Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-07-03T03:32:04Z

Humble: Undo revision 484830 - I accidentally deleted a lot of comments

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Give the trouble I got in for edits on articles you seem to be focused on (such as Barack Obama), I'm not even going to think about editing your personal essays. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Why did you bother me with your question if you're not willing to follow through?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Follow through with what? It's '''your''' essay, I'm not going to try and fix it's shortcomings. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 08:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/marriage-divorce-99.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" then that says more about you than me.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Aschlafly, I reiterate my statement that the truth in your little "essay" - if any truth there be - lies higher up the funnel of abstraction, at the simple aphorism, "people should talk about long-term plans before getting married." A couple can get through anything if they truly love about each other and appreciate the sacrifices, and a couple with different values - regardless of what values those may be - will fall apart before long, but it won't be anyone's fault, except the couple's for planning poorly. Your attempt to blame the marriage on liberals is sheer polemic, and quite insultive at that.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==

I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: That says more about you, DLerner, than it does about the essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really! ==

Being a member of this site for a while (not that anyone would notice, they don't give me any extra rights cause they don't like my politics/religion), one of the things liberals get attacked for is their alleged [[Liberals and friendship|bias to people of different ideologies]], (Complete rubbish article, but I gave up arguing with Andy on the talk page once he stopped being coherent).

I've seen a lot of crazy nonsense written on this site, but this takes the cake. Why not throw in "Don't marry blacks or Jews, most of them are liberal".

*''freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)'' Right, because we all know that conservatives are never gay (Haggert, anyone) and '''never''' cheat on their wives or boyfriends...
*''fidelity in marriage and accountability'' Identical response
*''lack of hostility to faith, no censorship of prayer'' Who would '''marry''' someone that censors their beliefs? Sounds outlandish, anybody ever have their spouse "censor" them? Once again the vile lie that all liberals are anti-religion, I'll point out again that I'm probably the most religious person on this site and Andy thinks nice conservative girls shouldn't marry me because I'm a lib
*''respect for the Ten Commandments and opposition to deceit'' What, are you electing a public official? I guess conservatives lie much less then liberals. (Iraq WMD's, torture, 9/11 connection).
*''respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality'' No republicans on welfare, no siree. Liberals don't work and expect to get money from the government, eh?
*''appreciates the importance of a conservative culture in raising children'' And liberals appreciate the importance of a '''liberal''' culture to raise their children in. You see Andy, that what we call an opposing point of view, but then you oppose multiculturalism, so it's my way or the high way.
*''no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor'' Women belong in the kitchen! YAY
*''recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences'' Only conservatives do that...
*''having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking'' No such thing as a fat, smoking & drug addicted conservative ([[Rush Limbaugh|Well, except this guy]])
*''freedom from the liberal media and Hollywood values, and their misguided promotions and fads'' Conservatives don't have TV's? Where do they watch faux news?
*''a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of Liberal beliefs, Liberal denial and political correctness.'' Liberals never talk, and when they do they're never open. about it.

'''True case studies''' Convenient, facts changed, they'll be just like [[conservative parables]] you'll make them up as you go along.

Case one: Right, conservatives never break up with each other over differences.

Case two: some people are infertile, it could be Joe was sterile.

Case three: John McCain did the same thing... (Now that he's the nominee he's conservative enough for you...)

Case four: Stan is a moron and got what he deserved, ("All women were that way" true conservative way of thinking).

Case five: No such thing as a gay republican, right, Senator?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==GlenW==

