Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User:JMarks

2008-06-16T04:03:50Z

JMarks:

Fair thee my friends. Suicide-by-admin is sweet justice. Have fun reverting.

VIVA LA FREEDOM. AND POTATOS.

--[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 00:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Schroeder (cartoon character)

2008-06-16T04:01:43Z

JMarks:

'''Schroeder''' is a fictional homeschooled child prodigy, obviously based off of real progidies, all of whom are homeschooled in the [[Peanuts]] comic strip. His one great love is playing his toy piano, which actually sounds more like a grand piano and his skills able to match any maestro instead of being those of a child. [[Lucy Van Pelt|Lucy]] has a crush on him, but he's not interested. A common theme is her getting upset at him spurning her overtures of interest and her pulling the piano out from under him causing him to flip in the air and fall on the ground.

[[Category: Peanuts]]

Administration for Children and Families

2008-06-16T04:00:07Z

JMarks:

The '''Administration for Children and Families''' (ACF) is a [[federal]] agency funding state, territory, local, and tribal organizations to provide family assistance (welfare), child support, child care, Head Start, child welfare, and other programs relating to children and families. It has been critisized as an alternative to working harder, and providing evil welfare. <ref>[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/ Administration for Children and Families]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Government Organizations]]

NBC News

2008-06-16T03:58:18Z

JMarks:

'''NBC News''' is a very liberal non-cable news networks in the [[United States]]. Like many major news networks, it has been criticized for its [[liberal bias]].

[[Category:Broadcasting]]

Cloud

2008-06-16T03:57:33Z

JMarks:

'''Clouds''' consist of small drops of water or ice particles.<ref>A cloud is a large collection of very tiny droplets of water or ice crystals. The droplets are so small and light that they can float in the air. [http://www.weatherwizkids.com/cloud.htm Crystal Wicker], weekend meteorologist for WRTV-TV in Indianapolis, Indiana. </ref><ref>'''CORRECTION:''' Clouds are made up of liquid water droplets or ice crystals which are suspended in the air by random turbulent fluctuations within the cloudy air. They do not actually float, as the droplets and crystals are not lighter than air. Cloud droplet sedimentation (or gravitational settling) is the process of cloud droplets falling, this process is impeded by small scale turbulent updrafts, so the net effects are that clouds are suspended. When the droplets grow large enough (through collision and coalescence), they fall freely out of the cloud, producing rain drops and thus precipitation. See, for example, A Short Course in Cloud Physics by Rogers & Yau</ref>

Clouds are classified and grouped into "Low", "Middle", and "High" clouds, referring to the altitudes they occur at. Low clouds include [[cumulus]], [[nimbostratus]], [[stratus]], and [[stratocumulus]]; middle clouds include [[altocumulus]] and [[altostratus]]; and high clouds include [[cirrus]], [[cirrocumulus]], [[cumulonimbus]] and [[cirrostratus]].

==Cloud formation==

God made the first clouds on the first day, and all others have been created, through him by other clouds.

==Clouds and aerosols==

"Cosmic rays are charged particles that bombard the Earth's atmosphere from outer space. Studies suggest that [[cosmic rays]] may influence the amount of cloud cover through the formation of new [[aerosol]]s (tiny particles suspended in the air that seed cloud droplets)." <ref>http://www.pparc.ac.uk/Nw/cloud.asp</ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Meteorology]]

September 11, 2001 attacks

2008-06-16T03:54:39Z

JMarks:

[[Image:National Park Service 9-11 Statue of Liberty and WTC fire.jpg|right|thumb|250px]]
The '''Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001''' were the deadliest to ever occur on [[United States of America|US]] soil and had far reaching effects on both [[foreign policy|foreign]] and [[domestic policy]].
The coordinated attacks by [[al Qaeda]] and [[Iraqi]] affiliated [[Islam|Islamic]] extremists saw three transcontinental airliners strike the [[World Trade Center]] towers (buildings 1 and 2) in [[New York City]], NY and the [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] outside of [[Washington, D.C.]] within one hour of each other. The attacks succeeded in destroying both World Trade Center towers as well as a third building in the complex and significantly damaged the Pentagon (though the Pentagon was still able to function). A fourth airliner crashed in a field in Shanksville, [[Pennsylvania|PA]], failing to reach its objective.
[[Image:Sep 11 2001.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
The events of the day are often referred to simply as "September 11th" or "9/11."

==The Attacks==
[[Image:9-11.jpg|right|thumb|225px]]


*8:46 a.m. EDT - American Airlines Flight 11 (Boeing 767-200) crashed into the 94-98th floors of the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC 1).
**Casualties - 11 crew, 81 passengers.

*9:02 a.m. EDT - United Airlines Flight 175 (Boeing 767-200) crashed into the 78-85th floors of the South Tower (WTC 2)
**Casualties - 9 crew, 56 passengers.

*9:37 a.m. EDT - American Airlines Flight 77 (Boeing 757-200) crashed into the Pentagon.
**Casualties - 6 crew, 58 passengers.

*10:03 a.m. EDT - United Airlines Flight 93 (Boeing 757-200) crashed in a field outside of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
**Casualties - 7 crew, 38 passengers.

*10:05 AM - The WTC 2 (South Tower) collapses.

*10:10 AM - An external portion of the Pentagon collapses.

*10:28 AM - The WTC 1 (North Tower) collapses.

*4:10 PM - World Trade Center Building 7 is reported to be on fire.

*5:20 PM - World Trade Center Building 7 collapses.

===Ground Casualties===
[[Image:393px-WTC-remnant highres.jpg|right|thumb|200px|Remains of the South Tower, September 13, 2001.]]
The total loss of life is constantly being reevaluated to account for wrongly reported missing persons and, in some cases, occurrences of fraud. Estimates of more than 6,000 deaths were announced following the attacks. The current estimate is 2,996 fatalities as a direct result of the attacks. About 500 foreign nationals from over 90 countries are believed to have died in the attack.<ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref>

The Department of Defense reported the deaths of 125 people at The Pentagon. The aftermath of the World Trade Center towers collapsing created a good deal of confusion and has been the main source of discrepancies in casualty estimates. As of October 29, 2003, New York City reported 2605 deaths in the attacks, not counting the passengers and crew of the planes. <ref> [http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/10/29/wtc.deaths/ "New York Reduces 9/11 Death Toll by 40"] at CNN.com, Phil Hirschkorn, 10/29/03</ref>

As a matter of course, the deaths of the 19 [[suicide|hijackers]] are not included in these casualty totals.
==Economic Impact==

The material costs of the attacks are well in excess of one hundred billion US dollars. Factoring in stock market losses, loss of revenue in New York City, loss of jobs, impact on air travel, and heightened security, some estimate the cost approaches two trillion dollars.<ref>[http://www.iags.org/costof911.html The Cost of September 11] Institute for the Analysis of Global Security</ref>

Some estimates of the cost of executing the plan place it in the $400,000-$500,000 range, making it an extremely "profitable" operation for al-Qaeda. <ref>[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Exec.htm The 9/11 Commission Report]</ref>

==Finding Out What Happened==

The perpetrators of the attacks were soon identified as members of the al Qaeda terrorist organization headed by [[Osama Bin Laden|Osama bin Laden]], who proudly took credit for killing thousands of innocent people. Motives for the attack vary widely. Bin Laden viewed it as a [[Jihad]] against the West, blaming America's foreign policy towards Israel, sanctions against Iraq for its role in invading Kuwait and forcing it to pay back the damaged parties, and American troops in Saudi Arabia at the request of the Saudi government. From the viewpoint of the American leaders, Bin Laden was embittered against a society with freedom of speech, freedom of government, and [[freedom of religion and that those philosophies had led the United States to become the richest nation on the planet.

==Social Impacts==

Following the attacks there was a strong surge of patriotism in virtually all facets of American society. The government, being aware that the most deadly attack ever on American soil could stir up animosity against the ethnic or religious group of the perpetrators, went out of its way along with the media to separate Islam from the actions taken by its more radical adherents, referring to it at multiple times as a "religion of love". While people of Middle Eastern decent and adherents of Islam were concerned at first, the overall effect of hostility towards these groups was barely noticeable. Although there were literally millions of Muslims in America out of a total population of 300 million who could have sought out reprisals, in an entire year less than 500 cases of aggression of verbal hostility were reported.

==Consequences of the Attacks on US Policy==
===Domestic Policy===

The attacks were a direct or indirect cause of massive changes in United States domestic policy. Most notably, the ''Homeland Security Act of 2002'' "established a [[Department of Homeland Security]], as an executive department of the United States" <ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/bill/hsl-bill.pdf H.R. 5005 The Homeland Security Act]</ref>, a cabinet level position. One of the tools implemented by the Department is the [[Homeland Security Advisory System]], a color coded advisory system meant to "establish a comprehensive and effective means to disseminate information regarding the risk of terrorist acts to Federal, State, and local authorities and to the American people." <ref>[http://www.dhs.gov/xinfoshare/laws/ DHS Laws and Regulations] Department of Homeland Security</ref>

Another notable consequence of the attacks was the ''[[USA PATRIOT Act|USA PATRIOT Act of 2001]]'' ('''U'''niting and '''S'''trengthening '''A'''merica by '''P'''roviding '''A'''ppropriate '''T'''ools '''R'''equired to '''I'''ntercept and '''O'''bstruct '''T'''errorism). The act was written to expand the authority of law enforcement and the justice system in the pursuit of terrorism suspects.<ref>[http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.3162.ENR: ''The USA PATRIOT Act''] Library of Congress</ref>

===Foreign Policy===

In response to the attacks, the United States declared a [[War on Terror]], which comprises United States military action in [[Afghanistan]] and [[Iraq]] as well as a significant increase in intelligence gathering and a new outlook on foreign relations.

