Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Anti-Christian sentiment

2017-10-03T23:54:26Z

KommissarReb: Corrected information (mistypings since I'm editing using a mobile device)

{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Deeply anti-Christian [[Führer]]
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |''“The [[Führer]] is deeply [[religious]], but deeply '''anti-Christian'''. He regards [[Christianity]] as a [[symptom]] of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the [[Jewish]] race.”''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— [[Goebbels]] in his diary in 1939<ref>{{cite book |title=Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History |author=Jerry Bergman |publisher=Joshua Press |year=20120 |pages=199 |isbn=978-18944-00497 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=K2bFMgEACAAJ|quote=Goebbels' anti-Christian attitudes were no doubt also influenced by Hitler. He wrote in his diary in 1939, "The [[Fuehrer]] is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." Bullock adds the "truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was retionalist and a materialist."}}</ref>
</div>
|}
'''Anti-Christian sentiment''' is associated with following phenomena taking place in the society:<ref>{{cite web |title=The Observatory's Report on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, Report 2011|publisher=The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians (NGO)|authorlink=Austria|date=March 19, 2012|isbn=78-3-9503055-4-8|url=http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/publications/report-2011.html|acessdate=20122-10-26}}</ref>
*I) Discrimination: Denial of Rights of [[Christian]]s
**• Violation of freedom of expression
**• Violation of freedom of conscience
**• Violation of parents’ rights with regard to the education of the children{{#tag:ref|cf.
*''"Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council shows how everything changes when Same Sex Marriage is legalized. ... In the video, Perkins also speaks with two families who discuss their experiences of same-sex marriage being taught in schools. The first family, the Parkers, explain that their kindergarten son was given a book about homosexuality in a “diversity book bag.” The parents were not given prior notification.The second family, the Wirthlins, tell the story of their seven year old son coming home from school after a teacher read his class the book, “King and King,” in which a prince falls in love with another prince."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Same-sex marriage will impact all families and children, video shows|publisher=Catholic News Agency (CNA) |place=Washington D.C.|date=Oct 27, 2008 |url=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/samesex_marriage_will_impact_all_families_and_children_video_shows/|accessdate=June 21, 2013}}</ref>
*''When we went in to the school what we requested is parental notification when these issues are brought up by adults in the school and an option to opt our child out of this type of indoctrination. She object with administrators and they had said that this was not a parental notification issue - and I said: I'm prepared to sit here all night until I see some form of accommodation as parent. The accommodation they gave was to put me the handcuffs and sent me to jail. I couldn't believe that they were willing to arrest my husband at just one parents' notification, we want to raise our Children to know God and to know His truth.''<ref>{{cite episode| title = Why Your Vote on Marriage Counts
| episodelink =
| url = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZObHexFv_8M
| series =
| credits = Tony Perkins, President
| network = Family Research Council
| station =
| airdate =
| began = 01:45
| ended = 02:35
| transcripturl= }}</ref>
*''In a shocking and brazen act of governmental abuse of parental rights, Deerfield High School (DHS) in Deerfield, Illinois, has required fourteen-year-old freshmen to attend a “Straight Gay Alliance Network” (GSA) panel discussion led by “gay” and “lesbian” upperclassmen during a “freshman advisory” class which secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors. Not only has DHS required that its young and impressionable freshmen be exposed to radical homosexual propaganda, the school has further required that students sign a “confidentiality agreement” promising not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the discussion....Remarkably, even after the school district’s surreptitious actions were exposed, parents were nonetheless told that they were not welcome to sit in on the “freshman advisory” and were not permitted to have access to materials used in compiling its activist curriculum.''<ref>{{cite web |title=CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents|publisher=Concerned Women for America (CWA)|place=Washington, D.C. |url=http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=12546&department=MEDIA&categoryid=family |accessdate=June 21, 2013}}</ref>|group=note}}
**• Violation of the institutional or collective dimension of religious freedom
**• Discriminatory “equality” policies
*II) Intolerance: Marginalization of Christians. Proposition to attack the organized religion was made, for example, by [[Richard Dawkins]], adherent of [[Militant atheism]]<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book
|author=David Berlinski
|title=The Deniable Darwin
|publisher=Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from ''Commentary'' February 1998 by permission)
|location=Seattle, USA
|year=2009
|pages=109
|chapter=Denying Darwin: David Berlinski & Critics
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php
|quote=But a public charge calls for a public response. In 1992, Mr.Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, and I did share a podium at Oxford University. His hands trembling with indignation, Mr. Dawkins proposed to attack the organized religion; I proposed to attack Richard Dawkins; and John Maynard Smith, seeing that it was required, proposed to defend Mr. Dawkins from my attack. ... I have a videotape of our encounter. If he wishes to debate again, Mr. Dawkins need only set the time and the place.}}</ref> and proponent of [[LGBT]] ideology Sir [[Elton John]] who would like to have all organized religion banned.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Sir Elton: Ban organised religion
|author=
|publisher=BBC News
|date=12 November 2006
|accessdate=10 February 2013
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6140710.stm
|quote=Sir Elton John has said he would like to see all organised religion banned and accused it of trying to "turn hatred towards gay people"}}</ref>
**• Exclusion of Christians from social and public life
**• Exclusion of Christian symbols from the public
**• Social disadvantages for Christians
**• Incitement, insult or defamation
**• Misrepresentation of Christians in the media through negative stereotyping
*III) Hate Incidents
**• Hate crimes against Christians<ref>{{cite web |title=Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan (Abortionists attack defending Catholic Cathedral of San Juan) |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPUvUYU7Qzw&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwPUvUYU7Qzw&has_verified=1 |accessdate=February 22, 2014 |language=Spanish}}</ref> On October 3, 2017 a Charles Miller brutally assaulted 63 year old Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Newark, Most Reverend Manuel A. Cruz during an opening prayer that was partially dedicated to commemorating the life of Catholic baseball legend Roberto Clemente, who died in a tragic death in a plane crash en route to deliver aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua in 1972.<ref>{{cite web |title=Bishop Punched In The Face During Mass In Appalling Attack |url=https://catholicfb.com/video-bishop-punched-face-mass-appalling-attack/}}</ref>
**• Hate incidents such as the disruption of services. For example, in 2008 a radical homosexual organization called [[Bash Back]] disrupted Sunday services at a Michigan Assemblies of God-affiliated church, throwing fliers, shouting slogans at churchgoers including one that Jesus was homosexual, and kissing each other. The group involved activists dressed in pink and black equipped ''“with a megaphone, black flags, picket signs and an upside-down pink cross.”''<ref>{{cite web |title=Gay activists disrupt Sunday service at Michigan church |date=13 November 2008 |publisher=CNA |url=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/gay_activists_disrupt_sunday_service_at_michigan_church/ |quote=A homosexual activist group on Sunday disrupted services at a Michigan Assemblies of God-affiliated church, throwing fliers, shouting slogans at churchgoers, and kissing each other. David Williams, communications director at the church and son of its pastor Dave Williams, said their slogans included phrases like “It's OK to be gay” and claims that Jesus was homosexual... |accessdate=11 October 2015}}</ref>
**• Vandalism and desecrations<ref>{{cite web |title=Hellish Pro-Abortion Attack on Catholic Cathedral|author= John Ritchie |date=October 21, 2012 |url=http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/news-and-updates/hellish-pro-abortion-attack-on-catholic-cathedral.html |accessdate=June 21, 2013|quote=“The only church that illuminates is the one that burns,” they said. Five hundred pro-abortion women spray painted the walls of the Cathedral, ridiculed the Catholic Church, and attacked a group of Catholics with paint, spittle, insults and blows.The incident took place on Sunday night, October 7 during the 27th National Women’s Conference in Posadas, Argentina when a group of about 500 activists from various feminist groups vented their rage against the Church for its position on abortion and same-sex “marriage.” Although the aggression led to the cancelation of Sunday Masses, hundreds of faithful Catholics, mostly young men, stood at the entrance of the Cathedral, forming a protective prayer chain to prevent its desecration. “Freedom of speech,” “dialogue” and “tolerance” were entirely absent in the scenes that unfolded in front of the Cathedral. Far from it, abortion activists, radical feminists and open homosexual – some, completely undressed – united to chant phrases such as “Church – garbage – you're the dictatorship!” The walls of the Cathedral were vandalized with offensive slurs such as “The only church that illuminates is the one that burns.”}}</ref>