GlenW, this is not like Wikipedia. We do not use {{Fact}} tags to cast doubt onto well known facts. It's well known that promiscuity and STDs go hand in hand. If you doubt this, I'm sure some simple research will enlighten you. If you feel a citation is needed, why don't you find one and thereby contribute positively to the site. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:So what you're saying is that if I demand evidence, it is my responsibility to find evidence for something else? That sounds like [[liberal dodging]] to me.....[[User:GlenW|GlenW]] 23:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Bryon's explanation is clear. Insertion of {{Fact}} tags is not a way to argue here. Your demands for evidence for something that is proven and undisputed, such as promiscuity and STDs being closely correlated with other, are silly and will be reverted. Dispute that the earth is round somewhere else, not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: "half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases" is proven and undisputed?[[User:GlenW|GlenW]] 23:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Cite added ... which you could have found as easily as I did. It took about 5 minutes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Actually, the cite does not back up the statement. It says that 40% of teenage girls who took part in a study and admitted to having sex have a sexually transmitted disease. That is not at all the same as saying half of all promiscuous people do. 40% is not 50%, admitting having had sex does not equal promiscuity, and what is true of teenage girls is not necessarily true of the overall population. Young girls are less likely to take precaution, less likely to know symptoms, and less likely to seek treatment, especially if they have to admit to their parents that they have been sexually active. Most STDs are curable, and most do not cause infertility. the story is full of speculation. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 00:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I any case, doesn't Conservapedia Commandment #1 state that "'''Everything''' you post must be true and '''verifiable'''."? Although I can agree that particular fact-tag was unnecessary, it's the original author's responsibility to find a source for the statement, not GlenW's. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 12:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Questions==

In Example 1, it never says anything about Ralph marrying the liberal woman he falls in love with, but then it goes on to talk about what a hard time he had getting an annulment. He did, at some point, marry the liberal woman, right? Because if he didn't, that would go a long ways towards explaining why he had such a difficult time with the annulment.

In Example 4, Stan is described as having poorly developed social skills, a limited circle of friends and acquaintances, and a lack of knowledge about the opposite sex. Taking all this in combination with the origins of Conservapedia, I worry that people who read this example will fall back on erroneous stereotypes and assume that Stan is a product of home-schooling. Can we include some information regarding Stan's educational background in the example, in order to head that sort of assumption off at the pass?

In Example 5, Kate starts out as a Conservative. But by the end of the example, she has an STD. Does this mean she's no longer a Conservative, since one of the benefits that Conservatives bring to the table is "freedom from sexually transmitted diseases"? If yes, it seems like a regrettably harsh and unfair outcome. Is there some means by which Kate can appeal this decision? [[User:Cua1101|Cua1101]] 14:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Less STD's? ==

I was under the impression that Abstinence only education actually leads to higher rates of STD. I was also under the impression that conservatives are more likely to only receive abstinence only sexual education.

Also, rates of teenagers having sex is fairly identical for liberals and conservatives.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/

Also, if there going to be actual evidence and sources in this article or are you just going to have 5 first hand accounts that even IF they were true, would still mean nothing? [[User:CRockefeller|CRockefeller]] 16:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - 'CRockefeller'

1. Sign your posts. 4 tildes - '~'
2. Abstinence is an '''absolute''' defence against STDs.

Learn, think, pray.

[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Rates of premarital sex is the same for liberals and conservatives. It is an absolute IF ACTUALLY APPLIED, but that's a big IF. Nine out of ten people have premarital sex.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061220/ai_n17079734

So really, conservatives have a higher chance of having STD's because they have a higher chance of not practicing safe sex. [[User:CRockefeller|CRockefeller]] 16:20, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - CRockefeller

You really are a hopeless victim of Liberal denial. True conservatives are open to teaching and education, are open to logic and reason, are open to thought being the master of impulse, are open to concepts such as honesty and purity being virtues and reasons to be proud, rather than the sniggering denigration practiced by Liberal hypocricy. Get real. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:25, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how do you account for bushing pushing Abstinence only funding for Africa?

http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr004=gq248kikf4.app2b&abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=10359&news_iv_ctrl=-1

I'd say that's more of an example of denial than anything [[User:CRockefeller|CRockefeller]] 16:30, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - '~'

== Example six ==

OK, where does the contributor get off saying that "most liberal college students" are drug users? Does he have personal experience of this? It's not my place to edit this, since it's an essay, but might I suggest the deletion of that particular phrase?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:18, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Frey, if you spent any amount of time on a college campus that has liberal students, you would quickly realize this is true.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 15:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

UC Davis liberal enough? How about UCLA? I realize this is a propaganda piece, so it gets a little more slack, but that's just a blatant lie.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:56, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