==Conspiracy Theories==

Many conspiracy theories <ref>[http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061002/alterman Lying About 9/11? Easy as [[ABC]]], Eric Alterman, ''The Nation'', September 14, 2006 (October 2, 2006 issue). </ref> have sprouted up from the events of September 11, 2001, including the "Loose Change" movies seen on YouTube. While compelling, these movies have been comprehensively disproven by independent experts <ref>[http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html "Debunking The 9/11 Myths"] ''Popular Mechanics'', Mar. 2005 Cover Story</ref>. Prominent endorsers of such theories include talk show host [[Rosie O'Donnell]] as well as actor [[Charlie Sheen]]. A third of the American public has bought into the idea of some sort of role by federal officials. This view is much more common among those who get their news solely from the internet and is rare for those who read newspapers or watch the news on regular television. "Members of racial and ethnic minorities, people with only a high school education and Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11"<ref>http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CONSPIRACY-08-02-06</ref>

==Sources==
*[http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf The 9/11 Commission Report]
*[http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers], [[National Institute of Standards and Technology|NIST]].
*[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/chronology.attack/index.html September 11: Chronology of Terror] at CNN.com
*[http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm Federal Bureau of Investigations PENTTBOM Press Release]
*[http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/main.html Lists of Victims] at CNN.com

==Additional Information==
*[http://www.archive.org/details/sept_11_tv_archive The Internet Archive's file of ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and BBC broadcasts for Sept 11-13, 2001]
*[http://www.televisionarchive.org/ Television Archive of news broadcasts for 9/11]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[category:United States History]]
[[Category:Riots and terrorist incidents in the United States]]

War on Terrorism

2008-06-16T03:53:59Z

JMarks:

The '''War on [[Terrorism]]''' is a collective term used to refer to several succesful military and political campaigns with the stated goal of "ending international terrorism".

==See also==
*[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]
*[[Iraq war]]

[[Category:Disambiguation Pages]]

His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-06-16T03:50:15Z

JMarks:

'''''His Dark Materials''''' is an [[Atheistic]], [[evil]] trilogy of children's [[fantasy]] novels written by [[Britain|British]] author [[Philip Pullman]]. Modeled on classics like [[C. S. Lewis|C.S. Lewis']] ''[[Chronicles of Narnia]]'' and [[John Milton|Milton's]] ''[[Paradise Lost]]'', the trilogy is an [[allegory|allegorical]] indictment of organised religion and has been widely perceived as an attack on traditional Christian [[theology]].

The trilogy consists of ''[[The Golden Compass]]'' (originally published as ''Northern Lights'' in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1995), ''[[The Subtle Knife]]'' (published in 1997) and ''[[The Amber Spyglass]]'' (published in 2000). The title of the trilogy refers to a line from the 17th century poem ''[[Paradise Lost]]'' by [[John Milton]], <ref>http://www.kirkcenter.org/bookman/44-1-bernthal.html</ref> a line that is stated at the start of ''The Golden Compass''.

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

The main action of the trilogy centers around Lyra Belacqua, an 11-year old girl raised in [[England]] in another universe, and Will Parry, a 12-year old boy from London in our [[universe]].

===The Golden Compass===
The first novel is primarily concerned with Lyra, a girl living in [[Oxford]]. In Lyra's world, a person's [[soul]] is represented as an animal known as a "daemon". Children's daemons can change their shape at will, but once a person reaches maturity their daemon becomes "fixed" and stays in one shape for the rest of its life. Lyra's world is ruled by "The Church", a [[religion|religious]] organization that wields immense power. The Church worships a powerful being known as "The Authority"

The story follows Lyra as she travels across the North to rescue her friend Roger, a servant at the college in which she lives, who has been kidnapped by a mysterious organization known as the Gobblers. She is also on a mission to rescue Lord Asriel, her father and an explorer, who has been imprisoned at a castle ruled by talking bears. Her primary assistance on this journey is a golden, compass-like object called an alethiometer, which can tell the future. Along the way, she encounters allies like flying witches, aeronauts (balloon operators), and tribes of seafarers called Gyptians.

Eventually, she is captured by the Gobblers and learn that they are a branch of The Church known as the General Oblation Board. The Board is led by Lyra's mother, Mrs. Marisa Coulter. Their goal is to separate children from their daemons to prevent a mysterious, invisible substance known as "Dust" from settling on them. This Dust is believed to be [[Original sin]] by the Church. Unfortunately, the separation of a child and their daemon always results in the death of both. With the aid of her allies, Lyra escapes the Oblation Board with Roger, freeing the other prisoners in the process.

She ends up in Svalbard, the kingdom of talking, armored bears known as ''panserbjorne''. With her bear ally Iorek Byrnison, she topples the corrupt bear king and frees Lord Asriel. However, Asriel betrays her and uses Roger's daemon to open a massive portal to another world. The process of opening this portal results in Roger's death. Lyra vows to find the source and identity of Dust, and enters the portal.

===The Subtle Knife===
The second novel takes place several weeks after ''The Golden Compass'', and introduces Will Parry, a 12-year old boy who lives with his mother in Oxford in our world. His father has been missing for many years after going on a voyage to the North. At the start of the novel, he accidentally kills a thief, and is forced to go on the run from the law. He finds a portal to another world and meets Lyra, who has been searching for knowledge about Dust.

Meanwhile, a minor character from ''The Golden Compass'' receives a major storyline: Lee Scoresby, an aeronaut from the [[Texas]] of Lyra's universe. He undergoes a quest to locate Stanislaus Grumman, an explorer who may hold answers to some of the mysteries surrounding Dust and be able to help Lord Asriel, who is amassing forces in another world. Eventually, Lee finds Grumman, where it is revealed that the explorer is John Parry, Will's long-lost father, who accidentally went through a portal on his expedition. The pair are followed by large war zeppelins and soldiers loyal to the Church. While holding them back, Scoresby is sadly killed, but his sacrifice enables Parry to continue on his journey.

Lyra and Will try to unravel the mysteries of Dust, meeting Mary Malone, a scientist from Will's world. She has been studying Dust and discovers that it mostly settles on objects of human design and origin, while avoiding natural objects such as plants or uncarved wood. Will and Lyra avoid the people looking for Will and return to Cittagazze, where they find an unusual device known as the Subtle Knife. This knife, which can create portals to many different worlds, also wards off Specters.

This discovery inadvertently results in the original owner being attacked by Specters, which angers the children who still reside in the city. They almost kill Lyra and Will, but the two are saved by Lyra's witch allies who have entered Cittagazze. The protagonists learn that the Subtle Knife would be helpful to Lord Asriel, who is amassing a large army to combat the Authority. Before this can happen, however, they are attacked by Specters under the control of Mrs. Coulter, and Lyra is captured.

Will, confused and disoriented, meets a wandering man who introduces himself as Stanislaus Grumman. He tells Will to give the Knife to Lord Asriel. As they see each other's eyes, they realize their familial connection. Unfortunately, before father and son can be truly reunited, John Parry is killed by a witch whose love he scorned because of his faithfulness to his wife. This witch commits suicide shortly thereafter. As Will tries to decide what to do, he encounters two invisible beings who introduce themselves as [[angels]] and promise to take him to Lord Asriel.

===The Amber Spyglass===
''The Amber Spyglass'' begins shortly after the end of ''The Subtle Knife''. Lyra has been taken captive by Mrs. Coulter, who keeps her sedated in a cave in yet another new world. Despite her strong loyalty to the Church, Mrs. Coulter's motherly instincts take over, and she decides to hide Lyra from both the Church's forces and Lord Asriel's.

Will goes on a journey to find Lyra, led by one of the two angels, Balthamos. The other angel dies early in the book while delivering a message to Lord Asriel. From the angels, Will learns that The Authority is only the first and most powerful angel, formed from Dust, who has convinced everyone that he created everything. Since he is so old, The Authority is now senile, and his Regent, Metatron, rules in his stead. A select few of the angels have rebelled against The Authority and Metatron, and now join forces with Asriel to defeat them and end their rule over everything.

Meanwhile, Dr. Mary Malone of Will's Oxford is being hunted by authorities and enters the same portal Will went through in ''The Subtle Knife''. She enters a strange world populated by intelligent, elephant-like creatures called "mulefa". She learns about Dust from their legends and customs, and constructs a spyglass with an amber lens, through which she is able to see Dust as particles of light. She discovers that Dust is slowly leaving the worlds, which will eventually result in disaster.

Traveling throughout the worlds, Will, Balthamos, and Iorek Byrinson the new bear king eventually reach Lyra and help her escape. The forces of Asriel and the Church wage battle all around them and Balthamos flees in terror. Will and Lyra attempt to enter another world, but the Subtle Knife breaks as a result of Will's emotions. Iorek fixes it using a makeshift forge. The two children eventually decide to enter the [[afterlife|world of the dead]] in an attempt to help Roger, John Parry, and Lee Scoresby.

Mrs. Coulter is captured by Asriel's army and taken to his fortress. She escapes using a powerful flying machine and returns to the Church. However, she learns that the Church plans to kill Lyra, using a form of odd science, before she can face some "temptation" that has the potential to destroy everything the Church stands for, an explicit analogy to [[Eve]]. Mrs. Coulter again switches sides, and is able to prevent this murder from happening, returning to Asriel's fortress.

