Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Paul McCartney

2008-06-27T18:52:42Z

Jedisqrl:

Were my edits reverted so that the previous edit could be reverted? Can I add my edits back in (where they fit)? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:48, 29 December 2007 (EST)
:Yes to both :) [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 19:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)
::Coolio. :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:50, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I never considered McCartney to be all that great. Then again I'm not a fan. Sorry--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 14:52, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:MileyCyrus

2008-06-27T18:50:23Z

Jedisqrl: New page: You do know theres already an article on Miley Cyrus in the Female Singers section?--~~~~

You do know theres already an article on Miley Cyrus in the Female Singers section?--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 14:50, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Rat

2008-06-14T19:06:09Z

Jedisqrl:

== wow ==

um wikipedia has alot better info on rats, this entry is a direct controdiction to conservapedia's moto: an enclopedia I can trust, all I know is that a rat is an animal it lives on every continent but antarctica and that people consider it a pest. wow if that's all there is to Zoology then anybody can be it
:Feel free to add any factual information you want to. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 00:30, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Would a section on Rats In Popular Culture be good I could gladly add that.--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 15:06, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Raccoon

2008-06-14T19:02:46Z

Jedisqrl: New page: I like Raccoons does anyone else?--~~~~

I like Raccoons does anyone else?--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 15:02, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-14T18:43:48Z

Jedisqrl:

Olivier? Bogart? Pacino? Brando? Deniro?

No, when I think "actor who deserves encyclopedic recognition," I think "Neil Patrick Harris. That's the guy."

This is why I love it here. Y'all are just hiLARious.[[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey you got Alec Baldwin why not do an entry on his baby brother Stephen Baldwin (the only REAL man in that family)
:How is the masculinity of the other brothers in question? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:01, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 15:52, 7 June 2008 (EDT)I was refering to maturity not masculinity
--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 23:53, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== What about these actors and acteresses ==

someone needs to do articles on
Bruce Willis
Kevin Sorbo
James Arness
Billy Bob Thornton
Steve Buscemi
Lucy Lawless
Nikita Ager
Halle Berry
Pierce Brosnon
Liam Neeson
Mark Hamill
Jeremy Irons
Kristanna Loken
ok?
Oh I forgot Gerald McRaney,Delta Burke,Dolph Lundgren and Andy Garcia--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 14:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Manatee

2008-06-09T06:28:49Z

Jedisqrl:

'''Manatees''' (family ''Trichechidae'', genus ''Trichechus'') are large, fully-aquatic marine [[mammals]] sometimes known as sea [[cow]]s. The name comes from the [[Spanish]] manatí, which itself comes from a Carib word meaning "breast." They comprise three of the four living species in the order ''Sirenia'', the other being the dugong, which is native to the Eastern Hemisphere.The Manatee is sometimes credited as an explanation for mermaid sightings.

[[Category:Mammals]]

Avril Lavigne

2008-06-09T06:24:20Z

Jedisqrl:

'''Avril Lavigne''' (born September 27, 1984) is a popular [[Canada|Canadian]] [[pop music|pop]] singer. She released her first album, ''[[Let Go (album)|Let Go]]'', at the the age of 17. To date, she has released three albums.

The first single, "Girlfriend", off her third album, is possibly her biggest hit, gathering over 60 million views on the website [[YouTube]].

The lyrics of many of the songs off her third album has much more adult language than the first two, putting it into the [[adult pop]] genre of music.

Avril Lavigne is well known for singing the touching ballad "Keep Holding On" which was the main Theme Song to the hit sword and sorcery fantasy film [[Eragon]].

Avril Lavigne also lent her voice to the character Heather the [[Opossum]] in the hit animated film Over The Hedge which also starred Bruce Willis,William Shatner and Steve Carell

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lavigne, Avril}}

[[Category:Women Singers]]

Opossum

2008-06-09T06:20:14Z

Jedisqrl: /* The Opossum in Popular Culture */

The '''Opossum''' is a small marsupial from the family ''Opossumus maximus arborealis'' that is known for its ability to hang from trees by its tail. It is native to the [[deciduous]] forests of [[North America]], where it feeds on slugs, red berries, [[thistle]] seed, and sticks. It ranges in length from 13-18 centimeters, has gray fur, large front teeth, and beady little eyes. It also has large ears, which help it hear better than other animal in the world. A common misconception about the opossum is that it is the same animal as the possum, which is actually a completely different animal from the family ''Possumus grandus ignoramus'' and is not at all able to hang from its tail.

==The Opossum in Popular Culture==
The opossum has appeared in varous venues of popular culture including

Pogo Possum the titular character from the comic strip of the same name created by Walt Kelly

Ozzie and Heather the father and daughter team of opossums in the popular full length animated feature "Over The Hedge" They were voiced by [[William Shatner]] and [[Avril Lavigne]].

Possible Possum a animated character of the 1950s

On an episode of Bizzare Foods host Andrew Zimmern ate some Opossum cooked with Sweet Potatoes

[[Category:Marsupials]]

User talk:StatsMsn

2008-06-09T02:28:12Z

Jedisqrl:

Thanks for your reply and that link I save the pic from it BTW--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 22:28, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for spell checking my religion essay. I am a really terrible speller. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:If you want to join or start a debate, see [[Debate Topics]] when you come back. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:45, 30 April 2008 (EDT)

Bang your head against a brick wall much?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:40, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Only when I'm very frustrated, as it involves me having to exit my house. In cases such as these the wood of my desk tends to be enough. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 00:09, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

You should do what I did - I built a hand held brickwall that I keep by my desk. Its good to as I can carry around when I go to my parents house, order pizza, rent dvd's or have to call the tax department.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:05, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Your edit summary==

You wrote an insulting edit summary:

:''you would know if you've actually read the book''

Please review [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]] and try again on [[Al Franken]]. By the way, it's better not to use words like "rebut" or "refute" in a way that implies that a liberal is correct and a conservative is wrong, when the matter is in dispute. Maybe Wikipedia would allow that, but not us. Why not say "disagree" or "argue" instead? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:03, 27 May 2008 (EDT)
:Because rather than just disagreeing he cites a number of sources and uses relevant arguments to make a point (one example, refuting claims that Clinton neglected the intelligence community by showing funding increases during the Clinton era etc). I'm sure it is rare, but occasionally a liberal is correct and a conservative wrong, and in these cases it is a refutation. As for personal attacks I did not intend to attack another author, I wanted to state that it seemed odd that an edit contrary to a significant portion of the material presented in the book was made if the editor had read it, and was wondering if the editor had in fact done this. I admit I could have worded it better. Have you read it? If you put politics aside it can be quite funny in some sections. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:11, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

This is not an apology, but a repetition and justification of the mistake. Acknowledge your error and submit a [[writing plan]], or you can't stay here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:46, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

:Since neither you nor Learn Together requested an apology I saw no reason to submit one, although I did clearly state: ''I admit I could have worded it better''. Nonetheless, to satisfy your desires:

:I sincerely apologise to Learn Together for any temporary or permanent harm that he has suffered as a result of me suggesting he had not read ''Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'' by Al Franken.

:If there is another error I have missed then please bring it to my attention so I can address it.

:With respect to the writing plan, I intend to do the following:
:*edit articles where I have knowledge of the subject matter
:*create articles which have not previously existed where I have knowledge of the subject matter
:*correct mistakes where I believe I have sufficient knowledge to make a correct judgment
:*engage other editors on discussion pages with respect to the material on the article

:Please let me know if there is anything else I can submit to appease you. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:39, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Phelps

2008-06-08T05:39:48Z

Jedisqrl: Am I the only one?

==No linking to Phelps's web sites==

They are not family appropriate, and Conservapedia is not a repository of hate speech. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: Would it be reasonable to add the prohibition of making and linking to hate speech one of the commandments? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:21, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:: I think that's an excellent idea. I suggest bringing it up either on Aschlafly's Talk Page or Talk:Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I did not know that I shouldn't have linked to his websites. However, could you please put into the opening paragraph that Fred Phelps' mission is against homosexuality? As it is, this important fact is not mentioned until halfway down the page. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 19:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
:Will do. In fact, I'm going to unprotect this. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:55, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely the main authority on Phelps's teachings in Phelps himself? His sites should be linked to. I suggest doing so as plain text, not a clickable link, and alongside a warning notice.

*Posts not signed are ignored. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 01:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Discussion of subject==

I'm going to tentatively leave this in place, although it was intended to make Christians look bad by the original creator, he is a major news figure because of his funeral protests, and his actions have prompted major legislation regarding these (and he is also a major embarrassment to my home state, as well as a DEMOCRAT who actually campaigned for Al Gore in 1988 before he went on his anti-homosexual crusade).

Also, I drove by his "church" once and I got a physical chill once I got within two blocks of it. I felt like I was in a place of true evil. Interestingly, the ZIP codes in Topeka, where he lives, all start with 666. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evidently his views changed, judging by his protest of the funeral of Al Gore's father. [[User:RandomishName11|RandomishName11]] 00:42, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

I just moved it because it was under "Fred phelps," and the lack of proper capitalization was bothering me. I like to copy edit. :-p [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:29, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

If you looked at the original article as it was written, it contained some crude language. But thanks for working on the capitalization. It bothers me as well when articles are started like that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely. I didn't want to bother with the article at the time, and I'm glad someone else did. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:32, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

On a more humorous note, [http://www.barzelay.net/files/images/other/phelps.jpg this] was taken outside of Vandy when Phelps came to visit. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I saw that picture for sale in a liberal store downtown once. It's so funny.
One of Phelps's lackeys told my friend that his hair was too long once. (I live about 25 miles from Topeka, so we get a lot of him.) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:But everyone knows, Jesus doesn't like long hair... [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 03:52, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::::This man makes me question the First Amendment, he is just that much of a evil being.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 03:54, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know. His speech is beyond reasonable and just disgusting. I would guess that a majority of Kansans would support his execution.
And Colin, you may be thinking of Paul :) [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:55, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I know the feeling. I'm a huge believer in the importance of the First Amendment, especially free speech, but what he says is just so ridiculous it's hard to believe it's technically allowed. And MD, I was mostly referring to the fact that most men of Jesus' time had "longer" hair. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 04:03, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what I thought. I don't like to judge other Christians' salvation, but I have to make an exception here for old Freddie. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

: OK, I saw you reverted the article back after I added content about the extent of his hate speach. There needs away for this to be stated, especially if you are going to allow the b.s. about militant homosexuals on the page. Otherwise this article makes him come across as less insane than he is.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 18:04, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree. I just don't think that the word "fag" is appropriate for an article on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 20:05, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The hate crimes against Fred Phelps section is uncited b.s. and I think it should be deleted unless someone can give any evidence beyond Phelps' own paranoia and delusional rantings. I'm doing you a favor--Fred Phelps is not your friend. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I'm also taking out the Al Gore contributions part since that isn't cited either. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 11:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Edits by Jack ==

please push your liberal views in an article about yourself. This article is about Fred Phelps views, not yours. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 13:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Ummmm, liberal views? You say that as if it was a bad thing. One of the commandments here is that claims need to be properly sourced. This article is certainly making a lot of excuses regarding one of the most abhorrant men in America today. He goes to military funerals with signs that say "God Hates F*gs". That is an objective, well documented fact. However, the sysops delete it from the main page. However, completely unsubstantiated claims by Phelps that HE is the victim of hate crimes is allowed to be left up. --[[User:Jack|Jack]] 22:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::The subject of an article and their public statements are reliable sources for an article. Phelps is preaching the literal statements of the Bible. In fact, he is at the most extreme end of the spectrum with the limits of free speech I have ever seen. The article is about his views and him. And he is certainly notable. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 22:16, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::RightWolf2, please stop editing the article to claim that Phelps is "literally following the Bible", and please stop attacking Jack. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1. Not an attack, but a statement of my views. 2. When admins and their buddies start forming cabals to reinforce each other, free editing goes out the window. 3. I am over 60 years old, I am a competent attorney, and I am not here to rain on anyones parade. Just to add God's word. 4. Your views of Phelps are "your views". Articles about subjects as controversial as phelps should enshrine "his views", not everyone elses opinions. [[User:RightWolf2|RightWolf2]] 11:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Landover Baptist==

Is Fred Phelps' church the inspiration for the Landover Baptist Church website that mocks Christian Extremism?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==?==

"Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical."

