall from the first half, Gump's perspective was without any genuine expression of faith.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't like Tom Hanks. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::: You're right, Andy - most of the dense folk I know (mostly from school) would fit in perfectly with the norm here at CP. I would strongly suggest that you see SPR, though - if you can see past whatever trappings of liberalism there may be (though I may have just not have noticed them), it's a wonderfully epic war novel, brilliantly done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Save me the trouble, Hoji, by telling me how much [[faith]] is highlighted in the movie. Less than zero?

:::: Just as [[liberals]] don't understand mentally disabled people, [[liberals]] don't understand soldiers either. At least [[Kurt Vonnegut]] did, and he observed that there are no atheists in foxholes. I doubt Tom Hanks (who is about as far from a real soldier as you can find) understands that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The KV bit is a misrepresentation and an example of quote mining. See the talk page of his article for why -- in short you're taking a quote from a ''character'' in a work of fiction, Slaughterhouse Five, out of context. His last novel "Time Quake," does contain some "Christian friendly" passages where Vonnegut indicates that he does not question the faith of individuals because it would be "impolite." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Like ''any'' movie producer, liberal or conservative, can understand soldiers? That sounds like a fairy tale. And I would hate my movie viewing to be so... politicized, as yours is, Andy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Hoji, I'm not the one who politicized Hollywood. Movies convey messages, and those messages often have a political spin. It's fair to ask how much [[faith]] is highlighted in a movie about war. Given the [[liberals]] who did Saving Private Ryan, I would guess the answer is zero. Am I right? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I can't recall the characters name, but Barry Pepper plays an American sniper who frequently prays before and during combat. There are also chaplain's on the beach in the beginning of the movie praying with the wounded and dying. There might be other aspects, this is just what I recall off the top of my head. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::There are instances of faith in SPR, as noted by Colest above. I would also point out that family is also highlighted. First in the deaths of Pvt. Ryan's brothers and the emphasis on getting him out of harm's way. Hank's character talks about family and trying to remember home, and the GI's want to win the war so they can go home. I find it strange that one would say Hanks (or any other actor) is "as far from a real soldier as you can find." Of course they are. It is after all, called "acting." I really think only people with a military background understand soldiers or Marines. As for Hanks being liberal, so what? He is an actor, he goes by the script he is given. By the way, it seems the army was pleased with Hanks' portrayal of a Ranger [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-29-hanks-ranger_x.htm], and the DOD honored Spielberg [http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/spielberg_update_811.html]. I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/154854.stm]. Not bad for a pair of liberals, eh? Of course, this thread has been very instructive. I learned that persons with "low IQs" tend to be religious. Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Eddiec, let me guess, you're a liberal too. Gee, how could I tell? Maybe your mockery of the mentally disabled was the clincher. Liberals like to act smarter than others, with little justification for it.

:::::::::: Based on the discussion above, it appears that the Saving Private Ryan hero (Hanks) never conveys the --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)faith of the person he portrays. So my expectation was correct. [[Faith]] is relegated to a little window-dressing, something to give the movie an appearance of depth, but not fit for the hero himself.

:::::::::: Did Hanks and Spielberg, two liberals probably lacking in any experience with the military or genuine interest in it, convey the soldiers' true feelings and attitudes? Not in the clip I saw from the movie. Instead, they conveyed a mostly purposeless, atheistic view of war, with overemphasis on the casualties. It's a liberal message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I never said you politicized Hollywood, Andy. I said I would hate to have ''my'' viewing so politically inspired. I've seen most of the movies on that list, and loved them. Perhaps it's because I didn't actively search for political allegory, but tried to enjoy the message. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:02, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Hoji, I'm glad you liked the movies. But there's nothing wrong with examining their message. I love Haagen-Daz ice cream. But I didn't object when someone told me that it is twice as fatty as Breyer's ice cream. We welcome information about the content of the food we eat. Why the resistance to analyzing the content of the films we view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Did you really just bastardize this "conversation" with an ice-cream metaphor? Seriously? --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Purely by coincidence, I just noticed an [[FCC]] decision discussing how "Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences." 20 FCC Rcd 4507. That isn't why I objected to it, but I'm not surprised given the [[liberals]] who made the movie. It's a bit like learning that alcohol consumption is harmful to more than just one's liver. This is hardly a surprise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm quoting someone else here, adding my emphasis, but the words convey my thoughts better and more concisely than if I attempted to write it myself:
;"What is a conservative film?

Let’s start with what it isn’t. It’s not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It’s not cartoonish action heroes. It isn’t revenge tales masquerading as heroism.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It '''instructs and inspires.'''

Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – '''faith, family and freedom.'''" [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20714]

While its easy enough to decide what a conservative movie ''should'' be, it is far more difficult to find a movie that meets these requirements, particularly in the last 20 years: big budgets = dumbing down to mass market appeal. I would probably add to the list "Cinderella Man", [http://www.filmsite.org/schi.html "Schindler's List"], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979892,00.html "Shadowlands"], "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier ''or'' Branagh) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting, Fox. Thanks. But I would question your selection at the end. "12 Angry Men", for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I would not call it conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::For me, "12 Angry Men" met the criteria of being "instructive" - in the nature of men and their motivations, and it was also "inspirational" in that it showed that through reasoned debate and persistence, the right outcome could be achieved. For the other qualities in the definition I posted, it does portray "honesty" - even when that is only the acceptance of one's own faults and failings: although we never learn of Fonda's faults, the eleven others all have to face, and admit, their failings. "Loyalty" is demonstrated when, having changed their decisions, the majority attempt to dissuade them, quite aggressively, even attempting to turn them against each other, but they rally to Fonda's central flag and support each other. "Courage", particularly for the first couple of dissenters, in the face of the hostility from the rest of the jury, to stand by their convictions. "Patriotism" because of the sense of "duty" and the promotion of the idea that acting as public servants in that way should be considered an honorable and serious business. Just my 2 cents :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen both versions of "[[12 Angry men]]". What I liked about them both (especially the [[Henry Fonda]] version was the relentless pursuit of principle by the holdout juror. He exalts the legal principle of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]" and provides a concrete example of what "[[reasonable doubt]]" means.