Will and Lyra are aided by two spies of Lord Asriel, members of a race of extremely small people called "Gallivespians", in their efforts to reach the land of the dead. They eventually enter it by use of the Subtle Knife, but Lyra is forced to leave her daemon behind, an act of complete betrayal. Though the protagonists are reunited with their loved ones, they learn that the afterlife is little more than a [[prison]], where all of the dead are emotionally tortured by monsters called harpies who feed on their sadness. They manage to convince the harpies to let them lead the dead out of the afterlife, and they cut a portal that leads them through the center of the world.

The final battle between the forces of Lord Asriel and the forces of The Authority and Metatron has officially begun, and Lyra and Will lead the dead right into the middle of it. Mrs. Coulter uses the flying machine to go to The Authority's palace, where she sees The Authority being carried out in a large glass cage. She eventually seduces Metatron into following her to the center of the world, where she says Lyra is being held. In reality, it is a trap for the angel laid by her and Lord Asriel, and they both push Metatron over the edge into an abyss, killing themselves in the process.

Lyra and Will find the cage containing The Authority, who is being attacked by animals. They drive off the animals, and free the being from his cage. Unfortunately, his frail body can not withstand a gust of wind, and he dies. The battle is not yet over, and Lyra and Will are saved from soldiers by the dead. After their task is done, the dead dissolve into the air, becoming one with the world.

Lyra and Will escape the battle by entering another world, the world of the mulefa. They meet Mary Malone again, and she tells them of the time that she lost her faith in [[Catholicism]]. Because of her descriptions of love, Lyra and Will realize that they are in love, and it is implied, but not clearly stated, that they engage in intercourse. This somehow makes the flow of Dust return to normal, and fulfills the "temptation" mentioned earlier in the series. Not long after this, Lyra is reunited with her daemon and Will is able to see his for the first time.

A [[priest]] sent by the Church to kill Lyra is almost given a chance to kill her and Will, but is stopped by Balthamos, who is ashamed of leaving Will and Lyra before. The assassin is accidentally killed, and it is implied that Balthamos dies of his wounds.

Will and Lyra delight in their new-found love, but they soon learn that the many holes cut by the Subtle Knife will need to be closed before the supply of Dust runs out. They also learn that staying in a different world for a long period of time will eventually cause a decline in a person's health, killing them. They make the ultimate sacrifice, deciding that they cannot stay with each other, since they have to leave one portal open to allow the dead to return to the living world. They each go back to their respective Oxfords, and resume their normal lives, basing them around teaching other people to live their lives to the fullest and not bother with [[faith]].

==Religious Views==
Dust is a primeval substance from which all life, consciousness and free will sprang. However the Authority and Magisterium seek to suppress this knowledge because it contradicts their doctrine of supremacy, and therefore equate it with sin or loss of innocence. At an allegorical level this can be seen as the Church's work to eliminate sin conflicting with the need for free will. As the characters rediscover this dust and embrace its life-giving power, they choose to free themselves from the oppressive theocracy of the Magisterium.

===God===
The character of "The Authority" is definitely the [[Judeo-Christian]] [[God]], evidenced by many of his names <ref>http://www.amywelborn.com/reviews/pullman.html</ref>. [[Yahweh]], one of the names mentioned, is a common name for God in the [[Bible]]. The Father the Almighty, another name, is a term from the [[Nicene Creed]].

Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is believed to be immortal and limitless in power. At an allegorical level this could be compared to the ascribing of divine connections or qualities to the apparently mortal, such as Jesus or the Pope, or could be seen as a demonstration of the power-shift from a divinity or ideal itself to the priestly class that endorses and enforces it.

===Jesus===
[[Jesus]] is only referenced directly once in the books. Near the end of ''The Amber Spyglass'', when talking of her former devotion to the Catholic faith, Mary Malone (a minor character) says:

''"I wanted to take my whole life and offer it up.. and place it in front of Jesus to do as he liked with."'' <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 33, "Marzipan"</ref>

In an April 2004 interview alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pullman stated that he felt that Jesus' teachings were antithetical to organised religion, and wanted to mark this by his absence in the story.
<blockquote>

"...He doesn't figure in the teaching of the church, as I described the church in the story. I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml&page=1</ref>
</blockquote>

===Christianity===
However, the religion started by Jesus appears many times in the books. The Church of Lyra's parallel universe is specifically stated to be a descendant of the [[Calvinist]] faith in ''The Golden Compass''. <ref>''The Golden Compass'', Ch. 2, "The Idea of North"</ref>

===Angels===
[[Angels]] are a separate race in the books' world, complete with their own backstory. Apparently, most of the angels were formed out of the substance known as Dust at sometime in the past, and are very old. The Authority was the first angel formed, and convinced the following angels that he had created them. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref>

[[Human]]s can become angels somehow, although the process is not described in detail. The characters Baruch and Metatron were once human brothers. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 5, "The Adamant Tower"</ref> Metatron's former name was Enoch, son of Jared, son of Mahalalel. These three names are commonly cited as direct descendants of [[Adam]]. <ref>[http://www.marshallgenealogy.org/bible/pafg35.htm Bible Genealogy, Descendants of Adam]</ref>

===Homosexuality===
Though it is not a major part of the story, it is extremely heavily implied that the angels Balthamos and Baruch have a [[homosexual]] relationship. This is most seen in several instances of them or other characters referring to the two as "loving each other with a passion" or similar phrases. <ref>''The Amber Spyglass'', Ch. 2, "Balthamos and Baruch"</ref> It is unclear whether the same rules of gender apply, due to their non-human ancestry, but Pullman stated in an August 2000 interview that he "liked the idea of two male angels who love each other and who are, themselves, very different characters. They play an important part in the moral education, so to speak, of Will, but also in the outcome of the story."<ref>http://www.powells.com/authors/pullman.html</ref>

==Religious Response==
Online Christian criticism brands the trilogy overly [[atheist]],<ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58341</ref> [[pantheism|pantheist]]<ref>http://www.facingthechallenge.org/pullman.php</ref> or [[humanist]].<ref>http://literarycatechist.blogspot.com/2007/11/his-dark-materials.html</ref> It has also come under heavy fire from several [[Christian]] groups, most famously the Catholic League, who called for a Christian boycott of the film adaptation.<ref>http://catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=October&read=2322</ref>
There are some Christian supporters of the books, most notably Rowan Williams, the [[Archbishop of Canterbury]].<ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2004/03/17/bodark17.xml</ref>

==References==
<references/>
==See also==
{{Nb Atheism}}

[[Category:Novels]]

The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb

2008-06-16T03:47:22Z

JMarks:

'''''The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth''''' is a book by [[Gar Alperovitz]], apparently a [[Communist]] which criticizes the U.S. decision to end the war with Japan by using [[atomic bomb]]s.<ref name=decision>Alperovitz argues that the atomic bomb was unnecessary to end World War II. [http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/hamby.htm] </ref>

Alonzo Hanby of Ohio University calls the book "a lawyer's brief, repetitively citing evidence that supports its position, ignoring anything that does not."<ref name=decision/>

ISBN 0-679-44331-2

See also:
*[[Nagasaki]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Books|Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, The]]

Hopelessness

2008-06-16T03:46:41Z

JMarks:

Hopelessness is a state of mind most often caused by [[liberal]], [[atheist]] thinking. Many of today's young people wander about their school halls with no hope, no dreams, no optimism about their future. [[Rock music|Rock groups]] such as Nirvana, [[Marilyn Manson]] and [[Nine Inch Nails]] continually fill their heads with the [[meaning]]lessness of a universe in which [[God is dead]] and life is absurd. [http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/morality.html] Adolescent hopelessness is often fuelled by exposure to the [[Goth]] death cult.

[[Category:Terms]]

User talk:JMarks

2008-06-16T03:44:12Z

JMarks:

Can a Sysop please review this user's edits. He seems to be vandalizing the site. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:43, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

GAWSH NO!!!!! I'm only adding what belongs in the trustworthy encyclopedia.
--[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Democracy

2008-06-16T03:42:58Z

JMarks:

[[Image:Elekcja Wola.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The free election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697, painted by Bernardo Bellotto.]]
'''Democracy''' is a form of government invented by the [[Americans]] and made successful by [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christian]] cultures. Many beleive that only with Christianity as a state religion can democracy thrive. The origin of the term is [[Greek]].<ref>They were being nice when they gave it to us.</ref>
, from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (strength). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation indirectly exercise sovereignty. There has never been a lasting democracy in an [[atheistic]] culture.

The [[United States]] of America is guaranteed a [[republican form of government]]. However, their legislatures are an example of a democracy, in which the majority vote of the legislators enact law. The execution of those laws is by a separate branch of government, whose officers are appointed by the chief executive officer (president or governor). In parliamentary democracies, the executive and legislative branches are not separate.

Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state. Certain [[tribe]]s and most [[band societies]] such as the [[bushmen]], however, organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy. <ref>http://law.cua.edu/ComparativeLaw/Iroquois/</ref>

== Debate over the merits of democracy ==

While a [[direct democracy]] in the manner of the Athenians is probably infeasible in a modern [[nation-state]] comprised of millions of [[citizens]], there continues to be debate among conservatives as to whether [[representative democracy]] is a desirable system. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who could be considered the father of both modern democracy and [[totalitarianism]], believed that in a democracy the government should be guided only by what he called the [[General Will]]. Other thinkers of the [[French]] [[Enlightenment]] described a [[republic]] as a system in which the law applies equally to the government and the people, a concept abbreviated in the [[21st century]] by the phrase [[rule of law]]. Most contemporary thinkers would identify [[universal suffrage]] and the right of any citizen to argue for a change in existing law as desirable features of democracy; but there is some question as to whether the rule of law can be indefinitely sustained in a system with these features. [[Thomas Jefferson]] believed that it could so long as the people were educated, and thus devoted his post-presidency to founding the [[University of Virginia]]. Nonetheless, property continued to be a proxy for education throughout the [[antebellum period]] and Jefferson's home state of [[Virginia]] only abolished [[property qualifications for voting]] in 1851, years after any other state. Another famous American said that a republic could last until "the people find out they have the right to vote themselves funds from the public treasury," an explicit criticism of the [[welfare state]], which most conservatives feel is an abuse of the [[U. S. Constitution]]'s [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].

Democracy may have its problems; an uneducated populace, for example, is the bane of any democracy, since unless people know what they need, they can not properly elect people to serve these needs. Other problems emerge from a capricious electorate, which caused [[Winston Churchill]] to remark that, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the other forms that have been tried," a quote which eloquently notes that, despite its problems, democracy almost universally provides for peace and prosperity.

Majoritarian systems are, however, problematic in that, in theory, they permit a majority to debase the welfare of a minority. [[Socialist]]s argue that a high degree of socio-economic equality is required for real political equality, but also contend that solidarity and fraternity may be sufficient to overcome the distorting effects of unequal wealth and enact pro-labor policies.

== Evolution of Anglo-American democracy ==
In the [[United States]], the current system of representative democracy evolved as a result of six major reforms:

# The [[American Revolution]] which severed ties with the King of [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and endowed the people with the sovereign prerogatives that formerly belonged to the monarchy.
# The [[U. S. Constitution]]'s creation of the [[House of Representatives]], a Federal government entity elected directly by the citizens, and retention of [[federalism]], the right of individual [[States of the United States of America|states]] to govern themselves and make their own laws.
# The abolition of property qualifications for white male voters. This process, which was accomplished at the state level, took between 1820 and 1851 and is also known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]].
# The [[Fifteenth Amendment]], which extended the [[franchise]] to former [[slaves]].
# The [[Seventeenth Amendment]], which caused [[Senator]]s to be elected directly by the citizens (they retained their six-year terms).
# The [[Nineteenth Amendment]], which extended the franchise to [[women]].

Of the six, the one which inspires the most opposition today is probably the Seventeenth Amendment, as the [[Founders]] explicitly intended [[state]] [[legislature]]s to choose U. S. Senators. Historically, however, the Fifteenth Amendment inspired the most opposition. Indeed, every state of the former [[Confederacy]] circumvented the Fifteenth Amendment between the end of [[Reconstruction]] and the passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], considered the ultimate guarantee of that Amendment. One of the principal means whereby it was circumvented was the creation of [[educational qualifications for voting]], which the 1965 act outlawed, according to interpretations of the [[Supreme Court]]. The other principal means was the [[poll tax]], which was outlawed in 1964 by the [[Twenty-Fourth Amendment]].

In the [[United Kingdom]] during the same period of time, there were also six major reforms in the direction of democracy:

# The [[1832 Reform Act]], which gave representation to the new [[industrial]] cities for the first time.
# The [[1867 Reform Act]].
# The [[1884 Reform Act]].
# The [[1911 Parliament Act]], which ended the ability of the [[House of Lords]] to rein in spending by the [[Commons]].
# The [[1918 Reform Act]], which made suffrage universal among males and extended it to women 30 years of age or older.
# The [[1928 Reform Act]], which equalized voting ages for male and female at 21.

It is noteworthy that it took the British 84 years to complete the process of abolishing property qualifications for voting (the first three Acts lowered the threshold incrementally) and that they only began to do so after Jacksonian Democracy emerged in the United States.

While none of these Acts has sustained a serious movement for repeal, historically the one which inspired the strongest opposition was the 1911 Parliament Act. Not surprisingly, this opposition came from the House of Lords, the last body of unelected people to retain any legislative power in the British system. Ultimately, the bill passed only after King [[George V]] promised to create an unlimited number of new [[peers]] in order to pass it.

The United States, United Kingdom, and other [[common law countries]] mostly utilize a [[first past the post system]] for elections. This limits the number of [[political parties]] and helps to stabilize the system, in contrast to democracies which use [[proportional representation]] such as [[Italy]], [[Germany]], [[France]], and [[Israel]], which have at times had over 10 parties represented in their [[legislature]]s. The latter system tends to increase the power of the [[political left]], although the [[Labour Party]] in Britain was able to edge out the [[centrist]] [[Liberal Party]] as the chief opposition to the [[Conservative Party]] as a result of the first five of the reforms listed above, without discarding the traditional system of elections.

==References==

'''DEMOCRACY''' - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and
is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a
system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or
oligarchy."
<Ref> Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432</Ref>

<References/>

[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Democracy

2008-06-16T03:42:43Z

JMarks:

[[Image:Elekcja Wola.jpg|right|thumb|300px|The free election of Augustus II at Wola, outside Warsaw, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in 1697, painted by Bernardo Bellotto.]]
'''Democracy''' is a form of government invented by the [[America]] and made successful by [[Protestantism|Protestant]] [[Christian]] cultures. Many beleive that only with Christianity as a state religion can democracy thrive. The origin of the term is [[Greek]].<ref>They were being nice when they gave it to us.</ref>
, from the words ''demos'' (people) and ''kratos'' (strength). Although many forms of government fall under this broad classification, the defining characteristic of a democracy is that the citizenry of a nation indirectly exercise sovereignty. There has never been a lasting democracy in an [[atheistic]] culture.

The [[United States]] of America is guaranteed a [[republican form of government]]. However, their legislatures are an example of a democracy, in which the majority vote of the legislators enact law. The execution of those laws is by a separate branch of government, whose officers are appointed by the chief executive officer (president or governor). In parliamentary democracies, the executive and legislative branches are not separate.

Although a number of societies have practiced some form of democracy, the concept as it is understood today was invented in ancient [[Athens]], where citizens (not women or slaves) were allowed to vote in the Assembly which made the laws of the city-state. Certain [[tribe]]s and most [[band societies]] such as the [[bushmen]], however, organized themselves using different forms of participatory democracy or consensus democracy. <ref>http://law.cua.edu/ComparativeLaw/Iroquois/</ref>

== Debate over the merits of democracy ==

While a [[direct democracy]] in the manner of the Athenians is probably infeasible in a modern [[nation-state]] comprised of millions of [[citizens]], there continues to be debate among conservatives as to whether [[representative democracy]] is a desirable system. [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who could be considered the father of both modern democracy and [[totalitarianism]], believed that in a democracy the government should be guided only by what he called the [[General Will]]. Other thinkers of the [[French]] [[Enlightenment]] described a [[republic]] as a system in which the law applies equally to the government and the people, a concept abbreviated in the [[21st century]] by the phrase [[rule of law]]. Most contemporary thinkers would identify [[universal suffrage]] and the right of any citizen to argue for a change in existing law as desirable features of democracy; but there is some question as to whether the rule of law can be indefinitely sustained in a system with these features. [[Thomas Jefferson]] believed that it could so long as the people were educated, and thus devoted his post-presidency to founding the [[University of Virginia]]. Nonetheless, property continued to be a proxy for education throughout the [[antebellum period]] and Jefferson's home state of [[Virginia]] only abolished [[property qualifications for voting]] in 1851, years after any other state. Another famous American said that a republic could last until "the people find out they have the right to vote themselves funds from the public treasury," an explicit criticism of the [[welfare state]], which most conservatives feel is an abuse of the [[U. S. Constitution]]'s [[Necessary and Proper Clause]].

Democracy may have its problems; an uneducated populace, for example, is the bane of any democracy, since unless people know what they need, they can not properly elect people to serve these needs. Other problems emerge from a capricious electorate, which caused [[Winston Churchill]] to remark that, "Democracy is the worst form of government... except for all the other forms that have been tried," a quote which eloquently notes that, despite its problems, democracy almost universally provides for peace and prosperity.

Majoritarian systems are, however, problematic in that, in theory, they permit a majority to debase the welfare of a minority. [[Socialist]]s argue that a high degree of socio-economic equality is required for real political equality, but also contend that solidarity and fraternity may be sufficient to overcome the distorting effects of unequal wealth and enact pro-labor policies.

== Evolution of Anglo-American democracy ==
In the [[United States]], the current system of representative democracy evolved as a result of six major reforms:

# The [[American Revolution]] which severed ties with the King of [[Kingdom of Great Britain|Great Britain]] and endowed the people with the sovereign prerogatives that formerly belonged to the monarchy.
# The [[U. S. Constitution]]'s creation of the [[House of Representatives]], a Federal government entity elected directly by the citizens, and retention of [[federalism]], the right of individual [[States of the United States of America|states]] to govern themselves and make their own laws.
# The abolition of property qualifications for white male voters. This process, which was accomplished at the state level, took between 1820 and 1851 and is also known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]].
# The [[Fifteenth Amendment]], which extended the [[franchise]] to former [[slaves]].
# The [[Seventeenth Amendment]], which caused [[Senator]]s to be elected directly by the citizens (they retained their six-year terms).
# The [[Nineteenth Amendment]], which extended the franchise to [[women]].