Wow. QED. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

With all respect to the fact that it shouldn't be stated on an encyclopedia, Phelps probably is going to Hell. -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 00:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

==Phelps is PRO-FAMILY, not anti-homosexual==

There's a reason Dr. Dobson called his institution "Focus on the Family" and not "We Hate Gays". There's a reason that it's called the "Family Research Council". The people who oppose the homosexual agenda are PRO-FAMILY, not anti-anything. Even the mainstream media generally recognizes this fact and ignore the moonbats (just like they ignore the moonbats when the moonbats try to label "PRO-lifers" as "ANTI-choicers"). Even the mainstream media (which has been proven to be overwhelmingly liberal, remember) doesn't call Dr. Dobson a bigot or a homophobe. So why shouldn't Conservapedia, which was created to espouse the CONSERVATIVE point of view, reflect what even liberals acknowledge?--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:38, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Phelps isn't a true conservative. He says Bush is going to burn in hell. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:39, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Jeeze, conservatives aren't brainless clones who can't disagree! I strongly disagree with Phelps on this matter, but that doesn't make him a non-conservative! Besides, the issue isn't whether or not he's conservative, the issue is his PRO-FAMILY "bias"!--[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 02:46, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

*My reading of scripture, perhaps not as advanced as some, tells me if we keep judging, which God has said is his alone to do, we will all be burning. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:I agree with Terry, but as I've learned from much debating with christians, the argument doesn't work. They've chosen to ignore one thing the bible says in order to use another thing the bible says to achieve their goals or to justify their hate.[[User:Nsmyth|NSmyth]] 04:47, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
*Well, really, in the Grand Scheme of things, it isn't important. All of us, eventually, will face the harshest, yet most loving Judge in the Universe. Justifications, and legal arguments won't be allowed, lol. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:You can be anti homosexual without being pro-family. The cult Phelps has developed targets and belittles families, he is truely a Bad person in every sense of the word, if he has gotten anything right it has been by way of accident [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:44, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Being anti-homosexual is not being pro-family. It is being pro-YOUR-idea-of-family, and forcing that idea on the rest of the world. There's a big difference.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not pro-family, he's pro-hate. There's a difference. His websites are not family-friendly, his sermons are not, nor are his "hymns", and neither are his images. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:54, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

What does Phelps stand for, _besides_ hating gays? That seems to be his one schtick. And by all accounts, he psychologically and physically abused his OWN family, which doesn't sound too 'pro-family' to me. [http://blank.org/addict/] (Court evidence--not for the weak of stomach.) --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:56, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

If what you say is true, then "pro-family" must oppose homosexuals becasue they asume that homosexuals are "anti-family". That is not true, it's not the desire of homosexual people to wreck family, they just want personal freedom to have the kind of living arangement they choose. The only reason they have gathered together is because it's their common cause to get that freedom for themselves. I'm pretty certain that if they had those rights, they would leave everyone else alone.
Homosexuals don't suggest that everyone should be homosexual, that would be stupid, they just want the right to live their lives as they want to, not bothering anyone, and not being bothered by anyone. If God (if he exists) dislikes it it's solely up to him to judge, none of us are entitled to do that. --[[User:Atkins|Atkins]] 23:45, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

It seems that whoever said that in the first place was being a parodist. We definitely don't stand for Phelps's hate here in Kansas, or here at Conservapedia. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:50, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

== What the #$@% ==

This page mention nothing about the sick twisted and evil nature of Fred Phelps and his family cult. I don't know how this site can call itself conservative and not utterly denounce someone who celebrates the deaths of our fighting men and women and taunts the families of our brave departed soldiers. I am disgusted that he gets off with one line of criticism. [[User:Opcn|Opcn]] 01:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Opcn, I believe the principle at work here is "The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend." Which is a very long way from "Love thine enemies" but that was just some liberal claptrap from about 33 AD or so. [[User:Teresita|Banned User Teresita]] 01:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps and Religion ==

"It's hard to be religious when certain people aren't incinerated by bolts of lightning." -- Calvin.
--[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 07:46, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== disgusting liberal bias ==

this article is terribly condemning of this man. this is the same kind of p.c. bias crap that made me sick of wikipedia. mr. phelps believes in the same things we all do, so why is this article against hihm? he only believes in the things that jesus taught1!1[[User:Manifestdestiny|Manifestdestiny]] 18:42, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
:Wrong. At no time did Jesus ever condemn a soldier, unlike this man. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:49, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::but jesus did condemn homosexuals. [[User:Cryingeagles39|Cryingeagles39]] 12:51, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Jesus told everyone in plain terms that if they continued to sin, they would not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. His message in the Gospels was that everyone should repent. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:06, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
Exactly. Jesus never specifically mentioned homosexuality in the gospels, but he did do what Karajou mentioned, which would encompass all types of sin, including homosexuality. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:20, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*I do know Jesus commanded that we not judge, or we would be. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:12, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== God Hates Canada ==

Didn't Phelps also light a flag on fire in the middle of an airport, thus causing his arrest? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

I haven't heard about this! Do you have a link? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:44, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

[http://www.holysmoke.org/hs02/phelps3.htm] is the best I can find. I was wrong, I guess. Seems he didn't actually get around to torching the flag. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:03, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

:Nevermind... "When WBC members did in fact actually burn the Canadian flag in religious protest to Canada's approval of same-sex marriage, the so-called Christians of Canada were the loudest in denouncing WBC and "widely reviling" her Gospel message." That's from his God Hates Canada page. Appears I was mistaken about the airport thing, though. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 19:09, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

== Phelps And The Democratic Party ==

Can someone please get rid of this header at the bottom of the page? Seems a bit of a stretch to me. --[[User:Ouzo|Ouzo]] 14:35, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
:I think we've addressed your concerns. [http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} The "God Hates Fags" Left]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 11 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist!???==
Last time I checked liberals support gay people and are secular. Calling Fred Phelps a liberal would be akin to calling Osama bin Laden a pacifist. Someone should change this --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:50, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps is not a leftist, he is on the extreme fringes of the religious right, he's an embarrasment to conservatives so he is called a "liberal". I can't believe how biased this website is --[[User:AllahuAkbarJihad|AllahuAkbarJihad]] 21:53, 12 October 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Phelps celebrated the 9/11 attacks and the more recent al-Qaeda strikes in London as the just recompense of Western decadence. He supported Saddam Hussein and has been appreciative to Fidel Castro. Phelps is probably more appropriately described in psychiatric than political terms. '''But his political roots are in the Democratic Party, having run for office in Kansas five times, and actively supported Al Gore in 1988 and 1992, whose campaign used Phelps’ family office space. Son Fred Phelps Jr., who had hosted a fund raiser for Gore, attended the 1993 Clinton-Gore inaugural.'''

More careful media coverage acknowledges that Phelps’ ostensibly Baptist church is "unaffiliated" and comprised of only his family members, whose compound of houses is assembled around the church and its swimming pool used for baptisms.

Phelps, now age 76, has demonstrated outside the Bush Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He has demonstrated against conservative religious activists James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson. He has demonstrated against the Southern Baptist Convention.
</blockquote>
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:41, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

Even if Phelps did support the Democrats at one time, that doesn't make him a liberal. Guiliani is a Republican and he is certainly not a Conservative (pro gay marriage, pro abortion). I'd argue that Phelps is delusional rather than liberal or conservative but I think it is terribly biased and incorrect to state that he is a leftist and a liberal. Liberals tend to be secular and pro gay marriage, Phelps does not embrace liberal values --[[User:Fredphelpsisamoron|Fredphelpsisamoron]] 16:17, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I would argue that Phelps is actually a conservative. He is against gay marriage and is very religious, these are two traits of conservatives. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:44, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::: I don't buy it sounds more like an anti liberal rant, and is the sort of statement which will atract vandals to this site. Liberals didn't support Saddam, I mean some might of, they just didn't support the war in Iraq, ! [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 17:35, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:There is more to conservatism than ONE ISSUE. Economics, etc.

Also, there are religious liberals out there. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:45, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

True, but Jimmy Carter is only moderatly oppposed to homosexuality and believes in evolution, he is not the same hate filled bigot that Phelps is. Maybe Phelps isn't conservative, but he certainly isn't liberal either. I think saying Phelps is a leftist is POV pushing. It should be taken out. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

::Wait, wait, wait. What does evolution have to do with it? We've had a lot of liberals tell us that we should not be politicizing science. I actually agree with that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:51, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps doesn't believe in evolution and he believes in creationism. Creationism, particularly YEC is associated with conservatism. I agree that science shouldn't be politicized but creationists, especially YEC, tend to be conservative while evolutionists tend to be moderate or liberal. --[[User:MichaelM|MichaelM]] 16:53, 14 October 2007 (EDT)
:::OK. So we have evidence liberals may be open minded and tolerant of other views. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
::*There is no such thing, outside of perhaps Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as 100% Liberals. Guiliani, I might chime in, isn't taking a "liberal" stance on some issues, but a old line conservative POV, pre-neoconservative, more Libertarian stance. Many of Phelps' idealogical pronouncements most certainly do fit more within the secular-progressive tent than the conservative one. And one must note there wasn't any repudiation on the part of Citizen Gore when he was happily taking Phelps & Company money and office space, was there? End of argument there. Point is, Phelps is almost certainly a Demon from Hell. He certainly isn't worthy of anyone's defense, or the attention he is getting. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:47, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

I don't think any of Phelps stances fit liberalism at all. The use of liberal and leftist is misleading and biased --[[User:JimmyR|JimmyR]] 20:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because he opposes Bush and conservatives doesn't mean that he isn't one of them. Conservatives, like Liberals can have disagreements among one another and are not one monolithic block. Besides Ronald Reagan supported Saddam in the 80s, does that make him a liberal? I think you should take out "leftist" and "liberal activist" it is terribly biased and misleading and just makes Conservapedia look bad --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 10:19, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. Phelps is no more a liberal activist than the KKK is a conservative action group. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:54, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Phelps has been criticized across the political spectrum from leftist gay rights groups to conservative Christians, he is neither liberal or conservative, he is just plain nuts --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 17:55, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:ok, we know the 'ol "he's a bad guy so he must be a religious conservative" argument is the basis of many Wikipedia articles, and thousands of other websites. But this is CP, we're basically (1) concerned with facts.

:So, Phelps, a creationist, is an example of a broadminded [[leftist]]. What's wrong with that? Although some of his views are extraordinarily repugnant, Al & Tipper, in keeping with thier one time advocacy of censoring [[music]] content and being pro-[[big tabacco]], once courted a constituency there. Gore only dropped these views when the Clintons put him on the ticket. Perhaps the [[Nobel Prize]] Committee made the award to the wrong guy. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:15, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore is not really a leftist. More a flip-flop, his views swing from liberal to conservative depending on how the political wind blows. Besides supporting Gore doesn't automatically make Phelps a liberal. I'm not saying you should say he is a conservative. But liberals/conservatives calling those who are repugnant to both groups the group they disagree with is wrong and biased. Both liberals and conservatives oppose Phelps so he should be called neither. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:22, 16 October 2007 (EDT)
:hmmm, so Phelps is [[mainstream]] or [[centrist]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:28, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

No, he's just an extremist. Like the KKK. --[[User:BillCasey|BillCasey]] 18:34, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

:Very interesting; on [[political spectrum theory]] I once postulated that the theory was useless, and meaningless. Perhaps Phelps is an example. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:00, 16 October 2007 (EDT)

If that is the case then I think the word leftist should be taken out, it is misleading and besides Phelps is usually considered part of the Religious Right, whether that is true or not --[[User:DanielJamesRideout|DanielJamesRideout]] 12:26, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:So, because the so-called "Religious Right" is unfairly defamed, we should pile on in support of liberal fascist objectives. ''Wiederlich.'' [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

The conservatives call him liberal and the liberals call him conservative. He is clearly insane. Liberalism and insanity often go together but here insanity crowds everything else out. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 12:54, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Liberalism and insanity go together, thats a pretty harsh insult for people who you merely have a political disagreement with? Why so much hate? --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 12:57, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:If it was not for the '''fact''' of Phelps [[political]] [[activism]], in support of [[political]] candidates, or the [[fact]] Phelps ran for [[political]] office on the ticket of a major [[political party]], we would not be having this discusssion. But given the [[political]] realities, we can only use Phelps own stated [[political]] affilliations. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