: Frey, do you seriously doubt that at least 50% of [[liberal]] students have smoked pot? Among liberal politicians, the number may be at least 50%, let alone people who never get that far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::As it happens, I do, although I'll grant that it's possible. In six years at UCLA and three years at UC Davis, I never smoked pot, nor did I ever witness the smoking of pot, nor had any of my friends (who tended to be leftist) smoked pot, to my knowledge.
::Also, someone who has smoked pot at some point in their life and "drug user," as it is used in the story, are two very different things.
::Although I do apologize for the term "blatant lie." I should have said "blatent falsehood". Didn't mean to imply intent.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Humble

2008-07-03T03:31:38Z

Humble:

== Talk: Essay: Marry a Conservative ==

Humble, what's the big idea deleting so many comments from that page? There's no need to be rude; if you don't agree with the comments, you can respond to them.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 23:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
: Huh? I didn't delete any comments. Look at my contributions. What does it seem like I deleted? --[[User:Humble|Humble]] 23:28, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
: Oh, sorry, I see now. I must have accidentally deleted all those comments. I reverted my edit. --[[User:Humble|Humble]] 23:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Humble

2008-07-03T03:28:27Z

Humble:

User:Humble/Editorials

2008-07-02T23:22:28Z

Humble: New page: == Oil drilling and Native Americans == With the current energy crisis, there has been a lot of talk about offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR, which any person with half a braincell...

== Oil drilling and Native Americans ==

With the current energy crisis, there has been a lot of talk about offshore drilling and drilling in ANWR, which
any person with half a braincell should support. But with the "blame America first" liberals rebuffing every
effort to make our country energy-independent, it's time to start looking at some alternate location in which we
could push for drilling on our own soil. I was browsing through this week's issue of Newsweek and ran into something
very interesting (yes, THAT mainstream liberal newsmagazine - but as the saying goes: "keep your friends close and
your enemies closer.") One article had a brief blurb about oil reserves in the so-called "Great Basin," which
encompasses Nevada, and much of nearby states like Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, and Idaho. So why aren't we drilling there?
The old "endangered species" environmental-wacko argument is only part of the reason. The main cause - Native American
tribes object. I find this ironic on so many levels. Aren't Native Americans all about being greedy? - and surely, oil
would bring them big profits. I guess they feel destroying their own culture with casinos is sufficient to fill their
coffers, and they can use the "protect our sacred land" excuse as a cop-out for forbidding drilling. It should be exactly
the opposite. Indian Casinos - bringers of crime, prostitution, and sin - should be banned. The Native Americans should
"live off the land" as is their own mantra. And what's in their land - oil! And plenty of it. I am guessing Congress hasn't
even bothered to try to change laws so we can drill there out of "politically correct respect" for the Native Americans.
Another reason might be that the land is technically part of some Indian reservations, so the U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction
there. False. America is one united country, and any autonomy given to the Native Americans is just a friendly gesture, which
they should not abuse, and certainly not in a manner to hurt the national interest. If this country was communist, or taken over
by terrorists, I assure you there would be no "autonomy" for the Native Americans. Plus, as I first mentioned, the Indians
would actually benefit. I am all for sharing the profits with them - especially if it would help eliminate their rogue
casinos and make this a more respectable country. So it's a win-win situation, and it boggles the mind why the option
of drilling in the Great Basin hasn't been explored more publicly.

Truth

2008-07-01T00:52:27Z

Humble: /* Opponents */

'''Truth''' is one of the fundamental building blocks of reality. One could probably say that without truth, nothing could exist. In fact, not only is truth a fundamental building block of reality, but it is also a central character trait and attribute of the one who is in control of all things, namely [[God]] himself. Jesus Christ, the second Person of the [[Trinity|triune God]], proclaimed about himself in John 14:6, "...I am the way, and the truth, and the life...". From that verse and others, we can conclude that truth is not something external to God himself, but is rather something that is inextricably joined and a part of His Being.

== Difficulties ==
When considering truth, certain difficulties arise. For example, one person might consider certain facts and values to be the truth, based on what they see and hear, but these same facts might be considered or indeed known to be [[false]] by others. Other problems include the concept of "Absolute Truth", insofar as people will naturally disagree as to what truths are absolute. [http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm]

== Truth as a Value ==
Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of "undesirable" traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.