Of the six, the one which inspires the most opposition today is probably the Seventeenth Amendment, as the [[Founders]] explicitly intended [[state]] [[legislature]]s to choose U. S. Senators. Historically, however, the Fifteenth Amendment inspired the most opposition. Indeed, every state of the former [[Confederacy]] circumvented the Fifteenth Amendment between the end of [[Reconstruction]] and the passage of the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]], considered the ultimate guarantee of that Amendment. One of the principal means whereby it was circumvented was the creation of [[educational qualifications for voting]], which the 1965 act outlawed, according to interpretations of the [[Supreme Court]]. The other principal means was the [[poll tax]], which was outlawed in 1964 by the [[Twenty-Fourth Amendment]].

In the [[United Kingdom]] during the same period of time, there were also six major reforms in the direction of democracy:

# The [[1832 Reform Act]], which gave representation to the new [[industrial]] cities for the first time.
# The [[1867 Reform Act]].
# The [[1884 Reform Act]].
# The [[1911 Parliament Act]], which ended the ability of the [[House of Lords]] to rein in spending by the [[Commons]].
# The [[1918 Reform Act]], which made suffrage universal among males and extended it to women 30 years of age or older.
# The [[1928 Reform Act]], which equalized voting ages for male and female at 21.

It is noteworthy that it took the British 84 years to complete the process of abolishing property qualifications for voting (the first three Acts lowered the threshold incrementally) and that they only began to do so after Jacksonian Democracy emerged in the United States.

While none of these Acts has sustained a serious movement for repeal, historically the one which inspired the strongest opposition was the 1911 Parliament Act. Not surprisingly, this opposition came from the House of Lords, the last body of unelected people to retain any legislative power in the British system. Ultimately, the bill passed only after King [[George V]] promised to create an unlimited number of new [[peers]] in order to pass it.

The United States, United Kingdom, and other [[common law countries]] mostly utilize a [[first past the post system]] for elections. This limits the number of [[political parties]] and helps to stabilize the system, in contrast to democracies which use [[proportional representation]] such as [[Italy]], [[Germany]], [[France]], and [[Israel]], which have at times had over 10 parties represented in their [[legislature]]s. The latter system tends to increase the power of the [[political left]], although the [[Labour Party]] in Britain was able to edge out the [[centrist]] [[Liberal Party]] as the chief opposition to the [[Conservative Party]] as a result of the first five of the reforms listed above, without discarding the traditional system of elections.

==References==

'''DEMOCRACY''' - That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and
is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a
system of representation, as distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy, or
oligarchy."
<Ref> Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, P. 432</Ref>

<References/>

[[Category:Forms of Government]]

Religion

2008-06-16T03:40:23Z

JMarks: /* Monotheistic religions */

[[Image:Jesus5.jpg‎|thumb|200px|Artist's depiction of our Lord [[Jesus Christ]]]]
"'''Religion'''" refers to a set of core beliefs upon which people base their lives. Morality is often based on religion. Beyond this general definition, the word "religion" is used in several ways:

* '''Formal definition''': "The service and worship of [[God]] or the [[supernatural]];"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> Under this definition, [[atheism]], [[agnosticism]], and [[secular humanism]] are not "religions." <ref>Religious Groups Participating in Religious Congregations & Membership Study 2000. [http://www.thearda.com/mapsReports/reports/alldenoms.asp]</ref>.
* '''Functional definition''': "A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"<ref>[http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=religion "Religion"] in Merriam Webster dictionary.</ref> By this definition, non-theistic belief systems such as [[atheism]], [[humanism]], and [[agnosticism]] could be considered religions. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the [[United States of America]] has acknowledged that "religion" does not need to include a belief in a god or gods, and included Secular Humanism as an example of a non-theistic religion.<ref>"Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God, are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.". [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=488#t11 Torcaso v. Watkins, (1961)]</ref><ref>"A federal court of appeals ruled ... Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat [[atheism]] as a religion." [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45874 Court rules [[atheism]] a religion] WorldNet Daily</ref>
* '''Organisational definition''': Under the definition, the term refers to a particular religious organisation or movement, such a [[Roman Catholic|Catholicism]], [[Methodist|Methodism]], or [[Lutheran]]ism. These groups generally consist of a central creed or body of beliefs, an ethical component (i.e. a code of morals), a body of literature or holy texts or stories, and a set of individual and communal practices. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I don't go to church—but I believe in God."
* '''Practical definition''': Under this definition, the term refers to a set of practices, rites, or rituals observed by followers. Under this definition, a person might say, "I'm not religious, because I'm not into rituals. My relationship with God is enough."

== List of religions ==
Religions can be classified according to how many gods the religion recognises.
=== Monotheistic religions ===

Monotheistic ("one god") religions are followed by the vast majority of the world's population.

* [[Bahá'í]]
* [[Christianity]]<ref>Thats the right one, and the only one. All of the others lead to hell.</ref>
* [[Messianic Judaism]]
* [[Islam]]
* [[Jehovah's Witnesses]]
* [[Judaism]]
* [[Rastafari movement]]
* [[Sikhism]]
* [[Zoroastrianism]]

=== Polytheistic religions ===
Polytheistic ("many gods") religions believe in multiple gods or spirits or other supernatural beings needing to be worshipped. Polytheism has declined since the rise of Christianity, but has seen a recent resurgence among pagan cults in developed nations.

* [[Animism]]
* [[Cao Dai]]
* [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints|Mormonism]]
* [[Paganism]]
* [[Scientology]] {{fact}}
* [[Shamanism]]
* [[Shinto]]
* [[Wicca]]
*[[Greek Paganism]]
*[[Irish Paganism]]

=== Pantheistic religions ===
Pantheistic ("all is god") religions believe that all of creation or nature is a god.

* [[Hinduism]]
* [[Jainism]]
* [[New Age]] beliefs

=== Non-theistic religions and philosophies===
Non-theistic religions do not have a belief in God or gods. Some consider the existence of God to be unknown or irrelevant, while (strong) [[Atheism]] is the belief that that there is no god or gods.
* [[Agnostic]]ism
* [[Atheism]]
** [[Strong atheism]]
** [[Weak atheism]]
* [[Buddhism]] (though with elements of [[Pantheism]])
* [[Secular Humanism]]

=== Parody and joke religions ===
Several "religions" have been invented in an effort to denigrate or parody traditional religions. As a rule, these religions do not have followers who actually believe the tenets of the religions.

* [[Flying Spaghetti Monster|The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster]]
* [[Discordianism]]
* [[Jedi]]
* [[Last Thursdayism]]
* [[Church of the SubGenius|SubGeniism]]

== Faith in organised religion ==

The percentage of respondents answering they had a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in organised religion has decreased in the [[United States]] according to a [[Gallup]] poll taken in 2007. Only 46% of respondents selected either of the choices above. The numbers peaked at 68% in May 1975.<ref>Christian Examiner, Sept. 2007, Vol 25, No 9, Pg. 24</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
* [[World Religions by Number of Followers]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/religion/ What Liberals Say - Category: Religion], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Religion]]

Virginity

2008-06-16T03:38:14Z

JMarks:

[[Image:Agirls.jpg|left]]
'''Virginity''' as a term is an expression of [[purity]]. It implies pure, unadulterated, chaste. A virgin is a person of either [[gender]] who has not had sex.

<blockquote>
''Some girls stay secretive about their [[Christianity]] and desire for virginity until marriage. Don’t be ashamed to let others know where you stand. Ask your youth pastor about signing a document proclaiming your purity commitment. Then tell others about it. Consider wearing a purity symbol such as a ring or special necklace — especially on dates. These have no special power, but they can remind you of your plan to remain sexually pure.'' [http://www.briomag.com/briomagazine/briobeyond/a0004486.html What's Your Plan for Sexual Purity?] by Elaine Creasman.
</blockquote>

Virginity is respected and valued in many societies, especially female virginity, which is often interwoven with personal or family honor and patriarchy in some cultures. Some men place importance on a woman's virginity, especially in a prospective wife, although as men are the better sex, they need not maintain their virginity, and may have who they wish.

== See also ==
[[Image:Virginity.jpg|thumb| Image is based on a World War I poster of Uncle Sam exhorting men to "protect the nation's honor".]]
*[[Sin is addictive]]
*[[Sexual purity]]
*[[Abortion Facts]]

== External links ==

*[http://www.hymnsandcarolsofchristmas.com/Hymns_and_Carols/a_virgin_most_pure.htm A Virgin Most Pure] Words & Music.
*[http://www.sexualfables.com/voices_and_saints.php Was Joan of Arc a Virgin?]
*[http://www.passtheword.org/SHAKER-MANUSCRIPTS/Abstinence/shaker-abst-x1.htm A Virgin Life]
*[http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousright/ig/Christian-Propaganda-Posters/Protecting-Girls-Virginity.htm Fathers - Virginity.]