Yes it is true that Phelps was associated with the Democrats but remember that at one time the Democrats were the "Conservative" party. The Democrats are now supportive or at least tolerant of homosexuals and Phelps has referred to his former friend Al Gore as a "Fag-enabler". There aren't too many differences between Republicans and Democrats anyways. I think that leftist and liberal activist should be taken out, other than that the article is fine. --[[User:NathanRodgers|NathanRodgers]] 14:48, 18 October 2007 (EDT)
:You say "was associated." We have no basis for that. It was Al Gore who shifted, not Phelps. And we have no reason to believe Gore publicly shifted other than [[career opportunism]], not any personal, inner, [[moral]] change in his fundamental beliefs. Further, we have ample evidence Gore has both consistently, and persistently, been less then ingenuous in his own personal, inner convictions since pursuing a path of personal career opportunism. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:42, 18 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think anyone with a natural mind can see that Phelps openly supports an agenda that is complicated. However, as Rob eloquently sated above, he ran as a [[Democrat]]. This fact is undeniable. Now, if anyone else wants to take issue with that, that's fine, but I would advise that this is a waste of everyone's time and ought to be a bannable offense. The "but but but" crowd needs to grow up and acept that this guy is one of their own. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 17:56, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
[[Image:Lj105.jpg|thumb|250px|right|According to liberal authors, Fred Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat." ]]
::::I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that, Mathers. As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 7 November 2007 (EST)
:::::Very funny. Seriously though guys, could an admin modify the text? I imagine it'd save a lot of bickering on this Talk page. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:23, 11 November 2007 (EST)

*Very well said, Mathers! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:33, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
:*I don't understand why libs have trouble with the idea that libs hate; seems to be an everyday occurance. I've experienced it daily for 40 years. Look at Ann Coulter. Libs cannot restrain spewing their hatred toward her. Or Rush. Or O'Reilly, Falwell, Bush, the list is endless. Why is it such a shock to libs that liberals spew hate? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:39, 11 November 2007 (EST)

==Democrat (or at least ex-Democrat), sure. But liberal?==
Describing Phelps as a Democrat is justifiable, since he did run as a Democrat, but the first sentence dexcribes him as a "leftist", which I believe is the same as "liberal". This seems flawed. Not all Democrats are liberal and vice versa (anyone remember Zell Miller? Reagan and Thurmond were both Democrats once too). Looking at Conservapedia's own definition of [[liberal]] we have the following specific views how many of them apply to Phelps?
#denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)
#:No evidence that he feels this way
#taxpayer-funded abortion
#:Certainly not
#same-sex marriage
#:HA!
#support of affirmative action
#:No evidence of this
#support of political correctness
#:Not at all
#censorship of prayer in classrooms
#:No
#compelled taxpayer funding of government schools for nearly all ages
#:Hard to say, but publicly funded schools are hardly a liberal issue; there is widespread support for them. Most people do not want to completely privatize education.
#government-controlled medical care
#:No evidence of this
#labor unions
#:no evidence of this
#elimination of abstinence-only program funding
#:Given his religious views, this seems unlikely
#income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation
#:No evidence of this
#a "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted rather than an unchanging Constitution as written
#:No idea. He'd probably support a "living constitution" if interpretations of the document would harm the homosexual agenda, but against it if it would promote it.
#support for gun control
#:No evidnce for this (seems unlikely)
#government programs to rehabilitate criminals
#:No idea
#environmentalism
#:No evidence for this
#disarmament treaties
#:No evidence (this guy seems not to be much of a foreign policy wonk, except when it comes to praising anti-gay foreign leaders)
#globalism
#:No evidence of this (except for global condemnation of homosexuality)
#opposition to a strong American foreign policy
#:No evidence
#support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right
#:Seems unlikely
#opposition to full private property rights
#:No evidence of this
#limit conservative talk radio by reinstating the Fairness Doctrine
#:Seems unlikely that he'd want to do anything to aid the pro-gay liberal media
So he basically has no discernable liberal traits. This does not make him a conservative, but it really seems he's not a leftist. The only things that point to his leftism are running as a Democrat (who can say why he picked one party over the other? He didn't have much suport from either, it seems) and his support for Gore (dropped when it turned out Gore's views on homosexuality were more liberal than the previously appered). Since Democrat is not the same as liberal, I'm not sure how the latter applies to him. Can anyone justify the inclusion of the term leftist? If someone can point out statements he's made supporting strong environmentalism, opposition to gun rights, disarmament treaties, property rights opposition, or such a case could certainly be made, but right now I'm not seeing any real leftism here. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 10:51, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:The "leftist" portion is cited. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::I'm sorry, but I don't see it. I see citations for the Democrat part, which isn't the issue. Can point out the specific citation to me? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 14:47, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

:::[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}] Perhaps we need [[CP:Common knowledge]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:12, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

::::Sorry, but that doesn't clear anything up. Nowhere does that piece call Phelps "liberal" or "leftist" (even if it did, it would be the opinion of a journalist). We've established his conection to the Democratic Party, but where's his liberalism? This site has 21 examples of liberal traits, which does he meet? His anti-gay agenda shapes his opinions on all other matters. If supporting Castro makes him a liberal, what about condemning Sweden (The most socialist state in Europe)? I think everyone can agree that hating gays is not a trait that makes one liberal, and that is about the only trait he has. I think the guy defies all aspects of the traditional left/right spectrum, and I don't see the point of trying to pigeonhole him into one group. By all means this article should disassociate him from the Christian wing of the conservative movement, but that doesn't by definition make him liberal. Is there a source that shows how he meets even ''one'' of the 21 examples bove (and he'd need to meet more than one to be classified as a liberal)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 15:42, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::So, were back to the definition "a liberal is a leftist," and "a leftist is a liberal." We were attacked by cyberterrorists for months trying to put that stuff in.
:::::Liberals don't hate? Please....And nowhere in the text does it say Phelps is a liberal. He is in Cat:Liberal activists, and a strong case can be made that he belongs there. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:07, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::I know nothing about cyberterrorists and such, but I was sort of under the impression that liberal and leftist were sort of interchangable. This site's own article says that leftist is associated with "social democracy, liberalism, or the several strains of socialism and communism. It may also be applied to those who oppose conservative politics. The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'. But this is inconsistent with the original meaning of the word liberal." I see nothing socialist or communist about Phelps (support for Castro is based solely on his anti-gay stance, not his economics), nor any real connection with social democracy. In this country it ''is'' basically interchangable with "liberal" (classical liberalism is out of the scope of this issue), so calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal. And note that I never said liberals don't hate, I said that hating gays is not a liberal trait. Are you trying to argue that it is? I think that would be an uphill battle, but feel free to try. And by the way, calling him a liberal activist ''is'' calling him a liberal (just like saying someone is a Mexican footballer is saying he is Mexican, and a footballer). So if he isn't a liberal but is a leftist, what is it that makes him a leftist (and how is that different from the standard definition of liberal that the 21 points illustrate)? [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 16:28, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::"calling him a leftist is much the same as calling him a liberal,"
:::::::Where in the text does it say this? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:37, 22 October 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Okay, if the two are not synonymous (or nearly so), then explain the difference. I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable. The [[leftist]] article here is pretty unclear on just about all aspects of the term, and does not draw any real distinctions between liberal and leftist. The article even states "The word 'liberal' is often used in the US to mean 'leftist'", and since this is an American encyclopedia, aimed at the layman, it seems that if you're going to use the term in different way than it is often used you should make that distinctly clear. If the article means to say he is a leftist but not a liberal then the difference between the two should be explicitly stated, and how he fits into the category "leftist" should also be made clear. Furthermore, if he isn't a liberal he should be removed from the liberal activists category, and his entry should be removed from the [[liberal hate speech]] article. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::*''I think I'm not alone in thinking the two terms are so close as to be basically interchangable.''
:::::::::*Congratulations, and ''good for you.'' Unfortuneatly, like the [[theory of evolution]], you can not impose your [[moral]]ity on me, and ''force'' me to accept the [[political spectrum theory]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

[unindenting] Well, this very site says the two terms are often used interchangably, and I have no idea what evolution and imposition of morality have to do with anything, so we'll let that bit rest. So I'll ask the questions I'd like to see addressed, and I'll number them to make it easy:
:1. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, as used in this case?
:2. How is Phelps a leftist? What specific opinions does he hold that make him such?
:3. If he is not a liberal, why is he in the liberal activist category, and used as an example of liberal hate speech?
I'll wait for a reply. [[User:BillyFranco|BillyFranco]] 00:57, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Here it is, Troll:

* BillyFranco (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 04:57, 23 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:51, 22 October 2007) [6]
* Briantrust (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 20:35, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 15:54, 19 October 2007) [3]
* AuH2O (Talk | contribs | block) (Latest: 16:34, 20 October 2007) (Earliest: 14:59, 20 October 2007) [3]
IP: 24.29.72.31 Schenectady, NY,United States

Here is yet another shining example of liberal [[deceit]]. They cannot even argue honestly. They need socks to hide their dishonesty.

Godspeed to you! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:47, 23 October 2007 (EDT) 
:<RobS high fives TK>; By thier fruits ye shall know them. Defenders & apologists is usually a dead give away. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal Activist? (Edit Break)==

I despise Liberals but I have to agree with this loonie leftie this time, Phelps is definetly not a liberal even though he was (or possibly still is) a member of the Democratic Party. Besides what's wrong with protesting homosexuality anyways? I just think he carries it too far thats all --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:22, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

ahaha, typical liberal behaviour lol. Still though, I don't think Phelps is a liberal. He certainly isn't conservative either but calling him a liberal when he clearly isn't just makes Conservapedia look bad.--[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 17:59, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*Did you at all read the material RobS provided? --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:13, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

Not yet, I'll take a look at it and make my decision on Phelps' political views then --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:25, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

I've taken a look at some of the things Rob has said, Phelps is or was a democrat but he is liberal only in name. His views are not liberal at all. I don't care what he says about homosexuality, it is a sin after all, Phelps just goes a little too nutty over it. My issue with him is the disrespect of American soldiers and his criticism of Bush. Bush is in no way a "fag-enabler" and is quite critical of homosexuality. Phelps is not firing on all cylinders though, thats for sure. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:40, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

::I agree with Konserva... the guy above me, Phelps doesn't really qualify as a leftist/liberal. I mean, if he joined the Republican party, would we even be discussing this? There are probably quite a few rogues if we look hard enough into each party's details. maybe Charles Manson believed in a weak federal government and strong gun ownership rights. Does that alone make him a Conservative? At the end of the day, I think the blush is off his liberal democrat rose. [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 18:49, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

*It is pretty easy, as RobS says, to get people to reveal themselves! --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:23, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
:::Well, I will say I'm happy he's on their side. ;) [[User:Mathers|ItMathers]] 19:36, 23 October 2007 (EDT)
::::We should probably give credit to the watchdog organizations that single out and trash Phleps, it gives them credibility and balance, shows they are capable of broadminded thinking, and not mindless partisan trolls. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:54, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives. While I don't think Phelps is a liberal, his anti-war activities and support of Castro make him exempt from being classified as a conservative. I don't think Phelps falls neatly into either category and both liberals and conservatives are accusing him of being in the other camp because nobody wants him --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:05, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
*''If these watchdog groups are liberal, they will likely just throw Phelps in with conservatives.''
:*They've obviously done that. This is why CP exists, this is closely related to one of our core missions, to counter these slanders of conservatives & conservative views by leftist ideological slander factories. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:09, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

I agree, the media has a terrible liberal bias along with these watchdog groups. Phelps is delusional, he is neither liberal or conservative. I still think we should leave political labels out of the description (other than his support for Al Gore which is documented fact), it will just make Conservapedia look bad and give those whiney liberals something else to complain about --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 00:12, 24 October 2007 (EDT)
:Where does the media get thier impressions and opinion about Phelps? From these watchdog organizations -- you never would have heard of Phelps otherwise. Then the media & watchdog organizations also are actively engaged in an agenda, pushing [[gay rights]] and the [[homosexual agenda]], for example. Where does the opposition to this agenda come from? Church people. Who is Phelps & what is his organization? He's a preacher & preaches at a church. ''Voila!'' We have more right-wing, neofascist, hate-mongering Christain Coalition homophobic bigots that need to be exterminated.