:::If you are ever accused falsely of a crime, you'll wish for a jury composed of men like the Henry Fonda character. But the real question is whether protection of "rights" is essentially a conservative value. in the case of suspected terrorists, I would say not. Liberals are far more concerned with a few cases of [[coercive interrogation]] by the CIA or "frat pranks" by poorly trained National Guardswomen. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I've only seen the 1957 Lumet/Fonda movie, although I'd like to see the '97 Jack Lemmon version, purely for comparison. It looks to have some very good character-actors; although I think that many of the earlier versions of modern remakes are superior simply by virtue of the technological limitations of the day forcing better directing, acting and cinematography. Incidentally, I just noticed that the 1942 book "The Robe" is now on [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400561h.html Project Gutenberg]; I haven't read it, so I shall be doing that this weekend while most everyone else reads the new Harry Potter :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Sen. Tom Coburn objected to Schindler's List for content, incidentally, which is on our list. He was attacked vociferously for doing so, and ended up retracting his statement. It is a fairly graphic R rated movie. My question is, how much are we considering that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your silly sarcasm aside, [[liberals]] do have a love for airing profanity, and in objecting even to its removal from general broadcast. Spielberg seemed to enjoy inserting dirty words into unexpected places in children's movies, such as E.T. Saving Private Ryan was filled with one four-letter-word after another. Maybe you can explain that obsession better than I can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: In the case of SPR, I think he was using realistic language that soldiers use. The same goes for the violence of the movie, he wasn't trying to pull any punches and shield the audience from the grotesque realities of a war zone. I don't think that constitutes an obsession. I was actually shocked by the decision (I can't recall the network) to air it uncensored, and would hope that responsible parents would not allow their children to have watched it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: ABC aired the movie uncut, with constant profanity from beginning to end. While the profanity may be realistic, where is the other realism, such as the hero attending church, packing a Bible, discussing his faith, and praying? That realism was omitted. So one can't justify by the movie's slant simply by saying it is realistic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm staying out of the SPR debate, but for anyone interested I would like to suggest [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373283/ Saints and Soldiers] as a WWII movie that is definitely faith-promoting. It has a similar feel to SPR (small group of soldiers behind enemy lines on a mission), but it's only rated PG-13, which keeps things fairly tame (although it is still a war movie, so I certainly wouldn't watch it with children). One of the main characters is very religious (rumored to be Mormon, but the movie doesn't say that explicitly or push it in your face), and his faith is obvious throughout the movie. The movie itself is largely about forgiveness, both of oneself and of others. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:24, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent comments Fox, which is why I purposely refrained from adding movies like ''Rambo'' and the like to the list. Conservatism is not about shooting the bad guys, masculine action movies, nor even about political party affiliation. Instead, conservatism is a set of values: values which uphold and celebrate tradition, instead of attacking it; look to the tried and true from the past as a source of values to be emulated, even if they aren't currently fashionable; and emphasizing the importance and centrality of culture, instead of pretending culture is a "social construct" or something to be attacked. The opposite of conservatism is cultural nihilism, which these days takes such forms as political correctness, postmodernism, radical feminism, and multiculturalism. Since the 1970s, economic based attacks on Western society like Marxism-Leninism have all but given way to a nihilistic, postmodernist, culture based attack on traditional values. A good conservative film is not just a superficial good guys-vs-bad guys movie, but stirs the soul in a way that leads the viewer to want to recover that which has been lost and defend traditional culture, and is refreshing to watch because of the way it upholds these values instead of attacking or poking fun at them. ''Red Dawn'' and Mel Gibson's ''The Patriot'' are two of the best I have seen in this regard. As for ''Forrest Gump'' -- I like that movie but am not sure it qualifies as conservative, liberal, or anything else. I know Pat Buchanan praised it when it came out as a conservative film. But I don't really see it. Seems a values-neutral portrayal of the changes that took place during the 60s and 70s and doesn't particularly take a stand one way or the other, not least taking a stand that those changes were, on the whole, a bad thing. So I wouldn't list it as a conservative movie. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:45, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

''Forrest Gump'' is a vile film: anti-intellectual and jingoistic. Any character who displays the least trace of independent thought, or dares question the American dream, winds up crushed and miserable. Ignorance as virtue, and I've rarely seen such an airbrushed Vietnam. If you're really looking for something that "stirs the soul," I suggest you all watch ''Seven Samurai'' till your eyes bleed. [[User:PBRStreetgang|PBRStreetgang]] 18:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't know about the jingoism criticism. But the anti-intellectual criticism is right on target. It reminds me of all the anti-intellectual user ids on Wikipedia. Dumbing down should not be funny or entertaining, at least not to people who should know better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Comment: Independent thought does not conflict with conservatism at all, especially not in today's era of enforced conformity to political correctness. Nor, for that matter, does questioning the "American dream", to the extent that the "American dream" is rooted in dumbed-down mass entertainment and globalized consumerism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Forrest Gump, according to the [http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Forrest-Gump.html script], Gump made reference to his religious beliefs a number of times. Some quotes: "I couldn't tell where heavens stopped and the earth began. It was so beautiful." | "Her Momma had gone up to heaven when she was five and her daddy was some kind of a farmer." | "I'm going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan." | "So I went to church every Sunday...". The movie even features Lt. Dan's struggle with his own faith, including a scene where he challenges God to destroy the boat that him and Gump are on. Dan eventually recovered from that dark period in his life, and it is suggested that it was faith that guided him (see scene with Dan in church). Gump also made a large donation to a church. The movie features many Christian themes, such as love, faith, and sacrifice. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