==Notes==
<references group=note/>

==References==
<References/>

==See also==
*[[Anthropological Revolution]]
*[[Liberal anti-Christian hate]]
*[[Moral degeneration]]
*[[Moral relativism]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Anti-Christian sentiment

2017-10-03T23:36:43Z

KommissarReb: Added content:"Bishop Punched In The Face During Mass In Appalling Attack"

{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:lightgray; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Deeply anti-Christian [[Führer]]
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |''“The [[Führer]] is deeply [[religious]], but deeply '''anti-Christian'''. He regards [[Christianity]] as a [[symptom]] of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the [[Jewish]] race.”''
<div style="padding-left:40px;">— [[Goebbels]] in his diary in 1939<ref>{{cite book |title=Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview: How the Nazi Eugenic Crusade for a Superior Race Caused the Greatest Holocaust in World History |author=Jerry Bergman |publisher=Joshua Press |year=20120 |pages=199 |isbn=978-18944-00497 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=K2bFMgEACAAJ|quote=Goebbels' anti-Christian attitudes were no doubt also influenced by Hitler. He wrote in his diary in 1939, "The [[Fuehrer]] is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race." Bullock adds the "truth is that, in matters of religion at least, Hitler was retionalist and a materialist."}}</ref>
</div>
|}
'''Anti-Christian sentiment''' is associated with following phenomena taking place in the society:<ref>{{cite web |title=The Observatory's Report on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians in Europe, Report 2011|publisher=The Observatory on Intolerance and Discrimination against Christians (NGO)|authorlink=Austria|date=March 19, 2012|isbn=78-3-9503055-4-8|url=http://www.intoleranceagainstchristians.eu/publications/report-2011.html|acessdate=20122-10-26}}</ref>
*I) Discrimination: Denial of Rights of [[Christian]]s
**• Violation of freedom of expression
**• Violation of freedom of conscience
**• Violation of parents’ rights with regard to the education of the children{{#tag:ref|cf.
*''"Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council shows how everything changes when Same Sex Marriage is legalized. ... In the video, Perkins also speaks with two families who discuss their experiences of same-sex marriage being taught in schools. The first family, the Parkers, explain that their kindergarten son was given a book about homosexuality in a “diversity book bag.” The parents were not given prior notification.The second family, the Wirthlins, tell the story of their seven year old son coming home from school after a teacher read his class the book, “King and King,” in which a prince falls in love with another prince."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Same-sex marriage will impact all families and children, video shows|publisher=Catholic News Agency (CNA) |place=Washington D.C.|date=Oct 27, 2008 |url=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/samesex_marriage_will_impact_all_families_and_children_video_shows/|accessdate=June 21, 2013}}</ref>
*''When we went in to the school what we requested is parental notification when these issues are brought up by adults in the school and an option to opt our child out of this type of indoctrination. She object with administrators and they had said that this was not a parental notification issue - and I said: I'm prepared to sit here all night until I see some form of accommodation as parent. The accommodation they gave was to put me the handcuffs and sent me to jail. I couldn't believe that they were willing to arrest my husband at just one parents' notification, we want to raise our Children to know God and to know His truth.''<ref>{{cite episode| title = Why Your Vote on Marriage Counts
| episodelink =
| url = http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZObHexFv_8M
| series =
| credits = Tony Perkins, President
| network = Family Research Council
| station =
| airdate =
| began = 01:45
| ended = 02:35
| transcripturl= }}</ref>
*''In a shocking and brazen act of governmental abuse of parental rights, Deerfield High School (DHS) in Deerfield, Illinois, has required fourteen-year-old freshmen to attend a “Straight Gay Alliance Network” (GSA) panel discussion led by “gay” and “lesbian” upperclassmen during a “freshman advisory” class which secretively featured inappropriate discussions of a sexual nature in promotion of high-risk homosexual behaviors. Not only has DHS required that its young and impressionable freshmen be exposed to radical homosexual propaganda, the school has further required that students sign a “confidentiality agreement” promising not to tell anyone – including their own parents – about the discussion....Remarkably, even after the school district’s surreptitious actions were exposed, parents were nonetheless told that they were not welcome to sit in on the “freshman advisory” and were not permitted to have access to materials used in compiling its activist curriculum.''<ref>{{cite web |title=CWA: School Tells Kids to Hide Pro-‘Gay’ Propaganda From Parents|publisher=Concerned Women for America (CWA)|place=Washington, D.C. |url=http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=12546&department=MEDIA&categoryid=family |accessdate=June 21, 2013}}</ref>|group=note}}
**• Violation of the institutional or collective dimension of religious freedom
**• Discriminatory “equality” policies
*II) Intolerance: Marginalization of Christians. Proposition to attack the organized religion was made, for example, by [[Richard Dawkins]], adherent of [[Militant atheism]]<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book
|author=David Berlinski
|title=The Deniable Darwin
|publisher=Discovery Institute Press (reprinted from ''Commentary'' February 1998 by permission)
|location=Seattle, USA
|year=2009
|pages=109
|chapter=Denying Darwin: David Berlinski & Critics
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php
|quote=But a public charge calls for a public response. In 1992, Mr.Dawkins, John Maynard Smith, and I did share a podium at Oxford University. His hands trembling with indignation, Mr. Dawkins proposed to attack the organized religion; I proposed to attack Richard Dawkins; and John Maynard Smith, seeing that it was required, proposed to defend Mr. Dawkins from my attack. ... I have a videotape of our encounter. If he wishes to debate again, Mr. Dawkins need only set the time and the place.}}</ref> and proponent of [[LGBT]] ideology Sir [[Elton John]] who would like to have all organized religion banned.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Sir Elton: Ban organised religion
|author=
|publisher=BBC News
|date=12 November 2006
|accessdate=10 February 2013
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6140710.stm
|quote=Sir Elton John has said he would like to see all organised religion banned and accused it of trying to "turn hatred towards gay people"}}</ref>
**• Exclusion of Christians from social and public life
**• Exclusion of Christian symbols from the public
**• Social disadvantages for Christians
**• Incitement, insult or defamation
**• Misrepresentation of Christians in the media through negative stereotyping
*III) Hate Incidents
**• Hate crimes against Christians<ref>{{cite web |title=Abortistas atacan a católicos que defendían la Catedral de San Juan (Abortionists attack defending Catholic Cathedral of San Juan) |url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPUvUYU7Qzw&oref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwPUvUYU7Qzw&has_verified=1 |accessdate=February 22, 2014 |language=Spanish}}</ref> On October 2, 2017 a Charles Miller brutally assaulted 63 year old Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Newark, Most Reverend Manuel A. Cruz during an opening prayer that was partially dedicated to commemorating the life of Catholic baseball legend Roberto Clemente, who died in a tragic death in a plane crash en route to deliver aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua in 1972.<ref>{{cite web |title=Bishop Punched In The Face During Mass In Appalling Attack (Abortionists attack defending Catholic Cathedral of San Juan) |url=https://catholicfb.com/video-bishop-punched-face-mass-appalling-attack/}}</ref>
**• Hate incidents such as the disruption of services. For example, in 2008 a radical homosexual organization called [[Bash Back]] disrupted Sunday services at a Michigan Assemblies of God-affiliated church, throwing fliers, shouting slogans at churchgoers including one that Jesus was homosexual, and kissing each other. The group involved activists dressed in pink and black equipped ''“with a megaphone, black flags, picket signs and an upside-down pink cross.”''<ref>{{cite web |title=Gay activists disrupt Sunday service at Michigan church |date=13 November 2008 |publisher=CNA |url=http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/gay_activists_disrupt_sunday_service_at_michigan_church/ |quote=A homosexual activist group on Sunday disrupted services at a Michigan Assemblies of God-affiliated church, throwing fliers, shouting slogans at churchgoers, and kissing each other. David Williams, communications director at the church and son of its pastor Dave Williams, said their slogans included phrases like “It's OK to be gay” and claims that Jesus was homosexual... |accessdate=11 October 2015}}</ref>
**• Vandalism and desecrations<ref>{{cite web |title=Hellish Pro-Abortion Attack on Catholic Cathedral|author= John Ritchie |date=October 21, 2012 |url=http://www.tfpstudentaction.org/what-we-do/news-and-updates/hellish-pro-abortion-attack-on-catholic-cathedral.html |accessdate=June 21, 2013|quote=“The only church that illuminates is the one that burns,” they said. Five hundred pro-abortion women spray painted the walls of the Cathedral, ridiculed the Catholic Church, and attacked a group of Catholics with paint, spittle, insults and blows.The incident took place on Sunday night, October 7 during the 27th National Women’s Conference in Posadas, Argentina when a group of about 500 activists from various feminist groups vented their rage against the Church for its position on abortion and same-sex “marriage.” Although the aggression led to the cancelation of Sunday Masses, hundreds of faithful Catholics, mostly young men, stood at the entrance of the Cathedral, forming a protective prayer chain to prevent its desecration. “Freedom of speech,” “dialogue” and “tolerance” were entirely absent in the scenes that unfolded in front of the Cathedral. Far from it, abortion activists, radical feminists and open homosexual – some, completely undressed – united to chant phrases such as “Church – garbage – you're the dictatorship!” The walls of the Cathedral were vandalized with offensive slurs such as “The only church that illuminates is the one that burns.”}}</ref>