:Sorry, his views are Democrat, on the left, and quite in the tradition of stupid, pointless, [[liberal activism]] designed for no other reason than to get people angry, and draw publicity. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 00:22, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Just because someone is democrat doesn't mean that they are liberal. Bob Novak was a democrat --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 18:31, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

*Bob Novak is and was pretty liberal on many things, so a poor example. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:45, 24 October 2007 (EDT)

Bob Novak liberal? I don't find him that liberal. He is pro-Iraq war and anti-socialized-medicine. Perhaps he is not as conservative as most Republicans but he is certainly more conservative than the vast majority of democrats and some Republicans too. Also Al and Tipper Gore weren't always as liberal as they claim they are today. They were both in favour of censoring violent and explicit lyrics of rappers and Al Gore was anti-homosexual at one point. They only distanced themselves from Phelps when it became politically expedient. They didn't mind his money though. Still the point is as much as a nut as Phelps is, he isn't really a liberal and it is misleading to label him that. He is opposed to the homosexual agenda, is antiabortion, antievolution, and is religious. While he may share the anti-war sentiment of the left, his reasons for doing so are completely different. I think it is misleading to label him a leftist and we don't want to be guilty of bias like Wikipedia is --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 13:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maybe I need to teach a class or something, helping liberals do parody of conservatives. :S --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:42, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

You think Phelps is actually a liberal pretending to hate homosexuals to make conservatives look bad? I don't think he's intelligent enough to think of such a scheme. Liberals are usually pretty stupid. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 16:25, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Phelps is a Demon, not a Human. Important difference. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:45, 25 October 2007 (EDT)
==Fred Phelps is NOT left-wing==
The "Fred Phelps a closet liberal" source is merely a discussion in relation to an article, it is not a valid source and should be removed. The left support gays and anti-homosexuality adovocates clearly belong on the right whether they are democrat or republican. --[[User:ChavezFan|ChavezFan]] 16:41, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Do all left-wingers [[fascism|goosestep]] to the [[gay agenda]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:14, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::They Pretty much do, liberalism and homosexuality go hand in hand, stupid liberals. Talk about Groupthink hahahaha --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 19:45, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I thought liberalism was the [[big tent]]? You mean everyone has to tow the party line, and there is no tolerance for [[diversity]]? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:29, 30 October 2007 (EDT)
::::Liberals are very intolerant of conservative viewpoints. While they are tolerant of nearly all religions (except Christianity) they are very intolerant of anyone who criticizes homosexuality or political correctness. Liberals are highly ideological. Trust me, I come from a country full of these pinkos --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 21:33, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Does it really matter? ==

Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous. Neither of them like him. The whole political spectrum wouldn't mind a meteorite taking out the Westboro Baptist Church compound (preferably with the whole congregation/family inside) It's deceptive and ridiculous to try to associate him with anyone as a means of discrediting them: Democrats hate him, Baptists hate him, Christian fundamentalists hate him, the ACLU hates him. Gays hate him, US soldiers hate him, Mary Cheney hates him, Swedes hate him, Al Gore hates him, 9/11 victims hate him. Who knows, '''maybe God Hates Fred Phelps'''. So please, have some '''common sense''' and remove the deceptive references to leftist, liberal, and the anti-war movement. - [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 23:13, 8 November 2007 (EST)

P.S. One of the blog links is broken.
:Rob, your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fred_Phelps&diff=330569&oldid=330497 removal] of my remarks against Fred Phelps was totally uncalled for and not remotely related to policy. {{tl|Remove personal remark}} is for attacks on fellow editors, not going after the subject of an article. From what I've seen on Conservapedia, going after a [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|subject]] is acceptable anywhere. No personal attacks itself isn't even well enforced, for that matter. For example, you told someone to "get a chiropractor to help get your foot out of your mouth" on [[Talk:Al Gore]]
::Oops, forgot my sig yesterday [[User:PostoStudanto|PostoStudanto]] [[User_talk:PostoStudanto| ✉Tλlk]] 22:41, 15 November 2007 (EST)

''Trying to associating Fred Phelps with the right or the left is ridiculous.''
Seconded - ''(the following is reposted, since it seems to have escaped the sysops' attention. Apologies.)''
As I understand it, membership of either the Republican or Democrat Party in the States requires no specific ideology and often is simply a matter of publically stating your preference. As Stephen Colbert demonstrated recently, it's even possible to be a member of both! It's a bit of a stretch then to say that Democrats en masse (or liberals, for that matter) consider him 'one of their own'. It might be more accurate to say that Phelps "self-identifies as a Democrat", and elsewhere in the article that "Phelps has been criticized by conservatives and liberals alike". Is there any way we can modify the page to reflect this? [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 23:14, 15 November 2007 (EST)

=="Fred Phelps is a leftist anti-homosexual behavior activist and liberal Democrat"==

Original post by [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] on the [[Talk:Main Page|Main Page Talk]]. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 18:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)

''Since the article is locked, and several people have appealed for it to be changed on the talk page but ignored, I thought it best to put it here in order to garner some sort of consensus. Is Fred Phelps a Liberal? Picketing funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because their country supposedly supports the 'homosexual agenda' is markedly illiberal. It needs change. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:54, 14 December 2007 (EST)''

Here, also, is the ensuing discussion on the main page. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 14:57, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:''As a veteran, I find Fred Phelps' actions to be reprehensible and despicable. The very freedom that allowed him and his ilk to protest in that manner was provided by the life of the soldier he's protesting. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:58, 15 December 2007 (EST)''

::''Nobody likes [[Fred Phelps]], we know that. But that doesn't mean he can be branded a [[liberal]] just for being despicable - does it? Apparently he has some history with the [[Democratic Party]], but his actual views don't seem very "liberal Democrat" to me. Perhaps he doesn't really fit into any political category? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
:::''Even if he was a staunch Republican and conservative, there is absolutely no call for his actions. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
::''Agreed (though I hope it didn't seem that I was trying to imply he was!) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:30, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''In light of Andy's recent comments about non-linear political alignment, I would recommend that the "liberal" statement be redacted, and something to the effect of "Fred Phelps' political alignment seems to fall outside of any political category". --[[User:SimonA|SimonA]] 16:07, 15 December 2007 (EST)''
''Given that advancing the homosexual agenda is a defining characteristic of Democrats and Liberals, it's hard to see how being so opposed to homosexuals would make him a Democrat or a Liberal. I looked over the article on him, and it said he did run to be the democrat nominee but didn't win. Maybe there are races where he did win the nomination, but just running doesn't mean the democrats support him. I mean, I would never call Ron Paul a republican but here he is running as one.[[User:TRipp|TRipp]] 16:28, 15 December 2007 (EST)''''

:Another example why any moralistic person should avoid this site like a plague. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 12:55, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== The word "leftist" should be removed from the first sentence ==

It is fine to characterize him as democrat, since this is documented, but characterizing him as a "leftist" is far from documented, or universally accepted. If there are people that feel that is the case, then it is worth a section in the article, however placing a controversial and undocumented piece of information in the first sentence, discredits the article as a whole.--[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 23:21, 29 December 2007 (EST)

:I wholeheartedly agree, and I think there's a clear consensus on this point. I will request the page to be unlocked so that we can edit it. [[User:Walton One|Walton One]] 11:40, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Phelps and the Bible ==

The article has a lot of condemnatory language about him from a secular standpoint, but it should also say what's wrong with him from a Biblical standpoint, citing chapter and verse. [[User:DavidE|DavidE]] 10:37, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:I agree. How about starting with 1 Corinthians 6:9-11? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:44, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

== Am I the only one? ==

Anyone else thinks Fred Phelps looks like the Reverand Kane from the Poltergiest movies?

Talk:Bill Cosby

2008-06-08T04:02:56Z

Jedisqrl: New page: As a conservative I may not agree 100% with Dr Cosby's political views but he is a great comedian and a wonderful human being. I agree with him on the so-called Hip Hop Culture and single ...

As a conservative I may not agree 100% with Dr Cosby's political views but he is a great comedian and a wonderful human being. I agree with him on the so-called Hip Hop Culture and single mothers. It took guts to say what he did.

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-08T03:57:37Z

Jedisqrl:

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-08T03:53:28Z

Jedisqrl: /* What about these actors and acteresses */

Olivier? Bogart? Pacino? Brando? Deniro?

No, when I think "actor who deserves encyclopedic recognition," I think "Neil Patrick Harris. That's the guy."

This is why I love it here. Y'all are just hiLARious.[[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey you got Alec Baldwin why not do an entry on his baby brother Stephen Baldwin (the only REAL man in that family)
:How is the masculinity of the other brothers in question? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:01, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 15:52, 7 June 2008 (EDT)I was refering to maturity not masculinity
--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 23:53, 7 June 2008 (EDT)== What about these actors and acteresses ==

someone needs to do articles on
Bruce Willis
Kevin Sorbo
James Arness
Billy Bob Thornton
Steve Buscemi
Lucy Lawless
Nikita Ager
Halle Berry
Pierce Brosnon
Liam Neeson
Mark Hamill
Jeremy Irons
Kristanna Loken
ok?

Category talk:Religious People

2008-06-08T03:49:52Z

Jedisqrl:

Why are you listing Carrie Underwood as "Religious"? She's a left wing Animal Rights extremist and also supports UNICEF. Hardly a Christian let alone "Religious". She's a RINO
::Where is it written that Christians cannot be animal rights supporters/UNICEF supporters or even, gasp...LIBERALS? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 13:40, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I just don't think any real conservative should support anti-hunting groups like PETA; the HSUS and pro abortion groups such as UNICEF. Sorry if that grinds anyone's gears I just dont think thats either a Christian or Conservative vlaue.

dont think those areCoservative values. oops typo sorry

You're confusing a political ideology -conservatism- and you're right, a lot of what you list aren't conservative values - but conservatives don't have a monopoly on faith. Being opposed to hunting isn't necessarily anti-Christian: in fact, many Christians would consider the stewardship of God's creation and respect for animals to be in line with Christian values. As for the abortion/UNICEF link well, UNICEF does a lot of things, encouraging family planning is one of them - and I know many, many liberal-minded Christians who understand the need for safe and accessible abortion even if they wish it was never necessary. Such as the next (affirmative action) President of the United States. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry I just dont consider her a really good person.Hunting is part of good stewardship. It helps control the poulation of Deer,Rabbits,Squirrel,etc. Its nothing personal I just in good conscience support groups which I find against my religious and politcal ideals nor certain celebs who do.When they get in your face and look down their nose at me because I fish and eat meat and value the life or the unborn. Like I said sorry if that offends you but I refuse to compromise my beliefs or my integrity on issues I feel are important.

none of that - as poorly put as it is - has any bearing on the question at hand, whether or not she's a religious person: It just means she disagrees with YOU. So what?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Why take offense? So what if I don't like her?, how does that hurt you? Like I said not everyone is going to be her fan and they will question things about her. Its all in the prosess of free thought. I'm sure I'm not the only person on Earth that doesn't like her and thinks as I do about her.--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 23:49, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Michelle Malkin

2008-06-08T03:35:32Z

Jedisqrl:

Michelle Malkin is a very beautiful lady. Between her and Ann Coulter I don't know who I'd ask to do a slow dance with first.--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 23:35, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Content ==

This is a funny article...Is Michelle running for class president or what? There is no real info here about her, just a couple of lines about some of her columns. Weak! {{unsigned|Spike}}

== Archives ==

The rest of her archives should be filled in; it looks odd only going up to H. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:43, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Done. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Jack Chick

2008-06-08T03:30:18Z

Jedisqrl:

Love him, hate him...those tracts were ALWAYS the bestest. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I read my first one at a campground near Bar Harbor when I was a kid. I thought it was simultaneously cool and ridiculous. It was the Rapture one, where they declare One Church, the Pope is a tool of the Devil, and the little kid rats out his grandfather for being a Christian. Love love LOVE those things.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::I first came across them in high school when I was volunteering at a soup kitchen in Denver that was handing them out. They had the "this was your life" one, which isn't especially controversial. I didn't realize until later just how controversial some of his tracts are. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I was linked to one during a session of debate on IRC - we were making fun of the way he invaraiably shows pro-evolution teachers as wrinkly, old, crabby, irritable and aggressive. His tracts are highly entertaining, but I wouldn't think such shallow arguments make effective evangelism. He basicly just repeats 'Join us or go to hell' in different variations. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

But that's the way it is! "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Are you gonna call Jesus a liar? He's the Son of God!! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 16:10, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Cool? ==

I saw a cool comment was made in regards to this guys work and I admit to being baffled. I think the guy is a crackpot but hey, this is America and he is entitled to his opinion, as long as he isn't inciting violence or a restriction of lifestyle against others. Wait, he probably is doing that.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 19:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, all fundamentalists are going to be viewed as such by intolerant liberals. I think this guy is right-on. If you don't accept Jesus alone as salvation, you're not going to be saved! It's pretty simple, it is. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 11:28, 4 December 2007 (EST)