==Opponents==
Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like "truthiness" (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.

==See also==
*[[God]]
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[Holy Spirit]]
*[[Postmodernism]]
*[[Relativism]]

==External links==
*http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm
*http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Attributes of God]]

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-07-01T00:40:51Z

Humble:

Socialism

2008-06-30T23:43:10Z

Humble: /* North Korea */

[[Image:Backrdv12n2.jpg|right|400px|thumb|The caption reads, "Long live the great undefeatable flag of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin!"]]
'''Socialism''' uses government power to redistribute wealth.
In totalitarian countries such as [[USSR]], [[China]], [[Cuba]], [[North Korea]], etc., it has caused widespread shortages of basic goods and services. These Communist countries used an "[[Iron Curtain]]" to keep their citizens from emigrating.
Although this acts as a drag on the economy, in democratic countries of the industrialized west, some socialist ideas have been put into practice with varying degrees of success.

==Controversy==
The ideology of '''Socialism''' is subject to a variety of interpretations. From a conservative perspective, socialism is an economic system whereby the means of production are seized and monopolized by the government without compensation to the builders of the [[capital]], and where investments, production, distribution, income, prices, and economic justice are administered by a government [[nomenklatura]] that regulate the transfer of money, goods (including capital goods), and services primarily through taxation and regularized and institutionalized aggressive coercion. However, the majority of socialists would reject this description. Democratic socialists advocate a system of governance based on the principles of [[solidarity]], [[equality]] and [[liberty]], viewing these principles as interconnected, with increased socio-economic equality associated with increased practical freedom to fulfill human potential. In many countries, such as the United Kingdom, socialist movements have been built on Christian and co-operative bases, embracing the notion that individuals should 'treat others as they would wish to be treated', and arguing that all individuals have a moral responsibility for the welfare of other members of their society. Socialism seeks to prioritize human welfare over other goals, such as profit and wealth accumulation by elites; it views increased redistribution of wealth as vital to securing greater freedom and happiness for the bulk of the people, and deplores the devastating effects of gross inequality on society in terms of increased crime, mental illness, unhappiness and lack of life chances.

==Key elements==

As a political ideology based on the expropriation of wealth, socialism stresses the privileges of the nomenklatura over the rights of workers and earners. Many of the most notoriously oppressive dictatorships have been socialist, such as the [[Soviet Union]] and [[National Socialist]] Germany. As an economic theory, socialism calls for redistribution of wealth, through taxation of private wealth coupled with "[[Progressivism|progressive]]" social policy or directly via [[nationalization]] and public ownership of property without compensation to owners. Wage earners suffer under Socialism, as it is hard to get paid in a system that discourages private persons from accumulating income.

Although socialist ideas such as the provision of [[unemployment benefits]], state [[pension]]s, [[universal health care]], and state control of key industries have been common throughout the developed world in the modern era, the [[United States]] has tended to reject socialism as an ideological position. In other parts of the world, such as Europe, Africa, Asia, and South and Central America, there has generally been more explicit support for socialism as a doctrine, and socialist parties have been among the most successful political forces of the last 100 years.

While socialism has often been [[atheistic]] in character, and many leading socialists (most prominently Karl Marx) have been critical of the role of religion - and conservative religion in particular - which they criticize for lending support to an unjust social order, some Socialists have been Christians, and there has been considerable interplay between Christian and Socialist ideas. [[Christian socialists]] have asserted that early Christian communities, in particular, displayed certain traits, such as the holding of possessions in common,<ref>Acts 2:44: "Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."</ref> the rejection of conventional sexual mores and gender roles,{{fact}} the provision for communal education, etc., that could be considered similar to socialism. See, for instance, Arnold Toynbee, the British historian, has responded to this,

:"the Marxian excerpt from a Christian Socialism is an experiment which is doomed to failure because it has denied itself the aid of the spiritual power which alone is capable of making Socialism a success. ….'Christianity', they say, 'is the opiate of the People'; and, in the [[Soviet Union]]… Christianity or of any other theistic religion have been debarred… from admission to membership of the All-Union Communist Party. In fact, Communism has been definitely and militantly anti-Christian.