: This is tricky, because Gump is an idiot. I can't tell from the quoted excerpts if the movie is mocking religion or not. Maybe I need to watch the whole movie. However, I tried that once and for reasons already explained (including its anti-intellectualism and liberal sermonizing) I found something better do after watching the first half-hour or so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is worth watching again. I don't think they were mocking religion (although some scenes were certainly light-hearted or attempts at humour). Gump had the mind of a child, and he had the trust and faith of a child - he trusted his mother and was guided by her advice throughout his life, he had faith that his mother was in heaven, and he had faith that there was a God who was watching over and guiding him. He made mistakes along the way, but then we all do. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
I more or less agree with Andy here. Forrest does take his faith seriously and it does guide him. However, since the rest of the movies portrays him as being naive and stupid (there is one scene where he gives the cold shoulder to a prostitute, but it's actually because he's too stupid to realize what a prostitute is), so it's not necessarily a positive portray of faith. My final verdict: Interesting movie, not conservative at all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:32, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:Was he too stupid, or too naive? They aren't the same thing. I think it would be a great thing if none of us had to know what a prostitute is. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Gump is mentally retarded. You know that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:38, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:He was retarded, but he was certainly capable of understanding that a prostitute has sex for money. My point was that up until that point, Gump had lived a life that didn't involve meeting prostitutes or talking about prostitutes. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:44, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Home Alone ==

DanH, I don't think this movie is conservative at all. The kid was abandoned by his parents, they were not imprisoned for a cut-and-dry case of child neglect, and the movie taught children that hitting people over the head with shovles is an effective problem-solving mechanism. This movie has got to be removed. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:12, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives traditionally believe in the right to defend themselves, as per the Second Amendment. Also, although what the parents did were horrible, they did everything they could to reverse it and the virtue of forgiveness shines through. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:They abandoned their child. A pre-teen stuck at home while his parents were overseas for an extended period of time, and there was no indication that the state even waged an investigation into the incident. That's a clear case of neglect by the parents, and a clear instance of ineffective police work.

:Your self-defense claim falls for a couple reasons. First, to get technical, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense, it instead provides a cryptic message concerning militias. Second, it was the old guy that hit the folk with a shovel, and he was in no immediate harm by the victims. Self-defense does not apply. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The above comments by "LiteratiChamp" are not to be taken seriously. I've blocked this contributor for a week for his other postings for reasons explained in the block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't remove this without talking on here; as Mr. Schlafly stated, LiteratiChamp isn't to be taken seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm to be taken seriously, and I raise all the arguments LiteratiChamp has. There, you lose again. --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:35, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

So I lose just because you argue against me? That's brilliant debate tactics right there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:37, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:Don't pretend to be stupid. You lost the argument before, and if you are serious to demand that we re-raise the issue instead of deal with what has already been laid out, you will lose again. Your movie supports child-abuse and unnecessary violence. Quit being a vandal. --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:40, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Just because it notes the presence of child abuse doesn't mean it supports it. It doesn't condone child abuse! Oh, and I'm not a vandal. I've been contributing on this site for several months, almost from the beginning. And what have you contributed? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

==World Trade Center==

I don't think we should say it's unbiased. Oliver Stone is not unbiased. In fact, every point of view is biased in one way or another. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-07-23T01:36:17Z

Borofkin2: /* Forrest Gump */

I'm just curious how $139m [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business] can be considered "low-budget". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 15:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: $139M in production costs is pocket change these days, Hoji!

: I think Spider-Man is in the top 5, and maybe the top 2, in profitability. It's #7 in domestic revenue, having a much lower production cost than other top movies. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm... out of curiosity, I went and looked at the budgets of some recently-made major motion pictures. ''Transformers'' had a budget of $147m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business]. ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'' (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/business]. ''Ocean's Twelve'' had a budget of $110m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/business]. The latest Bond movie (''Casino Royale'') had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/business]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like ''Sicko'' (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business], or ''Crash'' (which is easily the ''best'' movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==FarenHYPE==

This is about the "greatest" conservative movies, not a list of all conservative movies. I've never heard about that movie before seeing it on this list, and I would hate to think that Michael Moore can cause the production of anything great. As such, I'm removing the movie from this list. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with LiteratiChamp. The film is a response to Michael Moore's Farenhiet 911. One of the measures of a good (in my opinion) is staying power. Moore's film was a political piece that may have spoke to some people in the 2004 election year. Twenty years from now, even ten, it will be little more than a curiousity, and so will Farenhype. At best, they may be remembered as the pioneers of a new film genre, the political screed, but I hope not.--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Forrest Gump ==

National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring [[liberal]] Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:But it's a ''great'' movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:I won't pretend for a second that it's conservative, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm glad you liked it, Hoji, and I admit that I couldn't bear watching it to the end. It was a huge popular hit. But what I did see ''was'' very [[liberal]], almost like a liberal fantasy tale. So much sermonizing about civil rights by ... a white man???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::What do you think about Saving Private Ryan? I was going to add it to the list with the caption "The actions our military will take to save an imperiled comrade". Maybe without the word "comrade", since it's inherently un-conservative sounding.
::And as for Forrest... he's a retard! (proud of my un-PC statement!) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also. The quotes and clips I saw from it had the trappings of liberalism: faithless with a kind of dumbed-down "that's all there is to life" approach. Woe is me and my brothers will be my salvation. "At death there's nothing more" is the message, expect (if you're lucky) some spirit of brotherhood.

::: Tom Hanks is a liberal, big time. Seeing the world through the atheistic eyes of a "retard", with sermonizing about civil rights, was a liberal distortion and fantasy. I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith. As I recall from the first half, Gump's perspective was without any genuine expression of faith.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't like Tom Hanks. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::: You're right, Andy - most of the dense folk I know (mostly from school) would fit in perfectly with the norm here at CP. I would strongly suggest that you see SPR, though - if you can see past whatever trappings of liberalism there may be (though I may have just not have noticed them), it's a wonderfully epic war novel, brilliantly done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Save me the trouble, Hoji, by telling me how much [[faith]] is highlighted in the movie. Less than zero?