::But Jesus Christ did not support legalism, which is what the pharisees, and this guy, believe in. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but is that a reason to depict them burning? Win people over with love, not fear. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:21, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my radical acceptance of his views. I don't endorse the "Join me or go to hell and burn forever and ever!" evangelism (I don't even view hell as fire, see Tektonics' article [http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html here]. Plus he views the KJV as the "only" true version of the Bible, which is totally whacked-out! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 17:24, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Chick and his tracts should concentrate on leading people to The Lord and less on his personal paranoias. I'm pretty sure when I'm in Heaven I'm going to see [[Sean Hannity]] (Catholic) and [[Ben Stein]] (Jewish) there
:How about Carrie Underwood? and why wouldn't Catholics go to Heaven?!?!?
[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Jack Chick says Catholics don't go to Heaven I say there will be Catholics that go to Heaven and there will be Jewish people that will go to Heaven. You're really angry I dont like Carrie Underwood huh? Sorry not everyone is a fan.--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 23:27, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Jack Chick

2008-06-08T03:27:49Z

Jedisqrl:

Love him, hate him...those tracts were ALWAYS the bestest. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:01, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:I read my first one at a campground near Bar Harbor when I was a kid. I thought it was simultaneously cool and ridiculous. It was the Rapture one, where they declare One Church, the Pope is a tool of the Devil, and the little kid rats out his grandfather for being a Christian. Love love LOVE those things.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::I first came across them in high school when I was volunteering at a soup kitchen in Denver that was handing them out. They had the "this was your life" one, which isn't especially controversial. I didn't realize until later just how controversial some of his tracts are. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I was linked to one during a session of debate on IRC - we were making fun of the way he invaraiably shows pro-evolution teachers as wrinkly, old, crabby, irritable and aggressive. His tracts are highly entertaining, but I wouldn't think such shallow arguments make effective evangelism. He basicly just repeats 'Join us or go to hell' in different variations. - [[User:Suricou|Suricou]]

But that's the way it is! "I am the way, the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me." Are you gonna call Jesus a liar? He's the Son of God!! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 16:10, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== Cool? ==

I saw a cool comment was made in regards to this guys work and I admit to being baffled. I think the guy is a crackpot but hey, this is America and he is entitled to his opinion, as long as he isn't inciting violence or a restriction of lifestyle against others. Wait, he probably is doing that.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 19:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, all fundamentalists are going to be viewed as such by intolerant liberals. I think this guy is right-on. If you don't accept Jesus alone as salvation, you're not going to be saved! It's pretty simple, it is. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 11:28, 4 December 2007 (EST)

::But Jesus Christ did not support legalism, which is what the pharisees, and this guy, believe in. I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but is that a reason to depict them burning? Win people over with love, not fear. [[User:Saksjn|Saksjn]] 20:21, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps I was a bit hasty in my radical acceptance of his views. I don't endorse the "Join me or go to hell and burn forever and ever!" evangelism (I don't even view hell as fire, see Tektonics' article [http://www.tektonics.org/uz/2muchshame.html here]. Plus he views the KJV as the "only" true version of the Bible, which is totally whacked-out! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 17:24, 8 May 2008 (EDT)

Chick and his tracts should concentrate on leading people to The Lord and less on his personal paranoias. I'm pretty sure when I'm in Heaven I'm going to see [[Sean Hannity]] (Catholic) and [[Ben Stein]] (Jewish) there
:How about Carrie Underwood? and why wouldn't Catholics go to Heaven?!?!?
[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:29, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Jack Chick says Catholics don't go to Heaven I they will go to Heaven and Jewish people will go to Heaven. You're really angry I dont like Carrie Underwood huh? Sorry not everyone is a fan.--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 23:27, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:DanH

2008-06-08T03:16:41Z

Jedisqrl:

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive4]]

== IRC ==

Does Conservapedia have an official or unofficial IRC channel? - Hak

:I'm not sure. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:54, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

== Leptospirosis ==

Just saw that an article named Leptospirosis was deleted. wonder why? can I re-create it?

thanks--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 15:49, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

== Martin ==

Why? There is nothing wrong with those links. On the contrary, It can give us more traffic. Do you have a proof that Google would not like it? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:05, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:I talked with Andy about it awhile back. Also, I've discussed search engines with User:Conservative. Google does not like it when links are placed at random without a clear correlation. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:: Ok. Let them be until Andy say the last word. They are not without correlation. They are actors all of them. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:10, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::He is already in the Actors category, which links to all other actors anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:11, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

:::: For us it is better to have more traffic and that is a better way than in the Category place. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:13, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Animals A etc.==
Can you move [[Animals A]] to [[Animal Terms A]]
[[Animals C]] to [[Animal Terms C]]
[[Animals G]] to [[Animal Terms G]]
[[Animals P]] to [[Animal Terms P]]
[[Animals V]] to [[Animal Terms V]]
[[Animals W]] to [[Animal Terms W]]
[[Animals Y]] to [[Animal Terms Y]]
[[Animals Z]] to [[Animal Terms Z]]
? --[[User:Qweki2|Qweki2]] 22:22, 16 March 2008 (EDT)

==Possible Bans?==
What is the highest possible block time? (besides infinite). Also, can you make a ban of [[User:Liberal9188]] and [[User:HHSFake]].. so I'm not tempted to use either of those accounts again.
:I have one final request.. could you ban me for 3 years, 1 month, and 4 days? Or 5 years if you don't want to type all that in. The reason can be: "request by user". Thanks. -^_^- [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy]] 09:44, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
::I once copped a fourteen year stretch. I think the sysop must have been bored. [[User:HarryWharton|HarryWharton]] 10:43, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

For banning, can you do something like "3 days, 1 day, 4 days, etc." o_0 [[User:Kektklik|Fuzzy|AFD]] 21:37, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== So, what's the policy ==

The reason JM unfairly banned me was because I was removing the nonsensical see-also links on various pages. My reason for doing so was because it isn't encyclopedic. I began doing it ''en masse'' when I saw what you wrote to JM that it wasn't our policy. His response: It'll boost our google rankings. (VERY encyclopedic).

So, what's the policy now? I don't want another ban. [[User:DLerner|ד.לערנער]] 22:43, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

:Tread lightly when working with Sysops showing them the respect they are due. If you are going to be making changes to their work, then talk with them first and make sure there is a common understanding. This should be followed for all people, but of course Sysops can also ban you for it. Unless there is a specific written policy saying all 'See Also' sections should be removed, then it is unwise to attempt to remove them ''en masse'' on your own. Talk page discussions between sysops, especially before a specific resolution has been reached, do not count. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:59, 20 March 2008 (EDT)

==Thanks==
Thank you. [[User:Feuerstein|Feuerstein]] 00:14, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
==Why not copy from Wikipedia? ==

I wrote those articles on Wikipedia , Asteroid.--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:15, 22 March 2008 (EDT)
CLtFn--[[User:Asteroid|Asteroid]] 01:19, 22 March 2008 (EDT)

== Blessings to you on Easter - ==

Dear Dan H, You have been doing wonderful work here. :) Wishing you every blessing and joy this Easter - [[User:Taj|Taj]] 00:57, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Happy Easter and...... ==

Happy Easter! I am sending you a private email in about 2 minutes. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:10, 23 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

While I appreciate the action, now might be a time to save oneself. Thankyou, though. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

:: Thank you! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 17:37, 5 April 2008 (EDT)

== Great example ==

Great example of [[opportunity costs]], Dan!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks! Opportunity cost is maybe the most useful thing I've learned about in college so far. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:55, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

== Request ==

Dear Dan, I am currently trying to get night edit rights so that I can better contribute to Conservapedia. As a sysop who has had experience working with me, I would like to ask for your support. If you feel that I deserve edit rights, please say so [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Request_.2F_question|here]]. If you do not think I deserve them, I fully understand and I thank you anyway. Sincerely, [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:19, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

==Name-calling==

Could there be any more damning evidence of the bankruptcy of liberal thought then the incessant campaign of name-calling by liberals against conservatives? If they had a rebuttal to conservative thought, they could simply present it in the [[Marketplace of ideas]]. Calling people liars isn't going to help their cause much. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:14, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Deborah ==

Yes, She seems to have expertice in several areas. [[User:BertSchlossberg]] also and she deleted several sentences from his work failing the discussion both had about that subject.
:I'll have to look at that. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:50, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:: See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Midrash&oldid=418826] First strike she did. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 22:52, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for the link. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:57, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Tools ==

Mr. Schlafly created it, I have not heard of him doing any strange vandalism. ;) [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 03:15, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

:Haha... oops. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:26, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Christianity templates ==

Dan, you just protected a bunch of almost identical templates (user, Protestant, Baptist etc.) which could be better written as a single template with a parameter. I was about to rewrite them when I saw that you had locked them. I won't do it now as it's late in my time zone, but would appreciate access to modify them at some point. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 18:59, 2 April 2008 (EDT)
:Unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:09, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Do you think you could unprotect Satan? (On this site) I think we could handle any vandals. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:31, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== ChrisGomez ==
Really good block there Dan, hearty congratulations. Never mind he's been working his fingers to the bone making improvements to CP, he's a sock so he's got to go.... Clever guy. [[User:Peason|Peason]] 14:38, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
:How would you know? You don't have access to checkuser. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:52, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::So what's the scoop? I'm interested as well. He added a lot of thick, meaty content with nary a peep. Are these the people you don't want here? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]]
:::It's a user making a whole lot of socks, some of which engaged in poor conduct besides Gomez, and it's all been done by one individual. If this user wants to come back, then it's only going to be one name, one account, no proxies. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 16:20, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I see. Are the posts which are considered "poor conduct" by the other user(s) being made at the same time as ChrisGomez? What I'm saying is all it takes is a spiteful lib co-worker, using the same proxy from work, to walk behind is desk and see that he's editing CP. Any liberal would be sneaky enough to create his own username and password and start trolling.
::::When I was banned from Wikipedia (long, wondeful story), it stopped about 1200 people from changing anything.[[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 16:50, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

==Cracking the filter==

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Francis_%46ukuyama&action=edit&section=1

== Hooray Kansas ==

Congrats, but you do of course know that had Bucknell made it to the tournament this year, and had we played each other, we SO would have knocked you out this year. Again. So you should be thanking us. ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:24, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Expelled edit==

Why dod you revert the expelled change?
The sentance 'making one wonder...' is really unencyclopedic
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:09, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
:It's probably not best to change the wording of the site's creator immediately after putting it there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:19, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== A user's page is his castle, huh? ==

You know, just because I may have committed ''lese majeste'' against Blessed St. Ronald is no reason to go messing up the format of my userpage. Which nobody is supposed to mess with, anyway. And I '''do''' think Reagan was showing signs of Alzheimer's back in 1980. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]]

:That doesn't give you the right to be mean spirited or violate the Conservapedia Commandments. And don't be condescending enough to say that I think that Reagan is a saint. I have major problems with his deficit spending policies. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:02, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

== Page move request ==
can you delete [[States of the Unites States of America]] and [[States]] all they do is redirect to a category -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 13:34, 24 April 2008 (EDT)
:[[States of the United States of America]] is linked to from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Whatlinkshere/States_of_the_United_States_of_America eight other pages]. Deleting it will break those links. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:36, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:39, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== Hi! from all of us at AtheistHQ ==
Hi Dan! You missed a few of us, ya big lug! And, on a different subject, you got something against quirky Twin Peaks references? [[User:TrueScouse|TrueScouse]] 23:35, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
:I must have missed it - can't say I've ever watched Twin Peaks. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:02, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Oh, you ''should'', it's great. For future reference, when someone addresses a tape recorder by name, that's ''probably'' a TP-related joke. Plus, "hit the road jack"? ''That's'' a pretty odd joke as well, wouldn't ya say? [[User:BlueMouse|BlueMouse]] 06:14, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like a troll ==

[[User:Alexjohnc3]]

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Westboro_Baptist_Church&diff=prev&oldid=410893 Recent comment]:

<blockquote>
Maybe they're so conservative that they're liberal. Like they go around the whole political spectrum? Or maybe, just maybe, this "encyclopedia" is just a load of BS written "[[Creationists|conservatives]]" who are upset that their beliefs all too often don't match up with reality so they need their own little sand box where they can censor any dissenters and tell themselves they're trustworthy and honest all they want without the threat of having their (crazy) beliefs mocked or criticized by anyone.
</blockquote>
[[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:38, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== A major online conservative christian newspaper..... ==

A major online conservative christian newspaper is very interested in regards to Conservapedia's [[atheism]] article and the reporter said she would very likely do a story on it. She said her readers are VERY interested in the subject of atheism and the story that we are promoting our article and that some major Christian internet ministries have started to feature our article is a good story. I am making the conservapedia [[atheism]] article the article of the month which I think fits in nicely with the Expelled controversy. I have sent Andy an email on this matter and I am awaiting an answer. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:46, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
==Ajdak and Aydak==
Delete
*[[Ajdak]]
*[[Aydak]]