Thus the campaign against Christianity which is to-day an integral part of the propaganda of [[Marxian Socialism]] is a challenge to the living generation of Christians …we latter-day Christians may still turn a Marxian attack upon Christianity to good account … a re-awakening of the Christian social conscience has been the one great positive practical achievement of Karl Marx" <ref>Arnold Toynbee, ''A Study of History'', Annex II to Vol. V, Part C (i) (c) 2, p. 585-586, Marxism, Socialism, and Christianity.</ref>

[[Marx, Karl|Karl Marx]] considered socialism to be a transitory stage between capitalism and communism. In his view, socialism is summed up by the expression: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." A major criticism of socialism is that it infringes individual rights in favor of the populace. In a very real sense, politics in the western world throughout the 20th century was shaped by the conflict between socialist and capitalist governmental policies.

Although socialist parties are common in Europe, the leading examples all currently embrace some free enterprise, individual property rights and certain other aspects of capitalism although leading European Socialists are very critical of America. In many European countries socialism has been changing to [[Social democracy]].

== Britain, the Labour Party and socialism ==

At its inception, the [[Labour Party]] borrowed socialist ideas by committing itself to a program of nationalization under 'Clause 4' of their Constitution, but was always fundamentally committed to the British State and the [[Westminster model]] of parliamentary government. Clause 4 was formally dropped after the election of [[Tony Blair]] as Party leader, signaling the creation of 'New' Labour.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/21/newsid_2515000/2515825.stm</ref> The British governments of 1945-1950 and 1950-1951 under [[Clement Atlee]] implemented the nationalization of several industries and utilities, including coal, steel, water, railways and electricity. The best known example is the [[nationalization of health care]] to create the [[National Health Service]] (NHS). This made - literally overnight - health care "free" at the point of delivery for everybody in Britain.

Since the election to government of the Labour Party in 1997, many "[[progressive]]" measures have been introduced, such as the Minimum Wage, Child Tax Credits, union recognition legislation, increased maternity and paternity leave, the Child Trust Fund, refurbishment of [[council housing]], free bus travel for the elderly, increased paid leave for all workers, free nursery-school places, and large cuts in unemployment.<ref>[http://www.towerhamlets.labour.co.uk/a1c1ce9b-1488-7bb4-a528-14436f084ba3]</ref> In addition, over a million children and a million pensioners have been [[lifted out of poverty]];{{fact}} however, many in the [[Labour Movement]] are extremely critical of [[New Labour]]'s tentative approach to reducing [[inequality]], and are frustrated that the government has not been more willing to make the case to the public for the [[redistribution of wealth]].

==World socialism==

US liberal politicians often echo the rhetoric of [[world socialism]]: <ref>Before Congress adjourned last week on another of its lengthy holidays, Speaker [[Nancy Pelosi]] repeated a phrase she has previously used about the war in Iraq. She again referred to it as "the Bush policy of unending war in Iraq." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2007/05/29/unending_war Cal Thomas] Tuesday, May 29, 2007 </ref>

*"Because George W. Bush [is] among the most menacing and belligerent [presidents] in American history. [He has] outlined a program of limitless and perpetual warfare, on every continent, and against any regime that stands in the way of the rapacious American ruling class.... like Hitler and the Nazis, [[American militarism]] has embarked on a campaign of world conquest and world domination... [President Bush has issued] a declaration of the unbridled appetites of the military and of the most ruthless, corrupt and criminal sections of the American ruling elite ...Like Hitler, Bush presents an upside-down view of the world in which small and weak states are mortal threats to the most powerful and heavily armed..." (World Socialist Web Site, 31 January 2002)

== Criticism of socialism ==
Socialism is often criticized by many people, including [[Bill O'Reilly]]. In his book ''''Culture Warrior'''' O'Reilly starts the book out by painting a bleak picture of what America would look like with a socialistic government. He states problems such as lawlessness, lack of morals and ethics and an overbearing politically correct "feel good" government.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=XPY4AAAACAAJ&dq=Culture+Warrior |title=Google books |accessdate=2008-02-22}}</ref>

Socialism is usually considered by most to be a weaker form of a communistic government, where a small few control and impose their beliefs onto other people. For example, Europe is used as an example of socialism. Most of the region is controlled by the [[European Union]] who impose restricts on religion and freedom of speech while promoting an "equal" and [[Political correctness|politically correct]] society.
==Other Socialist Countries (Current )==
==China==
After the Chinese Socialist Revolution in 1948, China has declared itself a communist country and has been Socialist since then, although they just pretend to be communist nowadays.
==[[Cuba]]==
Communist leader [[Fidel Castro]] violently overthrew the Cuban government in the 1950's and has declared Cuba to be Communist since then. Today, Cuba faces copious economic problems and the people lack their Fundamental Rights.