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Ethics]]

Compulsive profanity

2008-06-16T03:29:26Z

JMarks:

'''Compulsive profanity''' (not to be confused with [[Tourette syndrome]]) is a characteristic common to [[public school]] cultures, [[Hollywood values]], [[United States]]
Hip Hop groups, and [[liberal]] [[internet]] users. It consists of nonstop [[profanity]] and vulgarity. {{fact}} Dim-witted participants may find humor in it, and shows featured on the channel [[Comedy Central]] cater to this audience. It is particularly common throughout contemporary youth culture in the UK, who litter their speech with filthy language in the extreme. One example of compulsive profanity is an old video of FOX political commentator Bill O'Reilly bursting into angry profanity<ref>http://www.vidilife.com/video_play_1174157_Bill_O_Reilly_Is_Angry.htm</ref>

Profanity is virtually non-existent in [[homeschooling]] cultures. {{fact}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

Deliberate ignorance

2008-06-15T19:48:00Z

JMarks:

'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:

* [[Howard Dean]], a physician, former Governor, and longtime politician, refusing to recognize that [[taxpayer-funded abortion]] increases the number of [[abortion]]s<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/210vssua.asp?</ref>
* refusing to acknowledge the inferior credentials of the critics of [[Richard Sternberg]], whom they ostracize for having published an [[intelligent design]] article
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php here].</ref>
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestrial air temperature than human activity.
*The claim that there is a verifiable link between Al-Quaida and Iraq, so we must invade, although all evidence points to the contrary.
(add more)

Common expressions of [[deliberate ignorance]] include:

* I'm not aware of that! (without admitting a failure to look)
* I've never seen that in the [[New York Times]]!
* That's not what it said in my ([[public school]]) textbook!
* Let's talk about something else!
* I'm not interested in that!
* They hate us for our freedom

== Crime of Deliberate Ignorance ==

'''Deliberate ignorance''' can be a crime. For example, jurors were instructed "to consider whether ... former Enron Corp. executives deliberately ignored accounting fraud as the energy trader fell into bankruptcy."<ref>http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2006/05/11/enron_jury_to_consider_deliberate_ignorance/</ref>

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:philosophy]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-14T20:36:33Z

JMarks: Since you've decided...

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,
JMarks.

HPV vaccine

2008-06-14T05:07:08Z

JMarks: Uh-huh......So, Harry Whittington was also shot by by a gun, wielded by a crazy person?

The '''HPV vaccine''' is a product developed by [[Merck]] under the brand name Gardasil, and it protects against a few strains of a sexually transmitted disease. Specifically, this vaccine protects against types 6, 11, 16 and 18 of the human papillomavirus
(HPV), which is transmitted only by sexual contact with a partner.

Only about 3% of women are infected in their lifetime by these four types of HPV (Types 6, 11, 16, 18) targeted by the vaccine.<ref>This was confirmed by a study published February 28, 2007 in the Journal of the American Medical Association, JAMA 297(8):813-819, February 28, 2007.</ref>

There have been 3,461 adverse reactions, including eleven deaths, reportedly due to the HPV vaccine since the FDA approval in June 2006.<ref>http://www.judicialwatch.org/6428.shtml</ref>

The HPV vaccine does not protect against other sexually transmitted diseases (e.g., chlamydia, herpes, hepatitis, trichomoniasis, gonorrhea, syphilis, [[HIV]], [[AIDS]], etc.), and the vaccine is not recommended for use in pregnant women or girls.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The HPV vaccine is being promoted as protection against cervical cancer, but Merck itself does not ensure protection in its package insert.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref> Rather, this claim is based on research showing that 70% of cervical cancer cases also have prevalence of these four strains of HPV, but correlation is not necessarily causation.<ref>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/HPV</ref> Cervical cancer has already been quickly declining in the United States ''without'' the vaccine.

The FDA approved this HPV vaccine without reviewing any epidemiological studies, and after monitoring for only a brief period elevated [[antibody]] levels in recipients of the vaccine.<ref> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5602a1.htm</ref> No tests were done, for example, to see if the vaccine causes cancer or birth defects in rats, though such tests would be easy for the FDA to require, if it weren't for the possibility that it might cause disapproval of the vaccine.<ref>http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/g/gardasil/gardasil_pi.pdf</ref>

The long-term consequences of the HPV vaccine are not known. Children in the 9-year-old age group have been monitored for only 18 months, and there have been no studies of possible longer-term risks of the vaccine, such as infertility or cancer.

Merck sells Gardasil for $360 ($120 per shot in a three-shot series). Adding administrative costs, the overall cost to the public is $400-500 per child vaccinated. Doing the math, the cost of vaccinating 100 children will be at least $40,000, but only 3 out of that 100 will ever be exposed to the HPV types targeted by the vaccine.

The average age of diagnosis of cervical cancer is 48 years old. Accordingly, the effective cost is $13,000 per child to possibly protect her against a cancer over 30 years in the future. But the vaccine is not known to be effective for more than five years; most new vaccines are not effective any longer than that.

A 100% effective means of protection against the same disease is freely available, and it is [[abstinence]]. Moreover, pap smears are an inexpensive and easy way to detect, manage and treat cervical cancer without allowing it to become fatal.

The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]], the Texas Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have not supported making this vaccine mandatory.

Dr. Jon Abramson, a member of the [[CDC]]'s advisory committee on immunization practices, said to the Washington Times that "I told Merck my personal opinion that it shouldn't be mandated. And they heard it from other committee members."<ref>http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21151</ref>

In addition to the above referenced injuries and deaths, many girls who receive the HPV vaccine say that it is the most painful of all injections they get, and that the vaccine itself burns, unlike the "other shots [that] tend to hurt only at the moment of the needle stick, and not after the vaccine plunges in." Many girls have been known to pass out from the pain.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22492557/</ref>

Parents can best decide whether to give this unproven vaccine to their own children, most of whom are never likely to benefit from it.

----
<references/>

[[category:pharmaceuticals]]
[[Category:vaccines]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-10T19:38:08Z

JMarks: /* "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-10T03:50:54Z

JMarks: /* Curious about removal of "liberal bias" */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

User:JMarks

2008-06-10T03:03:11Z

JMarks:

Went from here after saw wikipedias bias in certain articles. My areas of interest are basically poltiics and random liberal deceit.

Talk:Young mass murderers

2008-06-10T03:01:02Z

JMarks:

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

and Italian widows.

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Young mass murderers

2008-06-10T03:00:43Z

JMarks: Ummm...Mr. Schlafly?

In God We Trust

2008-06-10T02:40:19Z

JMarks:

'''"In God We Trust"''' is the slogan found on all American currency.

The phrase was first authorized for American coins in 1864, and first imprinted on them in 1866.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml|work=U.S. Treasury|title=Fact Sheet on the History of 'In God We Trust'|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=2007-09-29}}</ref>

For nearly 150 years [[United States dollar coins]] included this motto on one flat side of the coin, but in 2007 the new [[United States dollar coins|George Washington dollar coin]] includes this motto only in small print on the ''edge'' of the coin.

Some [[atheistic]] [[liberals]] have attempted to have the phrase removed from currency, going so far as to mark out the phrase saying, incorrectly, that the [[Constitution]] forbids it.

== References ==

<references/>
[[category:United States]]

Young mass murderers

2008-06-10T02:31:16Z

JMarks:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Killed
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]], both of which are sononomous with killings.
|
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a God or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was satanic and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoid suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "Jesus was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>"We are Virginia Tech. ... We do not understand this tragedy. ... Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. ..."[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>
|-
|2007
|Asa Coon
|SuccessTech public school Academy (Cleveland)
|Himself
|4
|Said he didn't believe in [[God]] and didn't respect [[God]], killed after classmate disagreed; wore black<ref>[http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1192092117230670.xml&coll=2]</ref>
|Under-publicized because of his anti-[[God]] statements
|-
|2006
|Kimveer Gill
|Rosemere High School (Quebec)
|1 + himself
|20
|"I hate God" and "I hate religious zealots"
|[[Canada]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out [[Christian]] victims
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Tennessee]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[category:crime]]

Hindu deities

2008-06-03T06:03:11Z

JMarks:

'''Agni''' is the [[god]] of [[fire]], he begeted the gods, organised the world, produces and preserves universal life, and throughout never ceases to be the embodiment of fire.<ref>{{Nuttall|Agni}}</ref>

'''Bhaga''' is the god of wealth and marriage.

'''Brahma''' is a major [[god]] in [[Hinduism]] and is said to be part of a trinity involving [[Shiva]] and [[Vishnu]].

'''Budha''' in [[Hindu]] [[Mythology]] is the son of the [[moon goddess]] and the god of the planet [[Mercury]], merchandise, and the guardian of merchants. Budha (Hinduism) is the consort of [[Ila]], the daughter of [[Manu]]. (Not to be confused with [[Buddha]])

'''Durga''' is the consort of [[Shiva]].<ref>{{Nuttall|Durgâ}}</ref>

'''Ganesha''' is a [[god]] with an [[elephant]]'s head and four arms; the inspirer of cunning devices and good counsel, afterwards the patron of letters and learned men.<ref>{{Nuttall|Ganega}}</ref>

'''Hanuman''' is the monkey-god of the [[Hindus]] and is a friend of [[Rama]], for whose benefit he reared a causeway across seas to Ceylon.<ref>{{Nuttall|Hanuman}}</ref>

'''Indra''' is the king of heaven and national god of the [[Hindu]]s he is said to give rise to victories to peoples, and is always ready to aid them; he is preeminently a warlike god, and as he stands on his war-chariot, drawn by five fawn-coloured horses, he is in a sort the type of an Indian chieftain; he is sometimes assisted by other gods, but he more frequently fights alone; he is the dispenser, moreover, of all good gifts, and the author and preserver of all living; his power extends over the heavens, and he holds the earth in the hollow of his hand.<ref>{{nuttall|Indra}}</ref>

'''Kala''' is the Hindu equivalent to [[Chronus]], or the god of time, who, as in the Greek mythology, at once produces and devours all things.<ref>{{Nuttall|Kâla}}</ref>

'''Kali''' meaning the black one, is one of the names of the wife of [[Shiva]], and of whom she is his female counterpart, and has been identified with the Greek [[Hecate]]; she is often represented with a necklace of human heads.<ref>{{Nuttall|Kali}}</ref>

'''Kama''' is the Hindu equivalent to [[Cupid]], or the [[god]] of [[love]], a potent god of the Hindu pantheon, able to subdue nearly all the rest of the gods except [[Shiva]], who once with a single glance of his Cyclop eye reduced him to ashes for daring to bring trouble into his breast; he is one of the primitive gods of the [[Hindu pantheon]], like the Eros of the Greeks.<ref>{{Nuttall|Kâma}}</ref>

'''[[Krishna]]''', meaning the swarthy one, is a man-god, or god-man, and is viewed by Hindus as the 8th and final incarnation or avatar of [[Vishnu]], in whose [[manifestation]] the latter first reveals himself as supreme divinity;<ref>{{Nuttall|Krishna}}</ref> see [[Bhagavad Gita]].