I can't find any information proving these are actually considered deities by any people -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 19:46, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:47, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

==Wife==
Why the reversion? I have, as requested by Philip, provided Biblical references on which the statement is founded. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:27, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== Great! ==

Thank God, you came in at the right time!--[[User:MReilly|MReilly]] 15:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

: Do you really think that God cares about websites? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 15:43, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== IndianaJ ==

Dan, I had a look at his edits and not all of it needs reverting - I would skip the talk pages for example so long as it's not objectionable. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:05, 4 May 2008 (EDT)

== I'm not a sock ==

I am not a sock. Yes, I am the same person who was TNS 1 and 2, but only because I lost the passwords to those accounts. They are no longer in use. [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:48, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== sysop-protected page ==

Hi, [[Lemon Test]] page has been protected: ''*10 February 2008 DanH Protected "Lemon test" [edit=sysop:move=sysop]'' - this page shows up in the list of "uncategorized pages" - requesting unprotect long enough to add a category, thanks! :) [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:04, 10 May 2008 (EDT)
:Certainly. I forgot that was still protected. Hopefully three months is long enough. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:05, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:: Thank you! :) I added categories, if desired, please feel free to protect again, I'm done there now! -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 21:15, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Ravings from the other side==

Good luck with your finals! [[User:NewHouse|NewHouse]] 22:18, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

== Vandal ==

My talk page was vandalized, can i report this to you? --[[User:Reallife|Reallife]] 01:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Cheers, ill know that for the future, god bless. --[[User:Reallife|Reallife]] 01:39, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Ans ==
Right, right. I'm so used to pressing "delete" instead of "backspace"... sorry about that. +_+ [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 23:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Ans is French for "years", so it's still a word. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

== Question ==

Did you delete my Conservapedia bias page?
If you did, you're just proving my point. {{unsigned|Kaiisin}}
:No, that does not prove your point in any way. Sorry. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
::Yes I did, and do you really expect an "equal airing" on a site called Conservapedia? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:11, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::I expected "the facts" but I guess I'll go elsewhere for that. {{unsigned|Kaiisin}}

== quick note ==

DanH, in about a minute I am sending you an email I sent Andy and some other conservapedia Sysops. Your input would be much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:50, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:::By the way, I have the vote of Joaquin Martinez and Ed Poor. TerryH read my proposal and has not stated anything for or against my proposal but my guess is that he will be for my proposal based on my previous interaction with TerryH. Do I have your vote for my proposal? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:09, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
:At this point in time, I abstain. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:12, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

== [[al Qaeda]] ==

Hi, I'd like to make some changes to the article as described [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl_Qaeda&diff=440525&oldid=286437 here], but the article is locked. Any chance of getting it unlocked? [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 14:45, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
:I unlocked it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:48, 17 May 2008 (EDT)
::Thanks, changes made. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 14:54, 17 May 2008 (EDT)

==Hitler==
Why did you delete then restore an article that kills its view count and decreases its ranking-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:54, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
::Because it's an embarrassment to have Adolf Hitler in the top 5 for most viewed pages. It's bad enough that it was done with all the Homosexuality pages. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:55, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

Just keep it like that, it will get us more traffic to our site, and I know it looks bad, but it increases rankings -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 14:58, 18 May 2008 (EDT)
*I don't really care if Conservapedia is in the top 10 when you search for Adolf Hitler. It won't be anyway because there are way too many more popular sites that have already climbed the Google rankings. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:19, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

== Userpage ==
If you don't mind me asking, what was that pledge removal thing about?[[User:Moonboots|Moonboots]] 21:34, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

==Communism and socialism==

Thanks, Dan. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Socialism&diff=next&oldid=459168] I have trouble explaining the distinction between [[Communism]] and [[Socialism]]. Perhaps a chart or table would help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]

==Hi==

I noticed you deleted an article on [[Liberal Depravity]] just now for being parody. Although most likely written by a scheming editor, is it not a bit of a double standard to allow articles that scream parody to remain here on this site? I'm referring to Liberal tricks etc. and the homosexual articles. {{unsigned|JEdgar}}

::I don't think Conservative has parody in mind. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:32, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:You are seperating the intent from the crime. If someone murders someone, its largely irrelevant if they intended them to die or not. By pointing the gun, even if they didn't mean to kill, they are asking for trouble. The same goes for these ludicrous articles. They make Conservapedia look like a parody of conservatism though are written by genuine people of a particularly reality-divorced position. You are a reasonable man, yet you never stand up to this nonsense. Why? [[User:JEdgar|JEdgar]] 19:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

This person appears to be a trouble-maker, Dan. Check his edits and especially his userpage message. I think that's a good indicator of the type of behavior we should expect from him. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:51, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Because it would just get reversed. I'm not the only sysop watching. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:57, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal depravity ==

If you didn't like my article, why not improve on it? Surely, nobody reading this site could draw any OTHER conclusion but that Liberals are immoral monsters, driven solely by their disgusting glandular urges and UTTER HATRED of God and America. Fnord. --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:I don't share that view, in fact, I have liberal views on some issue. You're obviously being a parodist. I expect better from you. Cut it out. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:28, 23 May 2008 (EDT)
If ''these'' are all "real articles":
* Classical liberal
* Drinking Liberally
* Godless liberal
* Hollywood values
* Last wordism
* Liberal activists
* Liberal arts
* Liberal Arts college
* Liberal Bias
* Liberal celebrity obsession
* Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia
* Liberal Christianity
* Liberal deceit
* Liberal Democrats
* Liberal denial
* Liberal Elite
* Liberal Falsehoods
* Liberal Fascism
* Liberal friendship
* Liberal Gloss
* Liberal grading
* Liberal hate speech
* Liberal Hypocrisy
* Liberal hysteria
* Liberal ideology
* Liberal Intellectualism
* Liberalism and art
* Liberal labels
* Liberal Lies About the American Right
* Liberal logic
* Liberal Mind
* Liberal Myths
* Liberal obfuscation
* Liberal Party
* Liberal quotient
* Liberal supremacist
* Liberal Style
* Liberal tools
* Liberal tricks
* Liberal values
* Massachusetts liberal
* Professor values
(All taken from [[Liberal]])
Then I humbly submit that [[Liberal depravity]] should fit RIGHT IN.
(And what are you allegedly have liberal views about, and how did you keep Mr. Schlafly from finding out?) --[[User:Gulik|Gulik]] 17:38, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:Public education, environmental issues/global warming, war on drugs. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== AFR ==

D'oh! Thanks for those. :) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 23:27, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:I was initially confused as to why there wasn't an article on NPR. Great article, by the way! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:37, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Sierpiński ==

Wow, thanks for the instantaneous move of the page! [[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 16:00, 24 May 2008 (EDT)

==Kitzmiller Article==

I posted another edit of the Kitzmiller v Dover article on the article's talk page. Could you please review? --[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 11:16, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

==Truman123==
Dan, you just blocked someone for five years for changing one word on the Nicaragua page, possibly mistakenly. A block might be warranted, but don't you think you're being a bit crazily harsh? I would think a week would be sufficient punishment for a mistake that might well have been an honest one?
Just asking you to think about it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:00, 27 May 2008 (EDT)

== Plates ==

Hey, I noticed you undid my change [[Choose Life License Plates|here]] but didn't give an explanation. Thanks for your time. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 16:34, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

== About the "Screamo" page ==

You commented on my talk page about "Screamo" and asked about sources, proof, ect.

Here goes:

1. You beleive that bands such as "The Used", "Rise Against", "Atreyu", and others are "Screamo" bands. This is not the case

Here is a sample of real "Screamo"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pmkHtTWcCPM

Here is a sample of something that is NOT screamo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vDz2mWMMRN0

Clearly, there is a difference in the two songs. The "Screamo" sample includes music that is nearly completely composed of screaming vocals, while the "Non-Screamo" sample is composed mostly of singing vocals with little screaming sections.

To be classified as "Screamo", a song must have mostly screaming vocals in it, and not for only 10-20 seconds. It has to be nearly the WHOLE song.
Here is a link to a site which contains user votes on what is "real screamo" and what is not

http://www.last.fm/tag/real%20screamo
http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=159848

2. Next up, you questioned why i listed bands that did not popularize the genre.
Well, here is what is going down: The Used, Atreyu, and Rise Against are not screamo, thus they did not popularize the genre

However, I listed bands such as CTTS, Envy, and Funeral Dinner because they are the bands that have started the genre, as well as popularizing it. You can read it on other sites (including wikipedia)

Alright, theres my discussion for the day. I suggest you keep the "screamo" page as it is, because non of the bands that were originally listed were considered as "screamo" bands

{{unsigned|Yelonde}}

== thank you ==

Thank you for noticing, and reverting, the ridiculous comment someone left on my talk page. [[User:Taj|Taj]] 18:20, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

== Why did you revert my edits? ==

Hello Dan,

Why did you revert my edits to the [[Apartheid]] page? It added a wealth of new information to the article.

Regards.

:Because they reflected a pro-apartheid viewpoint and we do not support that here. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry? Pro-Apartheid? I simply said that PW Botha put the idea of the creation of a Colored and Indian Houses of Parliament to the White electorate, of whom 66% voted to include. Can you tell me how that is pro-Apartheid? It's fact, not opinion.

Secondly Dr.Verwoerd did change the name from Apartheid to seperate developement, check on the United Nations website if you don't believe me.

The previous person to edit it put "unfortunately" the West backed them. How is it unfortunate? Conservative regimes in the West backed the Christian, capitalist regime of the National Party against the Marxist, atheist ANC and PAC.

And thirdly, I came here to be with fellow Conservatives. Forbidding pro-Apartheid material is a very liberal course of action, in my belief.

Regards.

== Rule 5 of the Conservapedia Commandments ==

"Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry. Opinions can be posted on Talk:pages or on debate or discussion pages. Advertisements are prohibited."

The person who editted [[Apartheid]] before me inserted their opinion by putting "unfortunately" Western governments backed Apartheid. Shouldn't their edits be reverted?

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred123]]

== AWB ==

What??? Are you out to get me here or something. You are watching my every edit and then reverting them on a whim.

The AWB is conservative, it wished to conserve the regime that was in place. It was not racist, it was racialist yes, it acknowledged the existance of different races.

Why would a "racist" organisation enter in an alliance with the Black Inkatha Freedom Party?

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]
: What "different races"? There's one race: the human race. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:23, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, but that was not the view of the [[AWB]].

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

== Black people could vote under Apartheid ==

DanH,

Black people could vote under Apartheid, in their Bantustans, but not in White South Africa. So it is unfair to say that Black people were only given the vote in 1994. In fact in the Bophuthatswana Bantustan it appeared most of its Black residents did not want to vote, as there was only a 0.6% turnout.

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

I sent you an email buddy
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Sorry

Talk:Ted Nugent

2008-06-08T03:14:27Z

Jedisqrl:

--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 22:56, 7 June 2008 (EDT)This is one of my all time favorite Rock Stars. Not many Rockers are solid conservatives as Ted is (well maybe except for Kid Rock and Gene Simmons). I commend Ted on all his work in REAL charities that help the poor Unlike, Idol Takes Away And Gives To The UN. God bless you Ted you rock my man.

:Based on his behavior and lyrics, I would hardly consider Kid Rock a conservative. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:32, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmm lets see Kid supports our Troops. And is a registered Republican.

Talk:Ted Nugent

2008-06-08T02:56:52Z

Jedisqrl:

Talk:Ted Nugent

2008-06-08T02:56:10Z

Jedisqrl:

This is one of my all time favorite Rock Stars. Not many Rockers are solid conservatives as Ted is (well maybe except for Kid Rock and Gene Simmons). I commend Ted on all his work in REAL charities that help the poor Unlike, Idol Takes Away And Gives To The UN. God bless you Ted you rock my man. {{unsigned|Jedisqrl}}

Talk:Carrie Underwood

2008-06-07T19:54:37Z

Jedisqrl:

--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 15:54, 7 June 2008 (EDT)Why has anyone failed to mention. Ms Underwood is a member of several Left Wing Animal Rights groups? I never considered he all that great of a singer. She's No Louise Mandrell.

:And what are these groups? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

PETA and the HSUS

--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 15:54, 7 June 2008 (EDT)Nothing personal I just think it should be metioned she's hardly a conservative. She's along the same lines in support of Radical Animal Rights groups as Alec Baldwin,Bob Barker and Bill Maher. Thats why I wanted to bring it to your attention. Sorry just a big Ted Nugent fan here.