==North Korea==

North Korea's form of communism is in the form of "Juche" - a doctrine established by Kim Il Sung and carried on by current leader Kim Jong Il.
Juche entails these for main ideas:

* 1. The people must have independence (chajusong) in thought and politics, economic self-sufficiency, and self-reliance in defense.
* 2. Policy must reflect the will and aspirations of the masses and employ them fully in revolution and construction.
* 3. Methods of revolution and construction must be suitable to the situation of the country.
* 4. The most important work of revolution and construction is molding people ideologically as communists and mobilizing them to constructive action.

==Different strands of socialism==
*[[Communism]]
*[[Social democracy]]
*[[National socialism]] (Nazism)
*[[Fascism]]

==References==
<div class="references-small"><div class="references-2column"><references /></div></div>

==External links==
*[http://www.mises.org/etexts/hayekintellectuals.pdf The Intellectuals and Socialism], By F.A. Hayek, ''The University of Chicago Law Review'', (Spring 1949), pp. 417-420, 421-423, 425-433.
*[http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109587/socialism Socialism] Encyclopædia Britannica.
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/socialism/ What Liberals Say - Category: Socialism], [[Accuracy In Media]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_countries]

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Socialism]]

An Inconvenient Truth

2008-06-30T23:27:26Z

Humble:

[[Image:Capitalistexploitation.JPG|thumb|200px|right|Al Gore has created a way to [[profit]] from an alleged [[global catastrophe]].<ref>''New Mexico Daily Lobo'', September 28, 2007, pg. 8.</ref><ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663 The Money and Connections Behind Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade],
by Deborah Corey Barnes, ''Human Events'', 10/03/2007.</ref>]]

'''"An Inconvenient Truth"''' is a [[global warming]] slide show made into a prize-winning film narrated by former U.S. Vice President [[Al Gore]].
It provides a one-sided account of the [[anthropogenic global warming theory]], giving all the arguments in favor of supporting the sort of "[[greenhouse gas]]" reductions required by the [[Kyoto Protocol]].

The film ignores the evidence that atmospheric temperature is cyclical in nature and has gone up and down continuously over the course of many thousands of years. (see [[climate cycles]]).

According to the Madison, Wisconsin ''Capital Times'', [[Reid Bryson]], founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the [[Gaylord Nelson]] Institute for Environmental Studies and also known as the father of scientific climatology considers global warming a bunch of hooey. Reid said, "Don't make me throw up...it's not science..." <ref>[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. Retrieved from Townhall.com June 20, 2007.</ref>

Reid said,
{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this," he added. "If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide. <ref>''Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey'', Samara Kalk Derby, The Capital Times, 6/18/2007. </ref>}}

Author Noel Sheppard cites a new study in ''Science Magazine'' <ref>[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5786/452 Climate Change: Can We Detect Trends in Extreme Tropical Cyclones?], Christopher W. Landsea, Bruce A. Harper, Karl Hoarau, John A. Knaff, ''Science'', 28 July 2006: Vol. 313. no. 5786, pp. 452 - 454.</ref> written by a group of scientists including two members of the [[National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration]] that refutes this central contention in Al Gores "[[schlockumentary]]" that the "apparition called global warming is responsible for an upsurge in hurricane activity and intensity," including the [[Hurricane Katrina]] disaster. <ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/michael_moore_issues_iraq_with.html The Inconvenient Truth: Hurricanes and Global Warming], By Noel Sheppard, ''American Thinker'', August 02, 2006.</ref>