==Notes==
<references group=note/>

==References==
<References/>

==See also==
*[[Anthropological Revolution]]
*[[Liberal anti-Christian hate]]
*[[Moral degeneration]]
*[[Moral relativism]]
*[[Opposition to Christianity]]

[[Category:Philosophy]]
[[Category:Liberal Falsehoods]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

User talk:Pokeria1

2017-09-19T13:48:34Z

KommissarReb: /* Galactic Empire (Star Wars) */ new section

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Anupam|Anupam]][[User talk:Anupam|Talk]] 22:56, 31 May 2014 (EDT)}}

== Two quick points ==

Thanks for your additions to the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] article.

Two quick points:

1. Voltaire was actually a deist.[http://deism.com/voltaire.htm]

2. Could you please footnote your additions [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheist_hypocrisy#Atheism_and_free_speech HERE]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:23, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

You're welcome, and to respond to the two quick points:

1. No, Voltaire was an atheist, fully. Timothy Dwight made that very clear in his speech, or at the very least that he fully intended to implement irreligion and atheism in place of religion. Deists, being people who believe in God, would not care if people were Protestant, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or heck, even Jewish or Muslim so long as they believe in a god, while Voltaire wanted to make sure all religion was destroyed, hence he was an atheist, not a deist.

2. Just did, and while I mainly based it on [http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35810/ WND's "Dan Brown and the Voltaire Code" article covering that aspect], the truth is you can find that speech anywhere on the web, though admittedly in fragments. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 11:35, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
:::Two additional points: 1) Thank for adding the citation. 2) ""What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason." - Voltaire[http://deism.com/voltaire.htm] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:47, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

::::You're welcome regarding the first point. As far as the second, Darwin also mentioned a "creator" in some of his works, yet he was clearly lying. And besides, if he believed in a creator, why would he want to destroy all religious beliefs, especially Christianity in both Protestant and Catholic forms, as well as possibly Judaism and maybe even Islam? Those all involved a creator, yet as made clear in Timothy Dwight's statements and even Voltaire's "Crush Infamie" claim, he wanted all of them destroyed, which is not befitting of a deist (which, really, had I been a deist, why should I care if they exist since they believe in a god anyways? No harm to me since at least we all share the belief in at least one god). Dwight even speculated that this was one of the reasons for the French Revolution. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 11:49, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
I added the atheistic Darwinism point to the article. And seeing that Voltaire was a deist, I removed the material about the six stage plan. Thanks for mentioning the additional point about free speech, namely, atheistic Darwinism. It improved the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:05, 7 July 2014 (EDT)
:::::Was it really necessary to remove the six stage plan? Diderot also had a huge role in that plan, so at least keep it in for him, and Diderot is unambiguously an atheist (Voltaire is in the gray area largely because of claims he was a deist while people like Timothy Dwight made very clear he was atheistic). But if it needs to be removed, I guess I can't do a thing to stop it. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 12:28, 7 July 2014 (EDT)

No offense intended. I reverted the [[Atheist hypocrisy]] edit. Want to keep it all examples of atheists/New Atheists. You can incorporate the material in the Voltaire article or create an anti-Christian article that incorporates the information. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:19, 12 November 2014 (EST)

:Problem is that Timothy Dwight explicitly refers to Voltaire's views as being "irreligious and atheism", certainly he promoted the views. Not to mention there is at least one work that flat out spells it out. http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 12:28, 12 November 2014 (EST)
::You could create an article called [[Anti-Christian deceptions]] and include this information in it along with other information. I can definitely see a need for such an article and it would be interesting too. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:42, 12 November 2014 (EST)
:::Please read [http://www.adherents.com/people/pv/Voltaire.html THIS]. This is further evidence that Voltaire was not an atheist. Please do not add the Voltaire material into the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:50, 13 November 2014 (EST)
::::I read it, and that doesn't make it any more correct.
::::And maybe I should remind YOU that I gave you plenty of sources for Voltaire actually BEING an atheist, like Sullivan County and a transcript of the Timothy Dwight sermon, made in July 4, 1799.
::::And BTW, Voltaire basically deeding a church doesn't mean he was any less of an atheist, just that he sees some use for it or more likely just wanted a show. Don't forget, during World War II, Stalin actually allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to actually be open in its religion, mostly as a morale booster than any actual personal belief in it, and used it as a sock puppet (this is what Moses the Raven represented, especially regarding Napoleon's influence, in George Orwell's ''Animal Farm''), and he was a militant atheist. Heck, even China today has state-controlled churches rather than absolute obliterations of them outright, and that's despite China being as atheistic as the USSR (itself extremely atheistic). So no, we're keeping Voltaire in there. Besides, even his Conservapedia article notes that he died unsaved, and his own bedside nurse denies he actually converted at all, and she observed his final moments, so that's one error your link has. And need I really remind you that Darwin also expressed a belief in writing about a creator, something he made clear was a false belief specifically to con people into thinking he had any religious beliefs when he actually didn't? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 20:05, 13 November 2014 (EST)
::::EDIT: Here's some sources just for you, and this time, actually try to read them: http://www.sullivan-county.com/z/voltaire.htm; http://www.wnd.com/2006/04/35810/#LFe1HvZ0eTHxBBmT.99;
I don't believe those two articles provide a sound historical argument that Voltaire was an atheist. Some principles I believe should be used to make historical claims/arguments are given at:
[http://amorebeautifulquestion.com/historians-view-of-questioning/ Some keen insights from Pulitzer Prize–winner David Hackett Fischer] and [http://historiansgaze.blogspot.com/2009/10/7-habits-of-highly-effective-historians.html 7 habits of highly effective historians]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 14 November 2014 (EST)

== thanks for catching the conflation ==

Thanks for catching the Sartre/Russell conflation.[http://books.google.com/books?id=j7kVPMgVo3cC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=%22in+his+old+age+Jean-Paul+Sartre%E2%80%94notorious+for+his+sexual+escapades+with+female+students,+often+procured+by+his+colleague+and+lover&source=bl&ots=fb2LQg144N&sig=YSqT6L0u9mZamHZ-XV8zMlXE4_Q&hl=en&sa=X&ei=XFwOVJCYHcbGsQTso4Ag&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22in%20his%20old%20age%20Jean-Paul%20Sartre%E2%80%94notorious%20for%20his%20sexual%20escapades%20with%20female%20students%2C%20often%20procured%20by%20his%20colleague%20and%20lover&f=false]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:50, 8 September 2014 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

== is this guy right or wrong? ==

I don't follow anime/manga, but is [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDecxr8GAjw this guy] right about CNN doing sloppy reporting about this issue? I just decided to err on the side of caution if necessary and just pull CNN claim. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)

:Can't say anything about CNN, but I do know PJMedia had an article citing this sort of thing as one, actually, a third of the reasons people steer clear of anime (half if one counts fanservice), and the guy who did the article is a huge Anime fan: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/10/17/6-reasons-why-people-avoid-anime/?singlepage=true I also had some encounters on the web about how moe characters and loli characters are controversial due to the implications of child porn. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] 22:52, 3 March 2015 (EST)
::In hindsight, I see that you did not cite the CNN report. My apologies. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:19, 4 March 2015 (EST)