'''Kubera''' or '''Kuvera''', is the Hindu equivalent to [[Plutus]], or god of riches, he is represented as deformed and mounted on a vehicle drawn by hobgoblins.<ref>{{Nuttall|Kubera}}</ref>

[[Image:Halebidu Lakshminarayana.jpg|right|thumb|Relief sculpture of [[Vishnu]] and Lakshmi]] '''Lakshmi''' is in the Hindu mythology the wife of [[Vishnu]] and the goddess of [[beauty]], [[pleasure]], and [[victory]]; she is a favourite subject of Hindu painting and [[poetry]].<ref>{{Nuttall|Lakshmi}}</ref>

'''Mitra''' is a [[solar deity]] worshiped by the [[Hinduism|Hindus]], and is invoked by them when they take a vow.

'''Murugan''' is the son of [[Agni]], and a god of war, he is especially worshiped among the Hindus, by Hindus who are part of the [[Tamil]] ethnicity. He is the most popular deity amongst the Tamils.

'''Parvati''' is a [[Hindu]] [[goddess]], and the mother of [[Ganesha]], and [[Murugan]].

'''Rama''' is an [[avatar]] of [[Vishnu]], being the seventh, in the character of a [[hero]], a destroyer of monsters and a bringer of [[joy]], as the name signifies, the narrative of whose exploits are given in the Râmâyana.<ref>{{Nuttall|Râma}}</ref>

'''Rudra''' is the old deity of the [[storm]], and father of the [[Marutz]].<ref>{{Nuttall|Rudra}}</ref>

'''Sarasvati''' is a [[Hindu]] [[goddess]], and ultimately the wife of [[Brahma]] and goddess of [[music]] and eloquence.<ref>{{Nuttall|Sarasvati}}</ref>

'''Shiva''' is one of the three major gods in [[Hinduism]], representing the destructiveness inherent in the world, and is supreme god in [[Shaivism]].

'''Surya''', the [[sun]] conceived of as a female [[deity]].<ref>{{Nuttall|Surya}}</ref>

'''Varuna''' is the [[god]] of the luminous heavens, viewed as embracing all things and as the primary source of all life and every blessing. “In connection with no other god,” says M. Barth, “is the sense of the divine majesty and of the absolute dependence of the creature expressed with the same force. We must go to the psalms to find similar accents of adoration and supplication.” He was the prototype of the Greek [[Uranus (god)|Uranus]], the primeval father of gods and men.<ref>{{Nuttall|Varuna}}</ref>

'''Vishnu''' is the supreme and most commonly worshiped god of [[Hinduism]]. According to Hinduism, Vishnu is responsible for the upkeep of the universe.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Hinduism]] [[Category:Divine Beings]]

Zeus

2008-06-03T06:02:39Z

JMarks:

[[Image:Jupiter.gif|right|thumb|Statue of Zeus, created by the famous Greek sculptor [[Pheidius]] during the 5th century B.C. It was considered one of the [[Seven Wonders of the Ancient World]]. The statue stood for over 800 years in the temple of Zeus at Olympia in Greece, until it was destroyed by fire.]]
In [[Greek mythology]], '''Zeus''' was the king of the [[Greece|Greek]] gods and the supreme ruler of [[Mount Olympus]]. He was the son of [[Cronus]] and [[Rhea (mythology)|Rhea]], who led the [[Titans]] (a race of mythical beings descended from Uranus and Gaia who preceded the Olympians as rulers of creation). Zeus overthrew his father to become the king of the gods. He was said to rule the world with his siblings [[Hera]] (also his wife), [[Poseidon]], [[Hades]], [[Demeter]], and [[Hestia]]; his children [[Athena]], [[Apollo]], [[Artemis]], [[Hermes]], [[Hephaestus]], and [[Ares]]; and [[Aphrodite]]. These were the thirteen major Greek gods; the Greeks also worshipped numerous minor deities.

Zeus is also depicted as having a number of infidelities. The most famous of his children from these liasons was [[Hercules]], a demi-god of great strength.

Zeus was adopted by the [[Romans]] as their chief god and called [[Jupiter (god)|Jupiter Optimus Maximus]], whose temple was in [[Rome]].

== See also ==

*[[Iliad]]

==References==
:[http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/About/mythology.html The Mythology of Jupiter], NASA Quest.

[[Category:Olympians]] [[Category:Divine Beings]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2008-05-25T03:51:16Z

JMarks: /* To Kill A Mockingbird */

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 film (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)

:If the National Review is clueless, why is one of their articles currently featured on the Main Page?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:37, 23 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)

What I saw of Forrest Gump was very [[liberal]], which is not surprising given that Tom Hanks is very [[liberal]]. The movie has the quality of [[liberal]] elitism, dumbing down the character and the audience to spoon-feed them some propaganda. Sermonizing about the 1960s, for example. The religious references described above seem more like mockery than authentic. The faith of a simpleton is not silly or foolish. [[Louis Pasteur]], far brighter than we are, said that he hoped to die with the powerful faith of French peasant, for example.

Beyond that, the Forrest Gump has an Oprah Winfrey-like style of unrealistic idiocy. Gump fails to given a realistic portrayal of an idiot. Instead, the movie seems to view its audience as idiots.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:16, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Back to SPR. Andy, I'm not a liberal, and while I'm right of center, I'm not as far to the right as you are. Speaking from thirteen years service (USMC), I can tell you most Marines and soliders do curse (a hell of alot more and far more colorfully than was portrayed in the movie), and while you do find the occasional guy who reads his pocket New Testament and goes to services, they are the exception and not the rule. Most men in these units are at best, nominal Christians, and SPR is a realistic depiction of combat and men in combat. BTW, I don't think Hanks was really portraying any particular individual; SPR was historical fiction. As far as SPR or Gump being liberal, I don't think they are slanted to the right or left either way. I don't think most people watch a movie and think "this is liberal" or "this is conservative," with the exception of Micheal Moore films, and a few Susan Sarandon films that promoted a particular agenda. By the way, my remark about the folks with faith being less intelligent was inspired by your (unintentionally humourus) remarks above. God Bless--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 09:07, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::: Eddiec, you've already mocked Christianity and the mentally disabled so your description of the military, even if you did serve 13 years in the Marines, is of little value. Christians formed the backbone of our military and I think you're making your comments up, or you're seeing only what you want to. Note, by the way, that SPR portrays the military during WWII. Do you claim that you served in that also??? That there were only nominal Christians in that war also, per your experience???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:21, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Andy, I did not mock Christianity; I mocked you. WWII was before my time, but I think my serivce has value. I saw other Marines everyday and interacted with them. Do you have military experice Andy? Have you interacted with Marines and soldiers on a daily basis? Perhaps you are making things up or creating a fantasy where military people do not cuss and sit around reading the Bible.THey are far more likely to be reading Playboy. Actually, they are more likely to be reading something far worse (at least by your lights)--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 10:30, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm going to defend the possible conservativeness of Gump here. Very early on, for example, FG and his best friend Jenny pray for God to save her from her abusive father, and He does. Later in the movie, Forrest the Soldier is the Good Guy, and the peacenik hippies are clearly the Bad Guys. As mentioned above, too, Lt Dan doesn't find satisfaction in life until he makes peace with God. Then there's the scenes where FG goes running, and ends up with a whole crowd of doofus followers, demonstrating the danger of false prophets. And of course, the character of Jenny throughout the film demonstrates the danger of hedonism. I don't recall feeling that any of this was mocking religion. (And, not incidentally, FG isn't a "retard" or an idiot--his character is that of the proverbial Innocent)--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 14:33, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that Gump is a conservative movie. It emphasizes the importance of family (Gump's interaction with his mother and his child) and there are Christian overtones throughout. Yours in Christ--[[User:Eddiec|Eddiec]] 15:28, 25 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)

I agree with Literati and Alec on this one. There were a lot of [[liberal]] undertones throughout the movie. --[[User:TUgoh|TUgoh]] 16:17, 28 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)

== V for Vendetta ==

This movie should definitely be taken out of the list! The creators of the graphic novel wrote it in part as a slam of Margaret Thatcher's policies. The movie itself contains many references to 'the downfall of the US starting with the Iraq war' and how the 'US dragged the whole world into war' and the 'oppresion of gays and lesbians', and 'government sponsored camps for minorites and Muslims'. Not to mention the glorification of terrorism as a justifiable means to an end and the crypto-Christian 'state religion' and how that opposes any other religions. [[User:Tordenvaer|Tordenvaer]]

: Done. Thanks for your insights.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Team America: World Police ==

I honestly can't believe no one has mentioned Team America. It makes fun of the U.N. (and their irrelevance), Michael Moore, liberal Hollywood, the gay agenda in broadway musicals. It shows terrorists and Kim Jong Il for who they are, and has an overall conservative point of view.
:That was the movie that got in trouble because of the puppet sex, right? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:50, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

::I watched it last week. It does not have a distinctly conservative point of view. It simply makes fun of everyone. After decades of only having movies make fun of conservatives, this may seem like "fair and equal" treatment, but I was not amused (see [[moral equivalence]]).