:::: Just as [[liberals]] don't understand mentally disabled people, [[liberals]] don't understand soldiers either. At least [[Kurt Vonnegut]] did, and he observed that there are no atheists in foxholes. I doubt Tom Hanks (who is about as far from a real soldier as you can find) understands that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The KV bit is a misrepresentation and an example of quote mining. See the talk page of his article for why -- in short you're taking a quote from a ''character'' in a work of fiction, Slaughterhouse Five, out of context. His last novel "Time Quake," does contain some "Christian friendly" passages where Vonnegut indicates that he does not question the faith of individuals because it would be "impolite." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Like ''any'' movie producer, liberal or conservative, can understand soldiers? That sounds like a fairy tale. And I would hate my movie viewing to be so... politicized, as yours is, Andy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Hoji, I'm not the one who politicized Hollywood. Movies convey messages, and those messages often have a political spin. It's fair to ask how much [[faith]] is highlighted in a movie about war. Given the [[liberals]] who did Saving Private Ryan, I would guess the answer is zero. Am I right? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I can't recall the characters name, but Barry Pepper plays an American sniper who frequently prays before and during combat. There are also chaplain's on the beach in the beginning of the movie praying with the wounded and dying. There might be other aspects, this is just what I recall off the top of my head. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::There are instances of faith in SPR, as noted by Colest above. I would also point out that family is also highlighted. First in the deaths of Pvt. Ryan's brothers and the emphasis on getting him out of harm's way. Hank's character talks about family and trying to remember home, and the GI's want to win the war so they can go home. I find it strange that one would say Hanks (or any other actor) is "as far from a real soldier as you can find." Of course they are. It is after all, called "acting." I really think only people with a military background understand soldiers or Marines. As for Hanks being liberal, so what? He is an actor, he goes by the script he is given. By the way, it seems the army was pleased with Hanks' portrayal of a Ranger [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-29-hanks-ranger_x.htm], and the DOD honored Spielberg [http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/spielberg_update_811.html]. I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/154854.stm]. Not bad for a pair of liberals, eh? Of course, this thread has been very instructive. I learned that persons with "low IQs" tend to be religious. Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Eddiec, let me guess, you're a liberal too. Gee, how could I tell? Maybe your mockery of the mentally disabled was the clincher. Liberals like to act smarter than others, with little justification for it.

:::::::::: Based on the discussion above, it appears that the Saving Private Ryan hero (Hanks) never conveys the --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)faith of the person he portrays. So my expectation was correct. [[Faith]] is relegated to a little window-dressing, something to give the movie an appearance of depth, but not fit for the hero himself.

:::::::::: Did Hanks and Spielberg, two liberals probably lacking in any experience with the military or genuine interest in it, convey the soldiers' true feelings and attitudes? Not in the clip I saw from the movie. Instead, they conveyed a mostly purposeless, atheistic view of war, with overemphasis on the casualties. It's a liberal message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I never said you politicized Hollywood, Andy. I said I would hate to have ''my'' viewing so politically inspired. I've seen most of the movies on that list, and loved them. Perhaps it's because I didn't actively search for political allegory, but tried to enjoy the message. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:02, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Hoji, I'm glad you liked the movies. But there's nothing wrong with examining their message. I love Haagen-Daz ice cream. But I didn't object when someone told me that it is twice as fatty as Breyer's ice cream. We welcome information about the content of the food we eat. Why the resistance to analyzing the content of the films we view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Did you really just bastardize this "conversation" with an ice-cream metaphor? Seriously? --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Purely by coincidence, I just noticed an [[FCC]] decision discussing how "Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences." 20 FCC Rcd 4507. That isn't why I objected to it, but I'm not surprised given the [[liberals]] who made the movie. It's a bit like learning that alcohol consumption is harmful to more than just one's liver. This is hardly a surprise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm quoting someone else here, adding my emphasis, but the words convey my thoughts better and more concisely than if I attempted to write it myself:
;"What is a conservative film?

Let’s start with what it isn’t. It’s not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It’s not cartoonish action heroes. It isn’t revenge tales masquerading as heroism.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It '''instructs and inspires.'''

Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – '''faith, family and freedom.'''" [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20714]

While its easy enough to decide what a conservative movie ''should'' be, it is far more difficult to find a movie that meets these requirements, particularly in the last 20 years: big budgets = dumbing down to mass market appeal. I would probably add to the list "Cinderella Man", [http://www.filmsite.org/schi.html "Schindler's List"], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979892,00.html "Shadowlands"], "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier ''or'' Branagh) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting, Fox. Thanks. But I would question your selection at the end. "12 Angry Men", for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I would not call it conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::For me, "12 Angry Men" met the criteria of being "instructive" - in the nature of men and their motivations, and it was also "inspirational" in that it showed that through reasoned debate and persistence, the right outcome could be achieved. For the other qualities in the definition I posted, it does portray "honesty" - even when that is only the acceptance of one's own faults and failings: although we never learn of Fonda's faults, the eleven others all have to face, and admit, their failings. "Loyalty" is demonstrated when, having changed their decisions, the majority attempt to dissuade them, quite aggressively, even attempting to turn them against each other, but they rally to Fonda's central flag and support each other. "Courage", particularly for the first couple of dissenters, in the face of the hostility from the rest of the jury, to stand by their convictions. "Patriotism" because of the sense of "duty" and the promotion of the idea that acting as public servants in that way should be considered an honorable and serious business. Just my 2 cents :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen both versions of "[[12 Angry men]]". What I liked about them both (especially the [[Henry Fonda]] version was the relentless pursuit of principle by the holdout juror. He exalts the legal principle of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]" and provides a concrete example of what "[[reasonable doubt]]" means.