==Marx and Mass Murdering==

The reason I'm not sure that "Mass Murderer" is a good description of Marx is that he never actually murdered anybody. If you look at the people listed under the "Mass Murderer" category, they're either people, like James Holmes or Seng-Hui Cho, who actually killed a bunch of people themselves, or else they were leaders or top officials of murderous regimes, like Hitler, Stalin, Idi Amin, and Fidel Castro on the one hand, or Heinrich Himmler, Leon Trotsky, and Reinhard Heinrich, on the other. Marx doesn't fit into either of those categories. He certainly advocated violence, and had he been in charge of a government, probably would have had a bunch of people killed, but as things actually turned out, Marx, while he engaged in a lot of character assassination of his opponents, spent most of his time sitting in the library of the British Museum writing stuff and hitting up Engels for money. "Mass murderer" doesn't fit.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 18:12, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:He was the founder of Communism, and not only was it his ideas that led to a LOT of the deaths in the 20th Century and maybe the 21st Century if we count Cuba, North Korea, and to some extent Southeast Asia, but he also specifically told the Communists to reenact the year 1793 (I'm not kidding, he actually said this. I quote: “There is only one way of shortening, simplifying, and concentrating the bloodthirsty death-throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new--revolutionary terror. . . . [...] Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. [...] We are pitiless and we ask no pity from you. When our time comes, we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases. . . The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envisage it. . . .”). If that doesn't sound like an order to kill as many people as they want and thus qualify him as a mass murderer, I don't know what does. And bear in mind, I'm not even calling the Enlightenment people mass murderers, since while it IS obvious that they held enough anger regarding the Catholic Church to harbor genocidal beliefs towards it, they never to my knowledge explicitly told their readers to kill the church or anyone else, unlike Marx, who specifically made clear he wanted the Communists to reenact the year 1793, aka, Robespierre's Reign of Terror. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:44, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
::I agree with you, Marx did call for violence, and he looked forward to a time when the working class would rise up and slaughter all their class enemies. (That quote comes from Marx's final editorial in his newspaper, when it was closed and he was forced to leave Cologne. But again, as violent as Marx was in his rhetoric, he didn't kill anybody, and he wasn't the leader of a state who did. States that adopted his ideas certainly did, and classing the leaders of those states as mass murderers are certainly appropriate. But it seems enough to condemn Marx for what he actually did do. In my mind, mass murderers murder people. But I guess it doesn't matter. I won't win this, and if I take it off again, you'll just put it back on.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 21:26, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Actually, I want to thank you for actually identifying where exactly it came from (I knew it came from correspondences between Marx and Engels because that's what Socialist Sucks! on Facebook stated and cited the Clairmont Institute for this finding, but I couldn't find it anywhere else), and also ask if there was a way to actually read that article, like an internet link or something? It may actually be necessary if I'm going to get the full picture and especially as a citation for the blog Marx and Friends (which is an anti-Marx blog) to give to them. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 21:42, 31 July 2016 (EDT)
::::It's actually a few quotes mashed together there. During the revolutions of 1848, Marx was the editor of a newspaper in Cologne called the "Neue Rheinische Zeitung" (New Rhenish Newspaper), published by the Communist League. The newspaper generally took an anti-Prussian (Prussia controlled Cologne), pro-republican stance and was a big supporter of 1848, and called for a unified Germany with a constitution and universal suffrage. In 1849, in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions and the crackdown, the Prussian government shut down the newspaper and expelled Marx. so in the last edition, Marx published an open letter to the Prussian government, which can be found here:

::::https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1849/05/19c.htm

::::That's the origin for the "We will not make excuses for our terror" quote. The "vengeance of the people will break forth...." quote comes from Engels' "The Condition of the Working Class in England" He's talking about how industrialization and English trade policy is increasing the difference between rich and poor, and that the English government doesn't seem to care about the welfare of the working class and warns. "If, up to that time, the English bourgeoisie does not pause to reflect—and to all appearance it certainly will not do so—a revolution will follow with which none hitherto known can be compared. The proletarians, driven to despair, will seize the torch which Stephens has preached to them; the vengeance of the people will come down with a wrath of which the rage of 1793 gives no true idea. The war of the poor against the rich will be the bloodiest ever waged. " You can find that on Project Gutenburg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/17306/17306-h/17306-h.htm

::::The "There is only one way in which the murderous..." quote comes from an earlier edition of Neue Rhenische Zeitung, from the November 6, 1848 article "The Victory of the Counter Revolution in Vienna", about the retaking of Vienna, which had been in revolt, by the Austrian army. That quote is "The purposeless massacres perpetrated since the June and October events, the tedious offering of sacrifices since February and March, the very cannibalism of the counterrevolution will convince the nations that there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.", and it can be found here https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/11/06.htm

::::As for the "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793.", Solzhenitzn, in one of his books quotes Marx as saying "Once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to reenact the year 1793. We'll be considered monsters, but we couldn't care less.", citing a Soviet collection of Marxist writings, but I can't find the actual quote by Marx, just Sonzhenitzn's quote. The closest I can find so far is from an interview Engels gave to a French newspaper in 1892, when, asked about the Alsace-Lorraine question, he responded

::::"I hope that the German socialist party will be in power in ten years or so. Its first concern will be to put the people of Alsace-Lorraine in a position to decide their own political future. Consequently the question will be settled without a single French soldier having to stir. On the contrary, a war between Germany and France would be the only means of preventing the socialists' coming to power. And if France and Russia in alliance attacked Germany, the latter would defend to the death its national existence, in which the German socialists have an even greater interest than the bourgeoisie. The socialists, then, would fight to the last man, and would not hesitate to resort to the revolutionary means employed by France in 1793."--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] ([[User talk:Whizkid|talk]]) 01:18, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks. And hope that specific quote regarding the Reign of Terror and their not caring if they were considered monsters turns up in your search (since if he did cite a Soviet collection of Marx's writings, it should be in the place it was cited at). And anyways, this is where I found the excerpt: https://www.facebook.com/373757305985421/photos/a.373910375970114.102939.373757305985421/819295658098248/?type=1 And honestly, either way, it goes to show that whoever the guy who came up with the truism "whoever fails to learn their history will be doomed to repeat it" obviously hadn't conceived of someone like Marx, because he most certainly didn't fail to learn from history (he knew full well the French Revolution and especially the Reign of Terror was a major bloodbath), yet he STILL intended to repeat it anyways. Same deal with all those so-called intellectuals that came after him and even, in the case of the French Enlightenment philosophers, before him (though at least in the latter case, they COULD be argued to not know their history beyond thinking delusionally that pagan Rome was better than Christianity). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:44, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== Happy New Year==

It's good to see you back. I had worried that my peremptory block would have chased you away forever.

I'm sorry I blocked you. Other, wiser heads prevailed and convinced me that I was wrong.

I look forward to seeing many more wonderful contributions from you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:17, 1 January 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Pokeria1:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2014 or 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 09:52, 16 February 2017 (EST)
:I'll see what I can do. I took care of my home state of Georgia (there wasn't much else to update there, just adding a vacancy note next to Tom Price's name and changing the link from Henry Johnson to Hank Johnson since I suspect those two are one and the same), but I'll see what I can do about the other states. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:25, 16 February 2017 (EST)
:Okay, took care of all states from Arkansas up to Georgia, except for Connecticut, since that remained unchanged (though I did cross it out due to the fact that it didn't need any changes and thus was essentially done). [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 11:14, 16 February 2017 (EST)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:04, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:I'll see what I can do, but I do need directions regarding sources before I do. Obviously, I don't want to come across as talking out of my butt without at least some sources to back this wiki up. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:21, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::Thanks, I put some sources below. Ideally, I would like it to be one of Conservapedia's flagship articles. So please try avoid making it a stub article. I have asked a few people to help. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:40, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:::I believe that [[User:1990'sguy]] will be helping you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:57, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
=== Sources ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

Thanks. Just about finished, though I fear that, even if not quite a stub, it may require significant work, since I'm not exactly that good in regards to giving multiple statements per source. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 09:26, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:43, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bye! ==

[[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:18, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

:Nice try, you're not a mod and thus don't have the authority to throw me under the bus. Besides, we also listed the whole bit about conservativism playing a role in the counterexamples anyways, so undoing that edit is pointless, especially we have to cite all evidence, whether confirmation or not, to any argument, that being the purpose of an encyclopedia. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:19, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
::Of course I don't have the authority. There's plenty of people who do though. You've had a good run - never particularly funny, like, but you managed to slip in some silliness here and there. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:27, 31 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You know I just responded to your talk page, right? So it's pretty clear the mods think I can still be here (not to mention I just looked over your page, and Conservative and the other mods voiced no intentions of banning me or anyone who reverts the edits). Besides, I've made several contributions to actual articles, while you seem to stick with talk pages in a violation of the 90/10 rule, not to mention the few edits you have made to Conservapedia's articles have largely been lacking constructive effort. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 18:34, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

===My apologies===
Further research indicates you're likely for real. I was certain that Pokemon edit to Greatest Conservative Movies was parody. Appears you actually meant it.