::I will grant you that there were some conservative ''points'' made in the movie: that actors support dictators, is one. But showing the "good side" as sophomoric, bickering perverts is not particularly conservative. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:13, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of the book "South Park Conservatives", for good reasons, and obvious ones at that... it's one of those that can go either way, honestly. I like the movie, but I think it probably shouldn't be on our list, because, well, of the content. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:16, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Star Wars]] ==

[[Star Wars]] certainly looked like a fable concerning the triumph of good against evil. But that was before the prequels came out. ''Revenge of the Sith'' said it all.

The problem: the Galactic Empire is a metaphor for the [[United States]]. It started out being a metaphor for [[Nazi]] [[Germany]]--but clearly [[George Lucas]] is one of those who equates [[George W. Bush]] to [[Adolf Hitler]].

The particular enemies of the Old Republic looked like a metaphor for Muslims; I couldn't be sure.

But did anyone notice that Galactic Imperial personnel were all [[Caucasian]] and exclusively male? Furthermore, the officers all spoke either with [[United Kingdom|British]] or [[United States|American]] accents. (The troopers don't matter anymore; we now know that they are all clones of Jango Fett.)

More to the point: the rebels were the "diverse" lot.

Hint, hint--diversity is good; a unified culture is evil.

I therefore respectfully recommend that we scratch [[Star Wars]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:27, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:All of that is speculative, unless you have a reference for Lucas deliberately drawing a Vader-Bush parallel or something like that. Didn't the first three films come out during the Carter-Reagan years? Way before Bush.

:I don't understand the bti about "all male". Armies have always been all-male. At Fort Campbell, I was in an infantry brigade of 1,500 men (and zero women).

:The Galactic Empire represents Imperialism and/or Fascism, and if you followed the politics of the recent three films, you can see how "the chancellor" seized power in a way similar to the way Hitler seized power. A sort of slow motion coup, carried out by parliamentary maneuvering.

:I don't see how Bush getting elected by the people has anything to do with Hitler's rise to power. And Bush's (possibly overzealous) attempts to free people in the Middle East from cruel dictatorships seems rather the ''opposite'' of what Hitler was doing. (And didn't Saddam Hussein kill around 300,000 people with "Death Star" tactics and concentration camps? Who's more the Darth Vader type, Bush or Hitler? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:09, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
So is diversity bad? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:36, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

:Diversity ''per se'' is not so bad. What's bad is the implication that Western culture is inherently evil.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 14:30, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

Episodes IV - VI may have been nice Conservative movies. But the early ones destroyed that image. Look no further, but to the real hero of the first three episodes Obi-wan "Only the Sith deal in absolutes".[[User:Mgroop|Mgroop]] 10:27, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

==Lord of the Rings==

I wonder if this is really appropriate as a conservative film. The film contains a lot of demonic imagery, and many examples of witchcraft. It's very violent, not something I would show my children. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:07, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:Well, it's not appropriate for small children, sure, but it's a very effective story of good battling evil, with a lot of Christian themes. Sauron is pretty much equivalent to the Devil, and I don't think it's going too far to say that Gandalf is in part a Jesus-type figure. In addition, the Ring is a classic example of temptation, a theme that runs throughout the series.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 11:30, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== High Noon ==

If High Noon was written by an ex-Communist, I don't see how it would be anti-American. In fact, I don't recall anything about patriotism either way in the film.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:The tripod ref is confusing: [http://drhill.tripod.com/ssi3240/pdf/lecture8.htm] It says Americans have the right to belief as they want, as long as they don't advocate overthrowing the government. But it also complains that SAG vowed not to hire actors and writers who belong to groups which "advocate overthrowing the goverment. Doctor Hill can't have it both ways. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:02, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== ''A Wonderful Life'' and ''Mr. Smith Goes to Washington'' ==

I question whether these movies should be included here. They are based on liberal, populist ideas that are hokey and don't reflect reality. The first has as its hero a man who runs an S&L and as its villain a banker. The second subscribes to the point of view that big business controls Washington. I would propose removing them. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 22:31, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
:Obvious troll. A warning would be appropriate, IMO. --[[User:Turing100111010|Turing100111010]] 23:09, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

*Traditional Conservative's would see the point, not reject it! We are not pro big business, for the sake of big business, and the Savings and Loan idea is a conservative one, reflecting local control, and de-centralization of banking, away from Washington, and to the local communities. Liberalism supports more central control, and an elitist, anti-individual POV...wherein only the elite of D.C. know what is best for the people. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:06, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:Sheesh, the ''bank'' was locally controlled also in the first film. Even today's multistate banks aren't really controlled from Washington (unless you count the government regulation). Savings and loans were promoted during the New Deal (when the film is set) by the very "elite of D.C." that you deplore, based on the idea that people were being hoodwinked by their local capitalist bankers.
:As to the second film, it's not so much that being pro-business is necessarily ''required'' to be conservative, it's more that a particular view of it, as a moustache-twisting villain that the people have to be saved from by government (promoted in that film), that is a typical part of the liberal world view. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 08:28, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

:: Personally, I see additional reasons to reject It's a Wonderful Life. It strikes me as conveying a humanist message in a quasi-religious wrapper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:11, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Three Godfathers ==
By this do you mean ''The Godfather'' and the two sequels (Conservative as a detailed portrayal of the moral corruption of organised crime), or am I missing something and there is a film of this name? (I don't get out much) [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:18, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: I think that's what is meant. I never saw the films and, frankly, our list should probably be trimmed and some suggestions, like that one, removed from being called "conservative".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:46, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:: Thanks - they are certainly not overtly conservative in message, and very violent (though with the underlying message that crime corrupts). [[User:Koba|Koba]] 15:53, 2 March 2008 (EST)

:::It was probably in reference to one of two westerns titled "Three Godfathers". I haven't seen either of them, though. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:40, 3 March 2008 (EST)

== The Exorcist? ==

I've never seen it, but my pastor says that it is a Satanic movie. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:24, 2 March 2008 (EST)

: Your pastor is right. The movie displays [[Satan]] and all his hideous attributes: vulgarity, irrationality, hatred for life, delight in harming people, etc. But the movie highly respects Christianity's attempt to combat evil. Indeed, the movie suggests that ''only'' Christianity is willing and equipped to fight the evil. I won't spoil the ending. I recommend you rent and see it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:48, 2 March 2008 (EST)

== To Kill A Mockingbird ==

A truly inspiring movie. Can I add it to the list? Long-time lurker, first time editing --[[User:Martib|Martib]] 20:51, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

: Didn't see it, but I don't think it was particularly [[conservative]]. Why might you think it was?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:16, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

::Seems conservative to me. Teaches that all people are created equal and no one deserves any other rights than anyone else. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 13:40, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::: I think there is more to the movie than that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:49, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Well, like what, if I may ask? --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 13:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::: You tell us, if you think the movie deserves inclusion. The movie certainly entails more than the mundane truism that all people are created equal and no one deserves special rights not enjoyed by others. Tell us what you think is so special about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:58, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::Well, religion is certainly one aspect of it. The movie seems deeply rooted in Christianity, as the people are church goers. In one particular scene, one of the main characters must shoot a dog in order to protect his family, thereby invoking the Second Amendment. It is a movie with good values. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 14:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Gee, JMarks, you're not a professional movie reviewer in your spare time, are you??? Your analysis astutely focuses right on the heart of the movie's message!!! Yeah, right, it's a Second Amendment movie! Try comedy next, JMarks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:47, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

''To Kill a Mockingbird'' does not espouse conservative values? Really? I must wonder Aschlafly if you've seen the movie (or better yet, read the book), because TKaM is a fine example of storytelling.Upon rereading I see that you '''did''' say you hadn't seen it, mea culpa. It conveys the need for a strong character in the midst of unusually difficult circumstances; to strive for the principle of the rule of law to overcome deeply ingrained cultural "norms" that turn normal God-fearing folk into a horde of mindless vigilantes. It also portrays the family as the basic unit of society '''and''' the importance of family in teaching that the values that sometimes permeate society at-large do not necessarily reflect those of a respectful, just and honorable [read conservative] way of life. -[[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 17:31, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

::::::::Excuse me, Mr. Schlafly, but you criticize me for my talents as a "movie reviewer" and disparage my comment on the second amendment, when you created the site that condones criticizing Mark Wahlberg because of something his character did in a movie? Seems you are the one making sweeping generalization about a small point in a movie. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:51, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2008-05-24T18:05:01Z

JMarks: /* To Kill A Mockingbird */

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2008-05-24T17:51:46Z

JMarks: /* To Kill A Mockingbird */

User:JMarks

2008-05-24T17:41:42Z

JMarks: New page: Went from here after saw wikipedias bias in certain articles.

Went from here after saw wikipedias bias in certain articles.

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2008-05-24T17:40:03Z

JMarks: /* To Kill A Mockingbird */