:::If you are ever accused falsely of a crime, you'll wish for a jury composed of men like the Henry Fonda character. But the real question is whether protection of "rights" is essentially a conservative value. in the case of suspected terrorists, I would say not. Liberals are far more concerned with a few cases of [[coercive interrogation]] by the CIA or "frat pranks" by poorly trained National Guardswomen. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I've only seen the 1957 Lumet/Fonda movie, although I'd like to see the '97 Jack Lemmon version, purely for comparison. It looks to have some very good character-actors; although I think that many of the earlier versions of modern remakes are superior simply by virtue of the technological limitations of the day forcing better directing, acting and cinematography. Incidentally, I just noticed that the 1942 book "The Robe" is now on [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400561h.html Project Gutenberg]; I haven't read it, so I shall be doing that this weekend while most everyone else reads the new Harry Potter :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Sen. Tom Coburn objected to Schindler's List for content, incidentally, which is on our list. He was attacked vociferously for doing so, and ended up retracting his statement. It is a fairly graphic R rated movie. My question is, how much are we considering that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your silly sarcasm aside, [[liberals]] do have a love for airing profanity, and in objecting even to its removal from general broadcast. Spielberg seemed to enjoy inserting dirty words into unexpected places in children's movies, such as E.T. Saving Private Ryan was filled with one four-letter-word after another. Maybe you can explain that obsession better than I can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: In the case of SPR, I think he was using realistic language that soldiers use. The same goes for the violence of the movie, he wasn't trying to pull any punches and shield the audience from the grotesque realities of a war zone. I don't think that constitutes an obsession. I was actually shocked by the decision (I can't recall the network) to air it uncensored, and would hope that responsible parents would not allow their children to have watched it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: ABC aired the movie uncut, with constant profanity from beginning to end. While the profanity may be realistic, where is the other realism, such as the hero attending church, packing a Bible, discussing his faith, and praying? That realism was omitted. So one can't justify by the movie's slant simply by saying it is realistic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm staying out of the SPR debate, but for anyone interested I would like to suggest [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373283/ Saints and Soldiers] as a WWII movie that is definitely faith-promoting. It has a similar feel to SPR (small group of soldiers behind enemy lines on a mission), but it's only rated PG-13, which keeps things fairly tame (although it is still a war movie, so I certainly wouldn't watch it with children). One of the main characters is very religious (rumored to be Mormon, but the movie doesn't say that explicitly or push it in your face), and his faith is obvious throughout the movie. The movie itself is largely about forgiveness, both of oneself and of others. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:24, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent comments Fox, which is why I purposely refrained from adding movies like ''Rambo'' and the like to the list. Conservatism is not about shooting the bad guys, masculine action movies, nor even about political party affiliation. Instead, conservatism is a set of values: values which uphold and celebrate tradition, instead of attacking it; look to the tried and true from the past as a source of values to be emulated, even if they aren't currently fashionable; and emphasizing the importance and centrality of culture, instead of pretending culture is a "social construct" or something to be attacked. The opposite of conservatism is cultural nihilism, which these days takes such forms as political correctness, postmodernism, radical feminism, and multiculturalism. Since the 1970s, economic based attacks on Western society like Marxism-Leninism have all but given way to a nihilistic, postmodernist, culture based attack on traditional values. A good conservative film is not just a superficial good guys-vs-bad guys movie, but stirs the soul in a way that leads the viewer to want to recover that which has been lost and defend traditional culture, and is refreshing to watch because of the way it upholds these values instead of attacking or poking fun at them. ''Red Dawn'' and Mel Gibson's ''The Patriot'' are two of the best I have seen in this regard. As for ''Forrest Gump'' -- I like that movie but am not sure it qualifies as conservative, liberal, or anything else. I know Pat Buchanan praised it when it came out as a conservative film. But I don't really see it. Seems a values-neutral portrayal of the changes that took place during the 60s and 70s and doesn't particularly take a stand one way or the other, not least taking a stand that those changes were, on the whole, a bad thing. So I wouldn't list it as a conservative movie. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:45, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

''Forrest Gump'' is a vile film: anti-intellectual and jingoistic. Any character who displays the least trace of independent thought, or dares question the American dream, winds up crushed and miserable. Ignorance as virtue, and I've rarely seen such an airbrushed Vietnam. If you're really looking for something that "stirs the soul," I suggest you all watch ''Seven Samurai'' till your eyes bleed. [[User:PBRStreetgang|PBRStreetgang]] 18:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't know about the jingoism criticism. But the anti-intellectual criticism is right on target. It reminds me of all the anti-intellectual user ids on Wikipedia. Dumbing down should not be funny or entertaining, at least not to people who should know better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Comment: Independent thought does not conflict with conservatism at all, especially not in today's era of enforced conformity to political correctness. Nor, for that matter, does questioning the "American dream", to the extent that the "American dream" is rooted in dumbed-down mass entertainment and globalized consumerism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Forrest Gump, according to the [http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Forrest-Gump.html script], Gump made reference to his religious beliefs a number of times. Some quotes: "I couldn't tell where heavens stopped and the earth began. It was so beautiful." | "Her Momma had gone up to heaven when she was five and her daddy was some kind of a farmer." | "I'm going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan." | "So I went to church every Sunday...". The movie even features Lt. Dan's struggle with his own faith, including a scene where he challenges God to destroy the boat that him and Gump are on. Dan eventually recovered from that dark period in his life, and it is suggested that it was faith that guided him (see scene with Dan in church). Gump also made a large donation to a church. The movie features many Christian themes, such as love, faith, and sacrifice. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

: This is tricky, because Gump is an idiot. I can't tell from the quoted excerpts if the movie is mocking religion or not. Maybe I need to watch the whole movie. However, I tried that once and for reasons already explained (including its anti-intellectualism and liberal sermonizing) I found something better do after watching the first half-hour or so. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:28, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I think it is worth watching again. I don't think they were mocking religion (although some scenes were certainly light-hearted or attempts at humour). Gump had the mind of a child, and he had the trust and faith of a child - he trusted his mother and was guided by her advice throughout his life, he had faith that his mother was in heaven, and he had faith that there was a God who was watching over and guiding him. He made mistakes along the way, but then we all do. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
I more or less agree with Andy here. Forrest does take his faith seriously and it does guide him. However, since the rest of the movies portrays him as being naive and stupid (there is one scene where he gives the cold shoulder to a prostitute, but it's actually because he's too stupid to realize what a prostitute is), so it's not necessarily a positive portray of faith. My final verdict: Interesting movie, not conservative at all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:32, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
:Was he too stupid, or too naive? They aren't the same thing. I think it would be a great thing if none of us had to know what a prostitute is. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:36, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Home Alone ==

DanH, I don't think this movie is conservative at all. The kid was abandoned by his parents, they were not imprisoned for a cut-and-dry case of child neglect, and the movie taught children that hitting people over the head with shovles is an effective problem-solving mechanism. This movie has got to be removed. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:12, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives traditionally believe in the right to defend themselves, as per the Second Amendment. Also, although what the parents did were horrible, they did everything they could to reverse it and the virtue of forgiveness shines through. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:They abandoned their child. A pre-teen stuck at home while his parents were overseas for an extended period of time, and there was no indication that the state even waged an investigation into the incident. That's a clear case of neglect by the parents, and a clear instance of ineffective police work.