Sorry again. [[User:JZ17|JZ17]] ([[User talk:JZ17|talk]]) 18:47, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

*Don't know why you are apologizing since you didn't seem to remove any of my edits, but apology accepted either way. And yeah, I do mean it. Wouldn't have added them in at all if there weren't some conservative messages in those films (that said, though, there may be some entries that need to be moved, but we'll get to that when that ship comes). One last thing, is there a reason why your comment for the edit included this link: https://server7.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sjsoqcokhvkgix/stuv/p1 [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 19:52, 1 June 2017 (EDT)

== BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! ==

BLOCK THIS GUY!!!!!!!! [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:18, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

:I'm hesitant to do so, since I fear I'll become as bad as the mods on various other wikis or forums. I'll do it if I must, though. How long should the block last? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 16:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT)

== Galactic Empire (Star Wars) ==

So if you're a supporter of the Star Wars Galactic Empire, what do you think of the breakaway warlord factions from the [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Imperial_Civil_War Imperial Civil War] such as Zsinj's Empire, the Pentastar Alignment, the Empire of the Hand, Eriadu Authority, and Greater Maldrood? Not to mention the Imperial Remnant and Fel Empire that existed afterward. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 09:48, 19 September 2017 (EDT)

Stormtroopers

2017-09-19T13:24:50Z

KommissarReb: Made corrections of my own edit

'''Imperial Stormtroopers (Star Wars)''' are soldiers in the ''[[Star Wars]]'' franchise created by [[George Lucas]]. They acted as the shock troops of the main antagonists of the saga, the [[Galactic Empire]], as well as the main fighting force for the Empire. They were identified as wearing white and black armor. In the Prequel Trilogy, it is revealed that they were descendants of the Clone Troopers from the Clone Wars. The overall branch they belonged to was called the Stormtrooper Corps, independent from the rarely seen soldiers from the Imperial Army. Their effectiveness is downplayed in the movies when fighting the main characters, since the main characters have plot armor (a term used for main characters not being allowed to die).

Prior to the Disney acquisition, the Stormtroopers in the Expanded Universe were their own military branch separate from the Army and Navy branches of the Empire, while after the acquisition, the Stormtroopers were considered an elite part of the Imperial Army.

Stormtroopers were also used for the successor group of the Empire in the Sequel Trilogy called the First Order. Their overall appearance was similar to the original film, although the helmets had a different design.

They were named after the Stormtruppen from [[World War I]], and shared a similar role to them regarding breaching Rebel strongholds in various Expanded Universe materials. They also were analogous to various other groups, including the [[SS|Waffen-SS]] Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) (due to operating outside the standard hierarchy and being loyal to [[Emperor Palpatine]] directly), the [[United States Marine Corps]] (due to aiding both the Army and Navy in various operations), and U.S. Army Rangers (due to the Legacy era of the Legends EU having them being subordinate elite units to the Imperial Army). Despite sharing a similar name to the [[Sturmabteilung]] in the [[Nazi Germany]], however, there's little indication that they were based on that group.

[[Category:Star Wars]]

Stormtroopers

2017-09-19T13:23:19Z

KommissarReb: Added information and some corrections

'''Imperial Stormtroopers (Star Wars)''' are soldiers in the ''[[Star Wars]]'' franchise created by [[George Lucas]]. The Stormtrooper Corps acted as the shock troops of the main antagonists of the saga, the [[Galactic Empire]], as well as the main fighting force for the Empire alongside the Imperial Army. They were identified as wearing white and black armor. In the Prequel Trilogy, it is revealed that they were descendants of the Clone Troopers from the Clone Wars. The overall branch they belonged to was called the Stormtrooper Corps. Their effectiveness is downplayed in the movies when fighting the main characters, since the main characters have plot armor (a term used for main characters not being allowed to die).

Prior to the Disney acquisition, the Stormtroopers in the Expanded Universe were their own military branch separate from the Army and Navy branches of the Empire, while after the acquisition, the Stormtroopers were considered an elite part of the Imperial Army.

Stormtroopers were also used for the successor group of the Empire in the Sequel Trilogy called the First Order. Their overall appearance was similar to the original film, although the helmets had a different design.

They were named after the Stormtruppen from [[World War I]], and shared a similar role to them regarding breaching Rebel strongholds in various Expanded Universe materials. They also were analogous to various other groups, including the [[SS|Waffen-SS]] Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler (LSSAH) (due to operating outside the standard hierarchy and being loyal to [[Emperor Palpatine]] directly), the [[United States Marine Corps]] (due to aiding both the Army and Navy in various operations), and U.S. Army Rangers (due to the Legacy era of the Legends EU having them being subordinate elite units to the Imperial Army). Despite sharing a similar name to the [[Sturmabteilung]] in the [[Nazi Germany]], however, there's little indication that they were based on that group.

[[Category:Star Wars]]

Emperor Palpatine

2017-09-19T13:20:03Z

KommissarReb: His official title is technically "Galactic Emperor"

'''Galactic Emperor Palpatine''', known also as Senator and Chancellor Palpatine and Darth Sidious, is a significant character throughout five of the first six movies of the ''[[Star Wars]]'' franchise. In the prequel trilogy, he is not yet an Emperor (he started out as a senator representing the planet Naboo in ''[[Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace|Episode I: The Phantom Menace]]'' then was elected Chancellor of the Galactic Senate via manipulation of the Senate later in that movie), but in the original trilogy, he fulfilled that role, having declared himself Emperor and dissolving the democratic Galactic Republic in favor of forming the [[authoritarianism|authoritarian]] Galactic Empire in ''[[Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith|Episode III: Revenge of the Sith]]''.

During his reign as Emperor, Palpatine ruled the Galactic Empire with an iron fist, using his [[Sith]] apprentice, fearsome cyborg [[Darth Vader]] (the former [[Jedi]] knight Anakin Skywalker, who Palpatine turned to the Sith in ''Episode III'') as his main enforcer, along with the Imperial [[Stormtroopers]] as his shock troops and the gigantic Death Star superweapons (the original Death Star in ''[[Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope|Episode IV: A New Hope]]'' and the even larger Death Star II in ''[[Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi|Episode VI: Return of the Jedi]]''), to impose his will and spread terror upon the Empire's subjugated populations.

In ''Episode VI'', Palpatine met [[Luke Skywalker]] for the first time aboard Death Star II and tried to get him to kill him with his [[lightsaber]], using the Battle of Endor (which was raging on the planet of that name below and in its skies above, and which the Imperial forces had taken the upper hand in) to compel Luke to turn to the dark side of the Force and become a Sith as well, leading to a lightsaber duel between Luke and his biological father Vader. When Luke defeated Vader in the duel but refused to kill him, then declared himself a Jedi like his father before him, Palpatine sadistically tried to kill Luke by using Force lightning against him. The mortally wounded Vader stopped Palpatine by seizing him and throwing him down the reactor shaft of Death Star II, killing the Emperor and leading to Vader's redemption and transformation back to Anakin Skywalker, shortly before his own death.

Besides Vader, his other Sith Apprentices were Darth Maul, and later Count Dooku, under the Sith name, Darth Tyranus.

==Inspiration==
[[George Lucas]], when writing the character in the original trilogy, and to a lesser extent the Prequel trilogy, had been inspired by then-President [[Richard Nixon]], who at the time the film was undergoing development was dealing with the [[Watergate Scandal]]. Part of this reason was because he also intended for ''Star Wars'' to be anti-Vietnam War propaganda as well as "a decisive blow against American Imperialism." To a lesser extent, Lucas also indicated that he at least in part based Palpatine during the Prequel Trilogy on then-Vice President [[Dick Cheney]], or at least that he compared him to such, while comparing Bush to Vader. Lucasfilm also implied that Palpatine also had bits taken from Emperor Constantine, [[Julius Caesar]], [[Napoleon Bonaparte]], [[Adolf Hitler]] and [[Joseph Stalin]].

==Further notes==
*In the ''A New Hope'' novelization ghost-written by Alan Dean Foster, Palpatine was implied in various descriptions of the character by other characters such as Vader and Tarkin to be a puppet ruler controlled by the Imperial Bureaucracy, and that the reason the Rebel Alliance was gaining more influence was due to incompetent ruling on his part, and was not a Force user. Later films nixed that description by showcasing him to be extremely competent, including his creating the Empire in the first place as well as a very powerful Force user (and later, a Sith Lord).