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-07T19:52:08Z

Jedisqrl:

Olivier? Bogart? Pacino? Brando? Deniro?

No, when I think "actor who deserves encyclopedic recognition," I think "Neil Patrick Harris. That's the guy."

This is why I love it here. Y'all are just hiLARious.[[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey you got Alec Baldwin why not do an entry on his baby brother Stephen Baldwin (the only REAL man in that family)
:How is the masculinity of the other brothers in question? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:01, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

--[[User:Jedisqrl|Jedisqrl]] 15:52, 7 June 2008 (EDT)I was refering to maturity not masculinity
== What about these actors and acteresses ==

someone needs to do articles on
Bruce Willis
Kevin Sorbo
James Arness
Billy Bob Thornton
Steve Buscemi
Lucy Lawless
Nikita Ager
Halle Berry
Pierce Brosnon
Liam Neeson
Mark Hamill
Jeremy Irons
Kristanna Loken
ok? {{Unsigned|Jedisqrl}}

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-07T19:29:35Z

Jedisqrl:

Olivier? Bogart? Pacino? Brando? Deniro?

No, when I think "actor who deserves encyclopedic recognition," I think "Neil Patrick Harris. That's the guy."

This is why I love it here. Y'all are just hiLARious.[[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey you got Alec Baldwin why not do an entry on his baby brother Stephen Baldwin (the only REAL man in that family)
:How is the masculinity of the other brothers in question? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:01, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

I was refering to maturity not masculinity

== What about these actors and acteresses ==

someone needs to do articles on
Bruce Willis
Kevin Sorbo
James Arness
Billy Bob Thornton
Steve Buscemi
Lucy Lawless
Nikita Ager
Halle Berry
Pierce Brosnon
Liam Neeson
Mark Hamill
Jeremy Irons
Kristanna Loken
ok?

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-07T19:28:09Z

Jedisqrl:

Olivier? Bogart? Pacino? Brando? Deniro?

No, when I think "actor who deserves encyclopedic recognition," I think "Neil Patrick Harris. That's the guy."

This is why I love it here. Y'all are just hiLARious.[[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 16:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Hey you got Alec Baldwin why not do an entry on his baby brother Stephen Baldwin (the only REAL man in that family)
:How is the masculinity of the other brothers in question? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 14:01, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== What about these actors and acteresses ==

someone needs to do articles on
Bruce Willis
Kevin Sorbo
James Arness
Billy Bob Thornton
Steve Buscemi
Lucy Lawless
Nikita Ager
Halle Berry
Pierce Brosnon
Liam Neeson
Mark Hamill
Jeremy Irons
Kristanna Loken
ok?

I was refering to maturity not masculinity

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2008-06-07T19:21:09Z

Jedisqrl: Hitler was a Vegetarian

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.

Talk:Ted Nugent

2008-06-07T19:15:29Z

Jedisqrl: New page: This is one of my all time favorite Rock Stars. Not many Rockers are solid conservatives as Ted is (well maybe except for Kid Rock and Gene Simmons). I commend Ted on all his work in REAL ...

Talk:Carrie Underwood

2008-06-07T19:10:01Z

Jedisqrl:

Why has anyone failed to mention. Ms Underwood is a member of several Left Wing Animal Rights groups? I never considered he all that great of a singer. She's No Louise Mandrell. {{unsigned|Jedisqrl}}

:And what are these groups? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:04, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

PETA and the HSUS

Nothing personal I just think it should be metioned she's hardly a conservative. She's along the same lines in support of Radical Animal Rights groups as Alec Baldwin,Bob Barker and Bill Maher. Thats why I wanted to bring it to your attention. Sorry just a big Ted Nugent fan here.

Talk:Carrie Underwood

2008-06-07T19:06:06Z

Jedisqrl:

Talk:Glenn Beck

2008-06-07T19:01:23Z

Jedisqrl:

==Moderate?==
What's wrong with calling Glenn Beck a moderate?

Update: I changed the article so that all the facts are neutral. [[User:PSMax8956|PSMax8956]] 13:11, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, he calls himself a conservative. I'd put him in between hard-core conservatives like Ann Coulter and the more moderate "conservatives" like Bill O'Reilly. I like all of them, by the way.[[User:JamesL|JamesL]] 22:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

==Media Matters==
I joined this, today actually, because I agree with the idea that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. On the subject of Media Matters, Wikipedia often refers to them as a "media watchdog group". In the Wikipedia article on Glenn Beck, Media Matters is cited no less than nine times. Since this website is NOT Wikipedia, we should use other sources.[[User:JamesL|JamesL]] 22:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Glenn is hardly a Moderate. He's a true blue Conservative and thats why I like the dude. I think you have Glenn confused with Jim Bohannan.

Category talk:Women Singers

2008-06-07T18:54:58Z

Jedisqrl:

... shouldn't this be female singers/just under "Singers"? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 23:04, 17 January 2008 (EST)

Even better, why is there no entry on Jessica Simpson she's a conservative. She may not always perform with fellow conservatives but I happen to think she's great.

Talk:Carrie Underwood

2008-06-07T18:49:09Z

Jedisqrl: New page: Why has anyone failed to mention. Ms Underwood is a member of several Left Wing Animal Rights groups? I never considered he all that great of a singer. She's No Louise Mandrell.

Why has anyone failed to mention. Ms Underwood is a member of several Left Wing Animal Rights groups? I never considered he all that great of a singer. She's No Louise Mandrell.

Talk:Jack Chick

2008-06-07T18:28:01Z

Jedisqrl:

Category talk:Religious People

2008-06-07T18:19:50Z

Jedisqrl:

Talk:Chuck Norris

2008-06-07T18:05:42Z

Jedisqrl:

Chuck Norris does not believe in a vast atheist conspiracy. Moreover, no one is trying, at a national level, to "outlaw" Christianity.

:You are incorrect. I refer you to the two articles linked in the footnotes written by Mr. Norris ("How to outlaw Christianity" part 1 and parts 2 & 3) in which he lays out his case for both an Atheist conspiracy to take over our civilization and to outlaw Christianity though legislation and other more devious means. This is vital work that Mr. Norris is doing, and will very well be what future generations will remember him most for. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:17, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Maybe you don't think so, BND, but don't put words in Chuck Norris's mouth. If you haven't read [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55668 this], your ignorance can be excused. But if you say it again, I'll have to ban you for deliberately spreading misinformation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Questionable Edits==

Why has the text in the second paragraph been changed from "worked" to "joked about working"? This change makes no sense. Did [[User:DanH |DanH]] not read the articles in question where Mr. Norris explained in detail his case for the Atheist conspiracy to undermine our society? This is no joke, rather a serious problem that Mr. Norris takes very seriously. It's bad enough that Liberals have seized upon Mr. Norris to make him the butt of their juvenile jokes, we don't need Conservatives to start trivializing his important work as a public advocate for change in a society that is increasingly hostile to Christians. Please fix this mischaracterization. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:14, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

Don't waste my time. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:15, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: How is accurately representing the position of the subject of an article a waste of your time? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:31, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I'd never heard about this issue, but did a little research. I think Mr. Norris is genuinely concerned about the loss of faith in America, but I don't think he actually believes there some sort of malignant conspiracy to promote atheism, nor would I believe he'd really forcibly deport or tattoo anyone. That's my opinion. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 11:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

: I am sorry, but I genuinely do not understand the lack of understanding of Mr. Norris' position being expressed here. In the two articles of his in question, he documents Atheists working in concert and through subterfuge to outlaw Christianity and convert our nation to Atheism. How is that not a "malignant conspiracy "? Here are the steps he lays out:

: Step 1 is to "[i]nitiate restrictions and legislation against theism and Christianity". This is done through lawsuits against public religious expression and silencing individual Christians under the guise of so-called "hate crime" laws.

: Step 2 is to "[t]arget younger generations with atheism". This involves "intentionally preying" on the "innocence and naïveté" of our children to "remove any residue of theism from their minds and hearts"..

: Step 3 is to "[p]ackage and promote atheism as reasonable and scientific", This involves perverting science in order to claim it disproves God.

: Mr. Norris is not joking about these things, and to knowingly mischaracterize him as doing so is to bear false witness against an honorable man. I ask the system operators to please reconsider the recent edit which, intentional or not, has exactly that effect. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:09, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

I like Chuck Norris he's one of America's most underated actors. If anyone ever deserved an Oscar its this guy

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-07T17:58:41Z

Jedisqrl:

Category talk:Religious People

2008-06-07T17:52:26Z

Jedisqrl:

Category talk:Religious People

2008-06-07T17:50:34Z

Jedisqrl:

Talk:Richard Kiel

2008-06-07T17:45:41Z

Jedisqrl: New page: I like Richard Kiel he's a really nice guy and a fine true Christian

I like Richard Kiel he's a really nice guy and a fine true Christian

Category talk:Actors

2008-06-07T17:43:26Z

Jedisqrl: What about these actors and acteresses

Fred Phelps

2008-06-07T17:32:38Z

Jedisqrl: /* Criticism of Phelps */

[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organisation not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behavior. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.

Phelps has openly denounced the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. His views are rejected by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut".

Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is being represented by the [[ACLU]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref>

''Phelps has been an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for President in 1988.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., also served as a delegate for Gore.'' <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref>

Phelps has since changed his opinion about Gore when he joined Bill Clinton on the 1992 presidential ticket. Phelps turned on him and claimed Gore was a conservative icon of the Democratic Party that sold out on some critical social issues. Phelps also demonstrated against Clinton and Gore during the 1997 inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref>
<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref>

== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==

Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against homosexuality and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the Bible and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.

== Phelps and the Democratic Party ==

Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name="ref4">[http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/05/kansas.results/ 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. and 1997. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref>

== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==

In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read, in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Hussein to protest in Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref>

== Lawsuits and Litigation ==

*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father sued for defamation over Phelps' statement: "Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell," during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. A federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against the church; Mr. Snyder won on every count of his complaint, receiving $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.

*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredTimGore1.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Former [[Vice President]] and [[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Al Gore]] with Fred and Timothy Phelps.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>]]
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax. {{fact}}

==Criticism of Phelps==
Phelps has been criticized by a great number of individuals, both conservative and liberal. For example, [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref>

== Recent Activities ==

Phelps has recently announced that he and his group will picket the service of actor Heath Ledger.

== Outside links ==
* [http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413388146858417528&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church+BBC&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]The Most Hated Family In America
*[http://toiletpaperonline.typepad.com/the_blog/2006/03/how_much_do_you.html Oh yeah, and he used to be tight with Al Gore]
*[http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/rev_fred_phelps.htmlRev. Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07.
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.

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

[[Category:Religious People|Phelps, Fred]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Anti-war Movements]]
[[Category: Democratic Party]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}

Category talk:Religious People

2008-06-07T17:28:15Z

Jedisqrl: New page: Why are you listing Carrie Underwood as "Religious"? She's a left wing Animal Rights extremist and also supports UNICEF. Hardly a Christian let alone "Religious". She's a RINO

Why are you listing Carrie Underwood as "Religious"? She's a left wing Animal Rights extremist and also supports UNICEF. Hardly a Christian let alone "Religious". She's a RINO

Raccoon

2008-05-28T19:08:03Z

Jedisqrl:

[[Image:Raccoon9sm.jpg|right|250px|thumb]]
'''Raccoons''' are medium-sized [[mammal]]s with black masks and ringed tails. Their fur is gray, brown, or reddish black. The mixture of light and dark colors on their fur helps to camouflage, or blend into the forest or urban environment. Adult raccoons weigh 15-20 pounds. A raccoon’s tracks look like tiny human hand and footprints, but raccoons can’t oppose their thumbs like people can. Raccoons can, however, open garbage cans, jars, and latches. The raccoon’s scientific name, ''“lotor,”'' means “washer” because it seems to wash its food. However, the raccoon does not always dip its food in water. It may also eat the food even if it is still dirty. Scientists used to think that the raccoon didn’t have enough saliva to swallow its food. They thought the raccoon needed to wet its food to be able to swallow it. But now, we know that raccoons do have enough saliva. The new reason scientists think raccoons wash their food is to press it and squash it to make sure there are no sharp bones or dangerous bits in the food. The name, “raccoon,” may have come from the Algonquin Indian word “arukun,” which means “he who scratches with his hands.”