:Your self-defense claim falls for a couple reasons. First, to get technical, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense, it instead provides a cryptic message concerning militias. Second, it was the old guy that hit the folk with a shovel, and he was in no immediate harm by the victims. Self-defense does not apply. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The above comments by "LiteratiChamp" are not to be taken seriously. I've blocked this contributor for a week for his other postings for reasons explained in the block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Don't remove this without talking on here; as Mr. Schlafly stated, LiteratiChamp isn't to be taken seriously. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:I'm to be taken seriously, and I raise all the arguments LiteratiChamp has. There, you lose again. --[[User:AlecEmpire|AlecEmpire]] 21:35, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

==World Trade Center==

I don't think we should say it's unbiased. Oliver Stone is not unbiased. In fact, every point of view is biased in one way or another. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2007-07-23T01:09:16Z

Borofkin2: /* Forrest Gump */ Gump and religion

I'm just curious how $139m [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145487/business] can be considered "low-budget". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 15:41, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

: $139M in production costs is pocket change these days, Hoji!

: I think Spider-Man is in the top 5, and maybe the top 2, in profitability. It's #7 in domestic revenue, having a much lower production cost than other top movies. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:20, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm... out of curiosity, I went and looked at the budgets of some recently-made major motion pictures. ''Transformers'' had a budget of $147m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418279/business]. ''Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix'' (which is a great movie, by the way) had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373889/business]. ''Ocean's Twelve'' had a budget of $110m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349903/business]. The latest Bond movie (''Casino Royale'') had a budget of $150m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/business]. A movie I would consider "Low-budget" is something like ''Sicko'' (not to be partisan or anything), which had a budget of just $9m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0386032/business], or ''Crash'' (which is easily the ''best'' movie I have ever seen), which had a budget of only $6.5m[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0375679/business]. I just find it a bit odd to call a budget of over $100m a "low-budget" movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:03, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==FarenHYPE==

This is about the "greatest" conservative movies, not a list of all conservative movies. I've never heard about that movie before seeing it on this list, and I would hate to think that Michael Moore can cause the production of anything great. As such, I'm removing the movie from this list. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:47, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

If you've never seen it, how can you make a judgment about how good it is? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:50, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with LiteratiChamp. The film is a response to Michael Moore's Farenhiet 911. One of the measures of a good (in my opinion) is staying power. Moore's film was a political piece that may have spoke to some people in the 2004 election year. Twenty years from now, even ten, it will be little more than a curiousity, and so will Farenhype. At best, they may be remembered as the pioneers of a new film genre, the political screed, but I hope not.--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Forrest Gump ==

National Review is clueless. Forrest Gump, featuring [[liberal]] Tom Hanks, is liberal claptrap.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
:But it's a ''great'' movie. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:I won't pretend for a second that it's conservative, but it's one of my favorite movies of all time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: I'm glad you liked it, Hoji, and I admit that I couldn't bear watching it to the end. It was a huge popular hit. But what I did see ''was'' very [[liberal]], almost like a liberal fantasy tale. So much sermonizing about civil rights by ... a white man???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:09, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::What do you think about Saving Private Ryan? I was going to add it to the list with the caption "The actions our military will take to save an imperiled comrade". Maybe without the word "comrade", since it's inherently un-conservative sounding.
::And as for Forrest... he's a retard! (proud of my un-PC statement!) --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: I didn't see Saving Private Ryan, but I suspect that is liberal also. The quotes and clips I saw from it had the trappings of liberalism: faithless with a kind of dumbed-down "that's all there is to life" approach. Woe is me and my brothers will be my salvation. "At death there's nothing more" is the message, expect (if you're lucky) some spirit of brotherhood.

::: Tom Hanks is a liberal, big time. Seeing the world through the atheistic eyes of a "retard", with sermonizing about civil rights, was a liberal distortion and fantasy. I'm sure we all know people of low IQs, and they don't think and act like Forrest Gump. For starters, often they have strong religious faith. As I recall from the first half, Gump's perspective was without any genuine expression of faith.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:34, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't like Tom Hanks. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
::::: You're right, Andy - most of the dense folk I know (mostly from school) would fit in perfectly with the norm here at CP. I would strongly suggest that you see SPR, though - if you can see past whatever trappings of liberalism there may be (though I may have just not have noticed them), it's a wonderfully epic war novel, brilliantly done. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Save me the trouble, Hoji, by telling me how much [[faith]] is highlighted in the movie. Less than zero?