[[Category:Star Wars]]

User talk:KommissarReb

2017-09-11T20:19:09Z

KommissarReb: /* Galactic Empire */Response

== Changing your user name ==

Hello KommissarReb, I know it's been a while since you've lasted edited here, but I've been doing some reading and found that bureaucrats have the power to change your username. I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]], and they will be able to change your name. I hope to see you around here! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:56, 21 May 2017 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! Community college and work kept me busy, though I also forgot after a while. I'll make sure to ask them. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:20, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
::I saw your post on Karajou's talk page. I apologize, I thought he was a bureaucrat when he actually is not. Andy, however, can do it (another user recently convinced him to change his user name as well). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:21, 5 July 2017 (EDT)

== Galactic Empire ==

Hi.

I see you're a supporter of the Galactic Empire from Star Wars (at least, I assume that's what the GE template was referring to). I've recently started supporting the Empire even though I generally don't support villains as a rule (let's just say that Lucas' statements, backed by [https://otnesse.tumblr.com/post/162081709399/this-is-from-george-lucas-1973-notes-for-star development notes dating back to 1973] among other things, that the Empire was America and the Rebels were the Vietcong, communists in other words, was what resulted in my deciding to root for the Empire despite initially being a Rebel supporter due to thinking they were American Minutemen).

Anyways, have any plans on editing the various Star Wars articles? [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 08:59, 9 September 2017 (EDT)
:: Don't overthink it; I threw that in for comedic effect. I usually don't edit or create articles here unless I see room for improvement that won't get reverted when I get around to it. In any case I always felt the Galactic Empire felt more like the Soviet Union mixed with Nazi Germany while the Alliance to Restore the Republic was more like the U.S. I admit I was a long time fan of Starwars stuff before facepalming at all the stupid stuff (like how elite soldiers lose because main characters have plot armor). When I was a kid I only cared for colorful laserbolts and lightsabers and largely ignored the actual story.[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 22:49, 10 September 2017 (EDT)

::: I used to think that as well, regarding the Rebels anyways, probably also the Empire being Nazis too. Unfortunately... Lucas deciding to open his big fat mouth pretty much changed all of that. The start of that mess occurred when Bill Whittle made that [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns1m_aXJa58 afterburner episode Han Shot First] when Whittle first mentioned the Vietcong's ties to the heroes' conception (though there he was technically referring to the Ewoks more than the Rebels themselves, it nonetheless tarnished the Rebels somewhat since it implies they probably weren't based on America after all.) and how America was meant to be the Empire ("Lucas has since said, by the way, that the Ewoks, the little native good guys, represent his mind the Vietcong, while the evil Empire, the one we spent our own childhood rooting against was in fact ''America''! You feeling better now? You're welcome."), and what made that very blatant was Chris Taylor's book retrospective on Star Wars. I don't even root for villains generally, and in fact I make it a rule to never root for the villains even if the heroes aren't my cup of tea either (and in the latter case, I generally don't root for either group), so the fact that I actually am forced to make an exception in this case just shows how badly I took the revelation. Besides, going by a fairly recent Charlie Rose interview where George Lucas literally said he preferred Soviet filmmaking over American filmmaking, you know, the same type that would result in you being executed on a mere whim by the Soviet leader if he deems anything even remotely bad about it, I'd say he probably has little problem with the USSR. On a related note, I also intensely dislike comparisons between the American Minutemen and the Vietcong, as well. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 05:56, 11 September 2017 (EDT)
::::Ever since Disney and J.J Abrams have been (in my opinion) ruining Star Wars more than it already was, I lost interest in most Star Wars stuff except for the Expanded Universe/Legends material. Granted there was a lot of Legends stories that were awful, but I really liked the Imperial Civil War that followed Episode VI and found the Before the Republic era mysterious and fascinating. The Imperial Civil War was really interesting era and Abrams could have used it as a setting for an original Star Wars movie, but instead decided to make a half-baked 2015 version of Episode IV. And that's me being generous. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 16:19, 11 September 2017 (EDT)

User talk:KommissarReb

2017-09-11T02:56:44Z

KommissarReb: /* Galactic Empire */Added stuff

User talk:KommissarReb

2017-09-11T02:49:52Z

KommissarReb: /* Galactic Empire */Response

Libertarian censorship

2017-07-25T00:36:57Z

KommissarReb: Added examples to prove validity of page

{{uncited}}
'''Libertarian censorship''' refers to the tendency of left-libertarians to promote unrestricted [[free speech]] in most areas, while demanding [[censorship]] of speech with respect to:

* prayer in [[public school]]
* criticism of the [[theory of evolution]]
* disproof of [[homosexual]] beliefs
* explanation of how [[abortion]] causes breast cancer and other harms

== Examples ==
During the 2016 Libertarian Party debates, candidate [[Gary Johnson]] declared that bakers should be forced to make wedding cakes for homosexual weddings against their will.<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=COItiKtHWyg</ref>

The self-dubbed "[[American Civil Liberties Union]]" frequently champions [[liberal]] causes over libertarian ones.
[[Category:Oxymoron]]

Austin Peterson

2017-07-25T00:33:02Z

KommissarReb: Fixed mispellings. His surname is "Petersen"

'''Austin Wade Petersen''' is an [[American]] politician running for 2018 Missouri Senate Race in the [[Republican Party]].<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/</ref> He is well-known among [[Libertarians]] for his 2016 bid for presidency in the [[Libertarian Party]] and bitter rivalry with 2016's LP nominee [[Gary Johnson]], preventing him from becoming Johnson's [[running mate]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPVHzZB7gog</ref>
== Early Life ==
Austin Peterson grew on a horse farm in Peculiar, Missouri and graduated from [[Missouri State University]] with a degree in Fine Arts.<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/about</ref>

== Career ==
Austin Petersen ran for president in 2016 in the Libertarian Party, coming in 2nd place behind Gary Johnson and John McAfee, founder of [[McAfee|McAfee Inc.]] and creator of the [[antivirus software]] of the same name.<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/about</ref>
== Political Positions ==
Austin Petersen supports a [[Balanced Budget]] [[Amendment]] to the constitution, possibly hinting support for a [[Constitutional Convention]]. He holds that the War on Drugs was a costly mistake and that [[mandatory minimum]]s need to go. He also believes Civil Forfeiture is government theft, likely because it allows corrupt law enforcement to rob people. He supports the [[America First]] idea, opposes Nation Building, and restricting the [[President of the United States of America|President's]] power in starting wars.<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/priorities</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Peterson, Austin}}
[[Category:Libertarians]]
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Republicans]]

User:KommissarReb

2017-07-25T00:29:52Z

KommissarReb: Changed some info

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist. It's my alias, and my ideology is more paleolibertarian or right-libertarian by this site's standards.
== List of Articles I plan on creating: ==
*Dr. Drew On Call
*John Amato
*KFI AM 640
*Segun Oduolowu
*Steven Crowder
*Drew Pinsky
*Robert Tur

{{userboxtop|Various things About Me}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User limited govt}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User Republican}}
<div>
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#039}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: black; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|12}}}pt; color: #000;" | '''{{{3|[[Image:Guillotine.jpg‎ |50px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #fff;" | {{{4|This user believes that the '''[[capital punishment|death penalty]]''' ''must'' exist for a deterrent.}}}
|}</div>
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{User TEA Partier}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

User talk:1990'sguy

2017-07-11T21:04:46Z

KommissarReb: /* Changing my username */

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't know. Sometimes he does that, but when I message him again he usually replies. I recommend commenting again, letting him know how much you want your username changed, and asking him to respond. I think we will do it, but only if you absolutely want it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 10 July 2017 (EDT)
::I read [[User_talk:Aschlafly#Inquiry|the back and forth]] with the guy you probably were referring to on Andy's page. Andy seemed pretty reluctant to change the RonaldB's name for most of the discussion.. Is the process of changing someone's username complex or difficult to do, or did he just want to make sure that the guy wasn't being wishy-washy about the change? I was a little sheepish about asking him again because I don't want to seem annoying. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 5:07, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Austin Peterson