==Habitat==
The raccoon lives in almost all areas of the [[United States]] and in southern [[Canada]] and northern [[Mexico]]. Although it prefers to live in woods near a stream or marsh, the raccoon is a very adaptable animal. Instead of using a tree to sleep in, it can use a chimney or a ditch. Because many of the raccoon’s natural habitat areas are being destroyed, it moves in closer to man, using the same habitat, and even eating the same foods as people.

==Food==
In the wild, a raccoon is an [[omnivore]], eating plants and animals. Its menu includes plants like berries, [[acorn]]s, and grapes. It also eats animals including baby [[mice]], baby [[bird]]s & [[egg]]s, [[frog]]s, [[crayfish]], fiddler crabs, [[fish]], and even some [[snake]]s. Around people, the raccoon loves to eat the [[corn]] in our gardens, garbage, and even animals that have been killed by cars ([[roadkill]]). Basically, the raccoon can live almost anywhere and eat almost anything. It can walk, run, climb, and swim. It usually walks on all fours, but can stand up straight to see over tall stumps or grasses. Raccoons live seven to ten years.

==Lifestyle==
Raccoons are usually nocturnal, but in warm states, like [[Florida]], they often come out during the day. If there is a lot of food nearby, raccoons don’t travel much and have a small territory. They choose several trees inside their home range that they like to sleep in, and use different trees on different nights. Raccoons usually live alone, and the father does not help the mother to raise the babies. Three to seven babies are born around [[February]]. When they are ten weeks old, the babies leave the den and follow their mother around learning to hunt. They stay near her until the fall, when they set out on their own. Raccoons do not [[hibernate]], but they may eat extra food in the autumn to store energy.

==Rabies==
Raccoons can catch [[disease]]s like rabies and distemper which make them act very strangely. A healthy raccoon will hardly ever walk right up to a person (unless someone has been feeding it). If a raccoon does this, it may be sick, and a grown-up should be told. Often, the raccoons that get hit by cars are the sick ones (or maybe they were trying to eat other roadkills). People can catch rabies if they are bitten. If you get bitten, you must get shots to stop you from getting the disease. Shots may not feel good, but they’re definitely better than getting the disease and dying. The best thing to do is ''NEVER'' touch, feed, or go near a wild animal. You look very tall and dangerous to a wild animal. It may bite you because it is scared. If you stay away from the animal, it won’t be able to bite you!

==Raccoons In Popular Culture==

The raccoon is very common and well loved in popular culture due to its cleverness and humorous antics. Among the appearances are

The Raccoons: A Canadian animated series sometimes seen in the US

RJ Raccoon: The lovable protagonist from the comic strip and CGI animated film Over The Hedge. RJ was voiced by Bruce Willis.

Ranger Rick:A forest ranger character that appeared in Weekly Reader then spun off into his own children's magazines. His goal was teaching children conservation and nature studies.

The Orphans: Characters created by the Swiss Colony mail order food company has three baby raccoons on a variety of products from log shaped [[chocolate]] cakes to coffee mugs.

Timothy Goes To School: A series of childrens book and a short lived animated series about a young raccoon and his adventures with his fellow animal friends at school.

[[Category:mammals]]

Opossum

2008-05-28T18:54:30Z

Jedisqrl: /* The Opossum in Popular Culture */

The '''Opossum''' is a small marsupial from the family ''Opossumus maximus arborealis'' that is known for its ability to hang from trees by its tail. It is native to the [[deciduous]] forests of [[North America]], where it feeds on slugs, red berries, [[thistle]] seed, and sticks. It ranges in length from 13-18 centimeters, has gray fur, large front teeth, and beady little eyes. It also has large ears, which help it hear better than other animal in the world. A common misconception about the opossum is that it is the same animal as the possum, which is actually a completely different animal from the family ''Possumus grandus ignoramus'' and is not at all able to hang from its tail.

==The Opossum in Popular Culture==
The opossum has appeared in varous venues of popular culture including

Pogo Possum the titular character from the comic strip of the same name created by Walt Kelly

Ozzie and Heather the father and daughter team of opossums in the popular full length animated feature "Over The Hedge" They were voiced by William Shatner and [[Avril Lavigne]].

Possible Possum a animated character of the 1950s

On an episode of Bizzare Foods host Andrew Zimmern ate some Opossum cooked with Sweet Potatoes

[[Category:Marsupials]]

Avril Lavigne

2008-05-28T18:53:28Z

Jedisqrl:

'''Avril Lavigne''' (born September 27, 1984) is a popular [[Canada|Canadian]] [[pop music|pop]] singer. She released her first album, ''[[Let Go (album)|Let Go]]'', at the the age of 17. To date, she has released three albums.

The first single, "Girlfriend", off her third album, is possibly her biggest hit, gathering over 60 million views on the website [[YouTube]].

The lyrics of many of the songs off her third album has much more adult language than the first two, putting it into the [[adult pop]] genre of music.

Avril Lavigne also lent her voice to the character Heather the [[Opossum]] in the hit animated film Over The Hedge which also starred Bruce Willis,William Shatner and Steve Carell

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lavigne, Avril}}

[[Category:Women Singers]]

Opossum

2008-05-28T18:51:17Z

Jedisqrl:

The '''Opossum''' is a small marsupial from the family ''Opossumus maximus arborealis'' that is known for its ability to hang from trees by its tail. It is native to the [[deciduous]] forests of [[North America]], where it feeds on slugs, red berries, [[thistle]] seed, and sticks. It ranges in length from 13-18 centimeters, has gray fur, large front teeth, and beady little eyes. It also has large ears, which help it hear better than other animal in the world. A common misconception about the opossum is that it is the same animal as the possum, which is actually a completely different animal from the family ''Possumus grandus ignoramus'' and is not at all able to hang from its tail.

==The Opossum in Popular Culture==
The opossum has appeared in varous venues of popular culture including

Pogo Possum the titular character from the comic strip of the same name created by Walt Kelly

Ozzie and Heather the father and daughter team of opossums in the popular full length animated feature "Over The Hedge" They were voiced by William Shatner and [[Avril Lavigne]]respectively

Possible Possum a animated character of the 1950s

On an episode of Bizzare Foods host Andrew Zimmern ate some Opossum cooked with Sweet Potatoes

[[Category:Marsupials]]

Warthog

2008-05-23T01:01:33Z

Jedisqrl:

[[Image:Warthog.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Warthog]]
The '''warthog''' (Phacochoerus africanus in [[Latin]]<ref>http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v91/n4/full/6800341a.html</ref>) is a type of wild [[pig]] that lives in [[Africa]]. They roam the savanna during the day and sleep in burrows during the night. Lions, cheetahs, wild dogs, and hyenas are the hog's predators, but adults are able to use their tusks in defense.<ref>http://www.nature-wildlife.com/warttxt.htm</ref>

==The Warthog In Popular Culture==

The Warthog is the nickname of the A10 ThunderboltII strike aircraft

The Warthog, Puumba was a major character from Disney's animated film [[The Lion King]]

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Mammals]]

[[Category:Africa]]

Mouse

2008-05-23T00:47:01Z

Jedisqrl: /* Mice in popular culture */

<blockquote>
''This article is about the small mammal. See [[Computer mouse]] for the computer pointing device.''
</blockquote>

Mice (the plural of '''mouse''') are small [[herbivorous]] [[rodent]] [[mammal]]s. There are many species of mice including non related mammals such as [[dormice]]. The common house mouse ''Mus musculus'' is widely distributed worldwide, having accompanied human travelers to many countries beyond its natural range. Typically mice will feed on seeds and other plant material, though mousetraps for the house mouse are usually baited with [[cheese]].

== Mice and Mankind ==

*Mice are often mistakenly identified as [[rat]]s. a serious [[agriculture|agricultural]] pest, damaging growing crops and stealing stored grain.
*Again, mice are often blamed as a [[disease vector]] for certain diseases including [[bubonic plague]] better attributed to [[rats]].
*The laboratory mouse is widely used as an experimental organism in biomedical research. There are many specialised breeds, such as the nude mouse, a hairless [[mutant]] strain used in [[cancer]] research and the Onken mouse, a mouse bred to have cancerous cells from birth.
*Mice are commonly kept as pets, and are also bred as food items for other, carnivorous pet animals.

== Mice in the Bible ==

Mice are mentioned several times in the Bible; [[Leviticus]] 11:29 declares them unclean. In 1 Samuel, after the [[Philistines]] captured the [[Ark of the Covenant]], they were afflicted by God with plagues of mice and of [[hemmorhoids]], until they returned the Ark with a tribute of five golden hemmorhoids and five golden mice:

<blockquote>
''Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, and on your lords. Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods, and images of your mice that mar the land; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land.'' 1 Samuel 6, 4-5 (KJV)
</blockquote>

== Mice in popular culture ==

*[[Mickey Mouse]], the [[Walt Disney|Disney]] animated character.
*[[Mighty Mouse]], the animated mouse superhero.
*Jerry, of [[Tom and Jerry]], the animated cat-and-mouse duo.
*Itchy, of [[Itchy and Scratchy]], from [[the Simpsons]].

*Reepicheep, from [[CS Lewis]]'s [[The Chronicles Of Narnia]]

*Fievel Mouskawitz and his family from the An American Tail movies

*Pinky And The Brain from the cartoon of the same name

*Little Sneazer from Tiny Toon Adventures

*Stuart Little from the [[Eb White]] novel of the same name

Chucky Cheese the mascot of the Chucky Cheese Pizza and Arcade [[franchise]]

[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Rodents]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]

Mouse

2008-05-23T00:41:18Z

Jedisqrl: /* Mice in popular culture */

<blockquote>
''This article is about the small mammal. See [[Computer mouse]] for the computer pointing device.''
</blockquote>

Mice (the plural of '''mouse''') are small [[herbivorous]] [[rodent]] [[mammal]]s. There are many species of mice including non related mammals such as [[dormice]]. The common house mouse ''Mus musculus'' is widely distributed worldwide, having accompanied human travelers to many countries beyond its natural range. Typically mice will feed on seeds and other plant material, though mousetraps for the house mouse are usually baited with [[cheese]].

== Mice and Mankind ==

*Mice are often mistakenly identified as [[rat]]s. a serious [[agriculture|agricultural]] pest, damaging growing crops and stealing stored grain.
*Again, mice are often blamed as a [[disease vector]] for certain diseases including [[bubonic plague]] better attributed to [[rats]].
*The laboratory mouse is widely used as an experimental organism in biomedical research. There are many specialised breeds, such as the nude mouse, a hairless [[mutant]] strain used in [[cancer]] research and the Onken mouse, a mouse bred to have cancerous cells from birth.
*Mice are commonly kept as pets, and are also bred as food items for other, carnivorous pet animals.

== Mice in the Bible ==

Mice are mentioned several times in the Bible; [[Leviticus]] 11:29 declares them unclean. In 1 Samuel, after the [[Philistines]] captured the [[Ark of the Covenant]], they were afflicted by God with plagues of mice and of [[hemmorhoids]], until they returned the Ark with a tribute of five golden hemmorhoids and five golden mice:

<blockquote>
''Then said they, What shall be the trespass offering which we shall return to him? They answered, Five golden emerods, and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines: for one plague was on you all, and on your lords. Wherefore ye shall make images of your emerods, and images of your mice that mar the land; and ye shall give glory unto the God of Israel: peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land.'' 1 Samuel 6, 4-5 (KJV)
</blockquote>

== Mice in popular culture ==

*[[Mickey Mouse]], the [[Walt Disney|Disney]] animated character.
*[[Mighty Mouse]], the animated mouse superhero.
*Jerry, of [[Tom and Jerry]], the animated cat-and-mouse duo.
*Itchy, of [[Itchy and Scratchy]], from [[the Simpsons]].

*Reepicheep, from [[CS Lewis]]'s [[The Chronicles Of Narnia]]

[[Category:Domestic Animals]]
[[Category:Rodents]]
[[Category:Biblical Animals]]

Avril Lavigne

2008-05-18T19:13:41Z

Jedisqrl:

'''Avril Lavigne''' (born September 27, 1984) is a popular [[Canada|Canadian]] [[pop music|pop]] singer. She released her first album, ''[[Let Go (album)|Let Go]]'', at the the age of 17. To date, she has released three albums.

The first single, "Girlfriend", off her third album, is possibly her biggest hit, gathering over 60 million views on the website [[YouTube]].

The lyrics of many of the songs off her third album has much more adult language than the first two, putting it into the [[adult pop]] genre of music.

Avril Lavigne also lent her voice to the character Heather the [[Opposum]] in the hit animated film Over The Hedge which also starred Bruce Willis,William Shatner and Steve Carell

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lavigne, Avril}}

[[Category:Women Singers]]