==Scientific inaccuracies in the film==

Copied verbatim from the ''[[Chicago Sun-Times]]'' (except for the last example<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301067,00.html</ref>) 
Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

{|border=1 cellpadding=3
|'''Gore claim'''
|'''Peer-reviewed science'''
|----
|Gore claims that the Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame.
|Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.
|----
|Gore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame.
|Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes.
|Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.
|However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.
|----
|Gore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.
|However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa.
|----
|Gore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.
|But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain. In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.
|----
|Gore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.
|Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.
|----
|Gore claims that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming.
|The British High Court in making a determination if Al Gore's 'documentary' should be shown in secondary schools found that the only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.
|----
|}

==35 Errors Discovered==
[[Image:Inconvenient Truth watch.jpg|right|150px]]
Global warming critic Christopher Monckton released a report called ''35 Inconvenient Truths'', which described 35 gross errors and exaggerations found within Gore's film. Some of the errors are directly contradicted by the IPCC.<ref>http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html</ref>

==Gore's contributions to global warming==
:''"There are many who still do not believe that global warming is a problem at all. And it's no wonder: because they are the targets of a massive and well-organized campaign of [[disinformation]] lavishly funded by polluters who are determined to prevent any action to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming out of a fear that their profits might be affected if they had to stop dumping so much pollution into the atmosphere."''
Sean Hannity reported on Fox News Channel's ''Hannity & Colmes'', February 18, 2007, that when Al Gore was running his campaign: ''"On January 27th, 2000, Gore campaign in Concord and Manchester, New Hampshire, and on that very same day reimbursed the Thomas Lee Company $1,400 for the use of their corporate jet. That evening he left New Hampshire and flew back to Washington aboard Air Force Two, the vice president's official plane is a 757, which means that the flight from New Hampshire to Washington, well, the vice president emitted more than 22,000 pounds of CO2."'' <ref>http://newsbusters.org/node/10951</ref>

== Awards ==
Despite its many scientific inaccuracies, the film has received several awards:

*Academy Awards (The Oscars) 2007
*Chicago Film Critics Association
*Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
*Florida Film Critics 2006
*Kansas City Film Critics Awards 2006
*Las Vegas Film Critics Circle 2006
*National Board of Review
*New York Film Critics Online
*New York Film Critics Society
*Ohio Film Critics Awards 2006
*Oklahoma Film Critics Circle Awards 2006
*Online Film Critics 2006
*Phoenix Film Critics Circle 2006
*Satellite Awards (Nominated) 2006
*St. Louis Film Critics Awards 2006
*Toronto Film Critics Circle (Nominated) 2006
*Utah Film Critics Awards 2006
*Washington D.C. Film Critics Association 2006


==References==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[Runaway greenhouse effect]]
*[[Anthropogenic global warming theory]]
*[[Environmentalism]]

[[Category:Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Global Warming]]
[[Category:schlockumentary]]

Wesley Clark

2008-06-30T23:22:45Z

Humble:

'''Wesley Clark''' was the commander of [[NATO]] forces during the 1999 [[Kosovo War]] and a candidate for the leadership of the [[Democratic Party]] in 2004.

He recently criticized Senator [[John McCain]]'s military service, saying "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."<ref>The Dallas Morning News (AP) - [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/063008dnpolclarkmccain.c80e28f.html Retired Gen. Wesley Clark: McCain lacks command experience]</ref> The Obama campaign disavowed the comments, but as McCain pointed out, "these types of things" have been said in the past, implying that it could be part of a coordinated effort by liberals to attack him.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:NATO]]

Wesley Clark

2008-06-30T23:22:24Z

Humble:

'''Wesley Clark''' was the commander of [[NATO]] forces during the 1999 [[Kosovo War]] and a candidate for the leadership of the [[Democratic Party]] in 2004.

He recently criticized Senator [[John McCain]]'s military service, saying "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to become president."<ref>The Dallas Morning News (AP) - [http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/063008dnpolclarkmccain.c80e28f.html Retired Gen. Wesley Clark: McCain lacks command experience]</ref> The Obama campaign disavowed the comments, but as McCain pointed out that "these types of things" have been said in the past, implying that it could be part of a coordinated effort by liberals to attack him.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:NATO]]