2017-07-10T13:50:53Z

KommissarReb: Added page

'''Austin Wade Peterson''' is an [[American]] politician running for 2018 Missouri Senate Race in the [[Republican Party]].<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/</ref> He is well-known among [[Libertarians]] for his 2016 bid for presidency in the [[Libertarian Party]] and bitter rivalry with 2016's LP nominee [[Gary Johnson]], preventing him from becoming Johnson's [[running mate]].<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPVHzZB7gog</ref>
== Early Life ==
Austin Peterson grew on a horse farm in [[Peculiar, Missouri]] and graduated from [[Missouri State University]] with a degree in Fine Arts.<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/about</ref>
== Career ==
Austin Peterson ran for president in 2016 in the Libertarian Party, coming in 2nd place behind Gary Johnson and John McAfee, founder of [[McAfee|McAfee Inc.]] and creator of the [[antivirus software]] of the same name.<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/about</ref>
== Political Positions ==
Austin Peterson supports a [[Balanced Budget]] [[Amendment]] to the constitution, possibly hinting support for a [[Constitutional Convention]]. He holds that the War on Drugs was a costly mistake, and that [[Mandatory Minimums]] need to go. He also believes Civil Forfeiture is government theft, likely because it allows corrupt law enforcement to rob people. He supports the [[America First]] idea, opposes Nation Building, and restricting the [[President of the United States of America|President's]] power in starting wars.<ref>https://www.austinpetersen.com/priorities</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
[[Category:Libertarianism]]
[[Category:Libertarians]]
[[Category:2016 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Fiscal Conservatives]]
[[Category:Republicans]]

User talk:1990'sguy

2017-07-10T13:18:57Z

KommissarReb: /* Changing my username */ new section

{{welcome}}

Thanks for adding your edits, hopefully you'll become a regular contributor. If I can help you out with anything let me know. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 19:45, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:49, 27 July 2016 (EDT)

Account promoted to skip the Captcha requirement. Thanks for your enlightening edits to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]].

Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:37, 28 July 2016 (EDT)

:Thank you! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:45, 28 July 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations and welcome. You should be aware that people who edit at both CP and WP with the same user name are sometimes harrassed at WP as a result. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:11, 29 July 2016 (EDT)
:::Thank you for the welcome and thanks for the heads up! I've already received some heat on Wikipedia for taking some unpopular positions and opposing the bias there, so it will be nothing new for me. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 29 July 2016 (EDT)

----
I saw your helpful addition to the article on Murder of Seth Rich, so I thought I would visit your talk page. How long have you lasted on the WickedPedia? I would be surprised that you would last long there, as I have found the WickedPedia incredibly intolerant and censorious, a pseudo-aristocracy with dominating bullies, biased enough for me to consider it a candidate for the Big T award (T in the Calvinist TULIP); i.e, total depravity! LOL I don't think you can do much on Wikipedia without being part of a group of old boys or buddies who work together. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 19:26, 23 August 2016 (EDT))

:Did you mean my Wikipedia talk page? I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three years already. A big reason why I've lasted so long there is because many of the topics I edit are not particularly controversial. However, you are completely right in your description of Wikipedia. I have seen firsthand the massive (and very visible) intolerance and bias Wikipedia has against conservatives, Christians, and anything that contradicts secular and humanistic (pseudo)"scientific knowledge". I could probably write a book about all my criticisms of Wikipedia. I have been able to do some good work (I was able to bring the article "Electoral history of Ronald Reagan" to official "Good Article" status, and I created a few articles), but on other articles, like the Murder of Seth Rich, we cannot have much confidence on the quality and neutrality of those articles. I do applaud you, Thunkful2, for your excellent work on "Murder of Seth Rich". It's awesome that at least one person can accurately present this story! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:35, 23 August 2016 (EDT)

----
I meant right here, this talk page -- I visited it after seeing your good edit. No, I haven't gone to your talk page on the WickedPedia. Thanks for the complement. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 10:45, 24 August 2016 (EDT))

:OK, got it. And thanks for your complement. :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:50, 24 August 2016 (EDT)

== References from Wikipedia ==

While it's not really plagiarism to copy a reference from WP, it just want to point out that you probably shouldn't do so unless you have read that source, and believe that it supports what is being said. If you are reading the books you are referencing, that's fine--I just can't tell. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)
:Oh, that's a good point. I actually did not read those books, I just wanted to cite something so I wouldn't be adding unsourced info to the article. Should I remove those references anyway? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:36, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

::It is a good idea to find references to support unsourced statements, but it is a little deceptive to cite something you haven't read. To be entirely beyond reproach, removal probably would be best. At this point though, I honestly don't know if I'd bother. In my opinion, it's up to you. No one else has said anything, so it might be okay to leave them, I'm just not sure. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:51, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

:::OK. I will do my own research and find other sources that I can use instead. However, it's getting late, so I will deal with that tomorrow. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:58, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include blocking and overnight editing capability. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 00:30, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:Congratulations! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:57, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::Well done! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] ([[User talk:AlanE|talk]]) 01:06, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::Thanks all! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:21, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

::::Excellent! you did good keeping an eye on that vandal yesterday. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 14:52, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

:::::Thanks, Progressingamerica, I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:42, 29 September 2016 (EDT)

==Reading the WSJ==
Re: [[Christoph Blocher]]

Typically, when I want to read a WSJ article that requires subscriber sign in is to Google the headline and access the web page from a search engine instead of directly. Most of the time this requires a clean browser tab, sometimes it needs to be done in a different browser. Rarely, it requires a cookie clearing. Just thought that information may be of help. This even works with articles that are years old.

As a last resort, see if its in the internet archive.(though, most articles I don't want that bad to keep trying) But they're all good procedures to know. Sometimes works for other news sites too, besides WSJ. [[User:Progressingamerica|Progressingamerica]] ([[User talk:Progressingamerica|talk]]) 00:00, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

:Thanks for the tip! That's what I will do. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:32, 10 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted ==

Your account has been promoted to include upload and rollback features. Congratulations!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 17:26, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:36, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::Congratulations! Keep it up! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:31, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:::Thanks David! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:43, 13 October 2016 (EDT)

== Move and unlock requests ==

You can post your move and unlock requests to [[User talk:Karajou]]. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 22:30, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
:Thanks for the tip! It's getting late, so I will do that tomorrow. I appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:37, 13 October 2016 (EDT)
::You don't actually need any privileges to do a move. You can cut-and-paste from one lemma to another. For purposes of copyright law, the edit summaries must make it clear where the incoming material comes from. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 00:54, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Karajou blocked a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor. ==

People should not be judged in race on alleged sexuality. A proper critique of Karajou would be asking him about blocking a user who expressed views supporting the Presidential candidate who is not a sexual preditor.--[[User:Rodgerr|Rodgerr]] ([[User talk:Rodgerr|talk]]) 19:04, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

:If you think you have been judged unfairly, you could have just emailed Karajou or webmaster@conservapedia.com (see [[Conservapedia:Guidelines#Member Accounts]]). However, more than once, you decided to take the low route, calling him filthy, immature words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Karajou&diff=1283494&oldid=1283491]. See [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]. And why in the world did you do this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Coal_burning&curid=140922&diff=1283484&oldid=1283423] (for someone who apparently abhors Trump for the tape, your words seem just as bad) That, honestly, is shameful. I will note that the "Bringreaganback" account clearly violated [[Conservapedia:90/10 rule]]. Considering all this, it's quite clear you deserved the block. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:12, 14 October 2016 (EDT)

== Mainpageleft ==

In response to your good question about entries on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]], currently there are about 112 featured entries there, which are "reshuffled" periodically. Do you have any suggestions about how that "team" of entries be improved, with respect to insight, influence, popularity, interest level, educational value, etc.? It's a terrific mix of topics now but there is always room for improvement, particularly as the issues and interest in certain topics by the public inevitably shifts over time. Thanks much for any suggestions you may have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 11:46, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

:An example: "[[Underrated Sports Stars]]" is a solid entry, but should probably be replaced on [[Template:Mainpageleft|Mainpageleft]]. Do you have any favored, influential, insightful, potentially or already popular entry that you like, which you would recommend to replace it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 12:55, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

::I do have a few suggestions. [[Murder of Seth Rich]] is probably the best suggestion, as it is very detailed and well sourced. Also, the Wikipedia article of the murder has been the victim of leftist bias (two times, within a month, editors have tried to delete the article, and with that failing, the article appears to have been stripped of much detail) which our article covers well. Other suggestions that I have are the [[Ark Encounter]] (a popular and influential attraction, and one that has been the victim of atheist and evolutionary bias, which the article covers), and [[Larry McDonald]] (a true patriot who stayed true to his principles, and his article actually covers the theories on his possible survival). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:22, 18 October 2016 (EDT)