:::: Just as [[liberals]] don't understand mentally disabled people, [[liberals]] don't understand soldiers either. At least [[Kurt Vonnegut]] did, and he observed that there are no atheists in foxholes. I doubt Tom Hanks (who is about as far from a real soldier as you can find) understands that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::: The KV bit is a misrepresentation and an example of quote mining. See the talk page of his article for why -- in short you're taking a quote from a ''character'' in a work of fiction, Slaughterhouse Five, out of context. His last novel "Time Quake," does contain some "Christian friendly" passages where Vonnegut indicates that he does not question the faith of individuals because it would be "impolite." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 11:41, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::: Like ''any'' movie producer, liberal or conservative, can understand soldiers? That sounds like a fairy tale. And I would hate my movie viewing to be so... politicized, as yours is, Andy. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 01:52, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Hoji, I'm not the one who politicized Hollywood. Movies convey messages, and those messages often have a political spin. It's fair to ask how much [[faith]] is highlighted in a movie about war. Given the [[liberals]] who did Saving Private Ryan, I would guess the answer is zero. Am I right? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::: I can't recall the characters name, but Barry Pepper plays an American sniper who frequently prays before and during combat. There are also chaplain's on the beach in the beginning of the movie praying with the wounded and dying. There might be other aspects, this is just what I recall off the top of my head. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 09:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::There are instances of faith in SPR, as noted by Colest above. I would also point out that family is also highlighted. First in the deaths of Pvt. Ryan's brothers and the emphasis on getting him out of harm's way. Hank's character talks about family and trying to remember home, and the GI's want to win the war so they can go home. I find it strange that one would say Hanks (or any other actor) is "as far from a real soldier as you can find." Of course they are. It is after all, called "acting." I really think only people with a military background understand soldiers or Marines. As for Hanks being liberal, so what? He is an actor, he goes by the script he is given. By the way, it seems the army was pleased with Hanks' portrayal of a Ranger [http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2006-06-29-hanks-ranger_x.htm], and the DOD honored Spielberg [http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/spielberg_update_811.html]. I should also point out that both Hanks and Spielberg contributed to the D-Day museum [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/154854.stm]. Not bad for a pair of liberals, eh? Of course, this thread has been very instructive. I learned that persons with "low IQs" tend to be religious. Why am I not surprised?--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 11:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Eddiec, let me guess, you're a liberal too. Gee, how could I tell? Maybe your mockery of the mentally disabled was the clincher. Liberals like to act smarter than others, with little justification for it.

:::::::::: Based on the discussion above, it appears that the Saving Private Ryan hero (Hanks) never conveys the --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)faith of the person he portrays. So my expectation was correct. [[Faith]] is relegated to a little window-dressing, something to give the movie an appearance of depth, but not fit for the hero himself.

:::::::::: Did Hanks and Spielberg, two liberals probably lacking in any experience with the military or genuine interest in it, convey the soldiers' true feelings and attitudes? Not in the clip I saw from the movie. Instead, they conveyed a mostly purposeless, atheistic view of war, with overemphasis on the casualties. It's a liberal message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:23, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I never said you politicized Hollywood, Andy. I said I would hate to have ''my'' viewing so politically inspired. I've seen most of the movies on that list, and loved them. Perhaps it's because I didn't actively search for political allegory, but tried to enjoy the message. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 11:02, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Hoji, I'm glad you liked the movies. But there's nothing wrong with examining their message. I love Haagen-Daz ice cream. But I didn't object when someone told me that it is twice as fatty as Breyer's ice cream. We welcome information about the content of the food we eat. Why the resistance to analyzing the content of the films we view?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::: Did you really just bastardize this "conversation" with an ice-cream metaphor? Seriously? --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:04, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Purely by coincidence, I just noticed an [[FCC]] decision discussing how "Saving Private Ryan is filled with expletives and material arguably unsuitable for some audiences." 20 FCC Rcd 4507. That isn't why I objected to it, but I'm not surprised given the [[liberals]] who made the movie. It's a bit like learning that alcohol consumption is harmful to more than just one's liver. This is hardly a surprise.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:26, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm quoting someone else here, adding my emphasis, but the words convey my thoughts better and more concisely than if I attempted to write it myself:
;"What is a conservative film?

Let’s start with what it isn’t. It’s not about men with bulging biceps and even bigger guns. It’s not cartoonish action heroes. It isn’t revenge tales masquerading as heroism.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It '''instructs and inspires.'''

Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – '''faith, family and freedom.'''" [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20714]

While its easy enough to decide what a conservative movie ''should'' be, it is far more difficult to find a movie that meets these requirements, particularly in the last 20 years: big budgets = dumbing down to mass market appeal. I would probably add to the list "Cinderella Man", [http://www.filmsite.org/schi.html "Schindler's List"], [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979892,00.html "Shadowlands"], "A Bridge Too Far", "12 Angry Men", "The Robe" and "Henry V" (Olivier ''or'' Branagh) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 05:29, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Interesting, Fox. Thanks. But I would question your selection at the end. "12 Angry Men", for example, is one of my all-time favorite movies, but I would not call it conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:28, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::For me, "12 Angry Men" met the criteria of being "instructive" - in the nature of men and their motivations, and it was also "inspirational" in that it showed that through reasoned debate and persistence, the right outcome could be achieved. For the other qualities in the definition I posted, it does portray "honesty" - even when that is only the acceptance of one's own faults and failings: although we never learn of Fonda's faults, the eleven others all have to face, and admit, their failings. "Loyalty" is demonstrated when, having changed their decisions, the majority attempt to dissuade them, quite aggressively, even attempting to turn them against each other, but they rally to Fonda's central flag and support each other. "Courage", particularly for the first couple of dissenters, in the face of the hostility from the rest of the jury, to stand by their convictions. "Patriotism" because of the sense of "duty" and the promotion of the idea that acting as public servants in that way should be considered an honorable and serious business. Just my 2 cents :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:47, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I've seen both versions of "[[12 Angry men]]". What I liked about them both (especially the [[Henry Fonda]] version was the relentless pursuit of principle by the holdout juror. He exalts the legal principle of "[[innocent until proven guilty]]" and provides a concrete example of what "[[reasonable doubt]]" means.

:::If you are ever accused falsely of a crime, you'll wish for a jury composed of men like the Henry Fonda character. But the real question is whether protection of "rights" is essentially a conservative value. in the case of suspected terrorists, I would say not. Liberals are far more concerned with a few cases of [[coercive interrogation]] by the CIA or "frat pranks" by poorly trained National Guardswomen. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:49, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I've only seen the 1957 Lumet/Fonda movie, although I'd like to see the '97 Jack Lemmon version, purely for comparison. It looks to have some very good character-actors; although I think that many of the earlier versions of modern remakes are superior simply by virtue of the technological limitations of the day forcing better directing, acting and cinematography. Incidentally, I just noticed that the 1942 book "The Robe" is now on [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks04/0400561h.html Project Gutenberg]; I haven't read it, so I shall be doing that this weekend while most everyone else reads the new Harry Potter :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 16:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Sen. Tom Coburn objected to Schindler's List for content, incidentally, which is on our list. He was attacked vociferously for doing so, and ended up retracting his statement. It is a fairly graphic R rated movie. My question is, how much are we considering that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:38, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Not suprising, since it was directed by the same liberal monster who directed Saving Private Ryan. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 16:42, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Your silly sarcasm aside, [[liberals]] do have a love for airing profanity, and in objecting even to its removal from general broadcast. Spielberg seemed to enjoy inserting dirty words into unexpected places in children's movies, such as E.T. Saving Private Ryan was filled with one four-letter-word after another. Maybe you can explain that obsession better than I can.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:01, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

::: In the case of SPR, I think he was using realistic language that soldiers use. The same goes for the violence of the movie, he wasn't trying to pull any punches and shield the audience from the grotesque realities of a war zone. I don't think that constitutes an obsession. I was actually shocked by the decision (I can't recall the network) to air it uncensored, and would hope that responsible parents would not allow their children to have watched it. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:18, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: ABC aired the movie uncut, with constant profanity from beginning to end. While the profanity may be realistic, where is the other realism, such as the hero attending church, packing a Bible, discussing his faith, and praying? That realism was omitted. So one can't justify by the movie's slant simply by saying it is realistic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:30, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm staying out of the SPR debate, but for anyone interested I would like to suggest [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373283/ Saints and Soldiers] as a WWII movie that is definitely faith-promoting. It has a similar feel to SPR (small group of soldiers behind enemy lines on a mission), but it's only rated PG-13, which keeps things fairly tame (although it is still a war movie, so I certainly wouldn't watch it with children). One of the main characters is very religious (rumored to be Mormon, but the movie doesn't say that explicitly or push it in your face), and his faith is obvious throughout the movie. The movie itself is largely about forgiveness, both of oneself and of others. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:24, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Excellent comments Fox, which is why I purposely refrained from adding movies like ''Rambo'' and the like to the list. Conservatism is not about shooting the bad guys, masculine action movies, nor even about political party affiliation. Instead, conservatism is a set of values: values which uphold and celebrate tradition, instead of attacking it; look to the tried and true from the past as a source of values to be emulated, even if they aren't currently fashionable; and emphasizing the importance and centrality of culture, instead of pretending culture is a "social construct" or something to be attacked. The opposite of conservatism is cultural nihilism, which these days takes such forms as political correctness, postmodernism, radical feminism, and multiculturalism. Since the 1970s, economic based attacks on Western society like Marxism-Leninism have all but given way to a nihilistic, postmodernist, culture based attack on traditional values. A good conservative film is not just a superficial good guys-vs-bad guys movie, but stirs the soul in a way that leads the viewer to want to recover that which has been lost and defend traditional culture, and is refreshing to watch because of the way it upholds these values instead of attacking or poking fun at them. ''Red Dawn'' and Mel Gibson's ''The Patriot'' are two of the best I have seen in this regard. As for ''Forrest Gump'' -- I like that movie but am not sure it qualifies as conservative, liberal, or anything else. I know Pat Buchanan praised it when it came out as a conservative film. But I don't really see it. Seems a values-neutral portrayal of the changes that took place during the 60s and 70s and doesn't particularly take a stand one way or the other, not least taking a stand that those changes were, on the whole, a bad thing. So I wouldn't list it as a conservative movie. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:45, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

''Forrest Gump'' is a vile film: anti-intellectual and jingoistic. Any character who displays the least trace of independent thought, or dares question the American dream, winds up crushed and miserable. Ignorance as virtue, and I've rarely seen such an airbrushed Vietnam. If you're really looking for something that "stirs the soul," I suggest you all watch ''Seven Samurai'' till your eyes bleed. [[User:PBRStreetgang|PBRStreetgang]] 18:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Don't know about the jingoism criticism. But the anti-intellectual criticism is right on target. It reminds me of all the anti-intellectual user ids on Wikipedia. Dumbing down should not be funny or entertaining, at least not to people who should know better.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:14, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

: Comment: Independent thought does not conflict with conservatism at all, especially not in today's era of enforced conformity to political correctness. Nor, for that matter, does questioning the "American dream", to the extent that the "American dream" is rooted in dumbed-down mass entertainment and globalized consumerism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 19:00, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding Forrest Gump, according to the [http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Forrest-Gump.html script], Gump made reference to his religious beliefs a number of times. Some quotes: "I couldn't tell where heavens stopped and the earth began. It was so beautiful." | "Her Momma had gone up to heaven when she was five and her daddy was some kind of a farmer." | "I'm going to heaven, Lieutenant Dan." | "So I went to church every Sunday...". The movie even features Lt. Dan's struggle with his own faith, including a scene where he challenges God to destroy the boat that him and Gump are on. Dan eventually recovered from that dark period in his life, and it is suggested that it was faith that guided him (see scene with Dan in church). Gump also made a large donation to a church. The movie features many Christian themes, such as love, faith, and sacrifice. - [[User:Borofkin2|Borofkin2]] 21:09, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Home Alone ==

DanH, I don't think this movie is conservative at all. The kid was abandoned by his parents, they were not imprisoned for a cut-and-dry case of child neglect, and the movie taught children that hitting people over the head with shovles is an effective problem-solving mechanism. This movie has got to be removed. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:12, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives traditionally believe in the right to defend themselves, as per the Second Amendment. Also, although what the parents did were horrible, they did everything they could to reverse it and the virtue of forgiveness shines through. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:13, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:They abandoned their child. A pre-teen stuck at home while his parents were overseas for an extended period of time, and there was no indication that the state even waged an investigation into the incident. That's a clear case of neglect by the parents, and a clear instance of ineffective police work.

:Your self-defense claim falls for a couple reasons. First, to get technical, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about self-defense, it instead provides a cryptic message concerning militias. Second, it was the old guy that hit the folk with a shovel, and he was in no immediate harm by the victims. Self-defense does not apply. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:16, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:: The above comments by "LiteratiChamp" are not to be taken seriously. I've blocked this contributor for a week for his other postings for reasons explained in the block.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:39, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

==World Trade Center==

I don't think we should say it's unbiased. Oliver Stone is not unbiased. In fact, every point of view is biased in one way or another. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:42, 22 July 2007 (EDT)