== Account promoted again ==

Congratulations, your account has been promoted again, so that you can edit protected articles, and protect and unprotect articles. Very well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:05, 10 November 2016 (EST)
:Wow! Thank you very much, Mr. Schlafly! I really appreciate it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:19, 10 November 2016 (EST)
::Congratulations! I've had some problems with the "protect" privilege, but I hope it works for you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 01:35, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::Thanks! I hope so too! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 12 November 2016 (EST)
::::Congratulations on yet another promotion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)
:::::Thanks! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 12 November 2016 (EST)

==Can't edit article==
Hi again, 1990'sguy, it's Ambassador. Is there any reason I can't edit the article on the [[Big Bang]]? To keep atheists from changing it, I suppose. If you have access to it, you might want to add the point about the Big Bang, due to planets and moons spinning backwards, contradicting the law of Conservation of angular momentum. Find out about it [http://www.creationwiki.org/Three_planets_and_several_moons_revolve_backwards_(Talk.Origins) here]. Thanks! [[User:Ambassador|Ambassador]] ([[User talk:Ambassador|talk]]) 19:56, 22 November 2016 (EST)
:Yes, the article is protected probably because of atheist/secularist/liberal vandalism. Unfortunately, I cannot edit it myself as I do not have full admin capabilities. I recommend asking an admin ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&username=&group=sysop&limit=100 list]) to unlock the article or add the information you want added. Or, you can go to [[Talk:Main Page|the main talk page]] and add your request there, where more people can see it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:08, 22 November 2016 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

Hello there, and thank you for editing the article on [[Islam and Christianity]]. --[[User:SWAJCAHL&S|SWAJCAHL&S]] ([[User talk:SWAJCAHL&S|talk]]) 09:13, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:No problem, and thank you for creating it! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:14, 23 November 2016 (EST)

::And also thank you, for your help - and tips! - on [[Jared Kushner]]. I'll try to remember the ref's and cat's in the future. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ([[User talk:Ed Poor|talk]]) 21:49, 23 November 2016 (EST)
:::Sounds great and you're welcome! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 23 November 2016 (EST)

== Geocentric page ==

I added a bit on the talk page a while ago. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:15, 3 December 2016 (EST)
:Do you mean on the section "Ptolemy's view of a stationary earth"? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:13, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::Sorry for the late reply but yes. It doesn't seemed to have created a new heading so I will add that now. [[User:PeterIceHockey|PeterIceHockey]] ([[User talk:PeterIceHockey|talk]]) 17:11, 5 December 2016 (EST)
:::I removed it. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:21, 5 December 2016 (EST)

== This is a simple misunderstanding. Please be reasonable. ==

This is [[User:Amorrow]]. I had to dirty myself by creating a sockpuppet because you cut off every last channel of communication. The issues:
# SSN of dead people are release by the government of the USA. I made it clear that my father is dead. His name was William Knight Morrow. You can find his name and SSN, for instance, at [http://sortedbybirthdate.com/pages/19311104.html this page]. It is public, not private.
# You could have removed that link and let it go at that. I do not require notification of such actions. I do not care about that link very much. I put it there simply as a convenience.
Is the matter resolved? If so, then please unblock me or let me know here what remains unresolved.--[[User:Amorrow2|Amorrow2]] ([[User talk:Amorrow2|talk]]) 20:44, 3 December 2016 (EST)

:I am discussing the issue on [[User talk:DavidB4]]. You are welcome to join in. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:48, 3 December 2016 (EST)
::You are unblocked. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 3 December 2016 (EST)

==Pitch hitting==

Thanks for the ref [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1293435]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:34, 18 December 2016 (EST)
:You're welcome. Always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:15, 18 December 2016 (EST)

==Trump==
You're not telling me it's just a coincidence, are you? [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:44, 23 December 2016 (EST)

:Seriously? It is extremely unlikely that this passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, has anything to do with Donald Trump. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)
::Dang :( Thought I'd had my first ever conservative insight. Must be the morphine. [[User:JohnZ|JohnZ]] ([[User talk:JohnZ|talk]]) 18:56, 23 December 2016 (EST)
:::I think this has more to do with biblical [[hermeneutics]] than conservatism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:00, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Merry Christmas ==

[[Image:Merry Christmas.gif|cebter|260px]]
{{clear}}
Thank you for all your contributions to Conservaoedia as far your web article content.

Merry Christmas! And have a happy New Year's Day. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:37, 24 December 2016 (EST)

:Thank you very much, Conservative, and the same to you as well! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 20:43, 24 December 2016 (EST)

== [[St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre]] ==

I suggest doing the redirect in the opposite direction for two reasons. First, it preserves the history and visits to the pre-existing entry. Second, it leaves intact the "Saint" spelled out, which is a stronger and more effective title than the secularized abbreviation. I'd be happy to change the direction of the redirect, if you agree. Regardless, thanks for your efforts!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:01, 27 December 2016 (EST)

:Yes please, Mr. Schlafly, that would be great if you would move it. Just as long as the article shows up as being created by me on the "New Pages" feed. I didn't know that this article already existed, but I worked hard on it and I think that my article is of higher quality by any objective measure. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:39, 28 December 2016 (EST)

==European immigration==
I was thinking of doing an article on the [[European immigration]] problem (don't want to call 'European immigration crisis', yet). Americans are woefully ignorant of what's happening in Europe, and we're looking at doing perhaps the biggest change in Immigration law since 1952. In Europe, whole new political parties have been spawned because of the establishment parties failure to deal with the problems. In 20 years, the German mi!itary may be majority Muslim which would impact the future of the NATO alliance. Better get started now in educating the American public on changing demographics and how this may affect America's role as a Superpower, assuming it still is by then.

Would you care to collaborate? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 01:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)

:Of course, I'll be happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:39, 29 December 2016 (EST)
::Do you think we should add a subsection under UK about Brexit and to what extent that was motivated by immigration? Also, I'd like to include something about the Schengen Agreement. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 16:46, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::Both of those are great ideas. The "freedom of movement" EU policy played a large part in the referendum and its aftermath. People are tired of unlimited immigration.
:::As for the Schengen area, people can go anywhere they want in Europe without worrying about border security (and before, it was quite tough crossing the border I've heard). The agreement is an essential part of the EU plan to reach full political unification. It really has nothing to do with economics. Also, criminals and terrorists can easily cross the border. The recent Berlin attacker was caught in Italy. He crossed at least two borders without being caught. Imagine if he tried doing that without the agreement. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:53, 29 December 2016 (EST)
:::::Same as most of suspects in 1200 reported sexual assault cases New Years Eve in Cologne. Something like only 7 or 22 arrests have ever been made, while most of the other identified suspects are reported to have fled the country.[[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''#NeverHillary'']] 17:06, 29 December 2016 (EST)

== Father's SSN ==

I created [[Social Security Death Index]]. After I add some ref's, I hope that we can revisit the notion of me declaring what my father's SSN is.

Just to mention where I got this idea from, it is from the web site anusha.com . Sloan has lived an erratic and at times immoral life, but he is just below the level of genius in raw talent. I refer to him as an "accidental adventurer". Please see thermo4thermo.org/sam_sloan.html for some of his life-adventures.
I am not promoting his lifestyle, but he is my publisher for my upcoming book. His web site is a mess. It has about 3000 pages but just a mess of cross-references. The home page is very, very long. You can look at pages like www.anusha.com/pafc147.htm . He also has pages like www.anusha.com/uncles-p.htm . His memory is almost perfect. Near Total Recall. Anyway, I hope we can engage in dialog about my father's SSN.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 22:11, 3 January 2017 (EST)
==Hate crime==
Dear 1990'sguy, I am not trying to get into an edit war with you, but I believe that you are misreading the hate crime laws. They do not address "hate speech," just violence or other criminal acts against target groups that receive a lot of hate. I suggest that you do further research, and I hope that you will come to the same conclusion. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:For clarification, are you telling me that hate crime laws do not cover "hate speech"? Regardless, I think we should mention that slowly (but steadily) speaking out for biblical Christian principles (opposition to homosexual marriage, saying Islam is a false religion, etc.) is being seen as "hate speech" and vulnerable to being criminalized. See this recent story[https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/simon-turpin/2016/01/08/northern-ireland-pastor-not-guilty-criticising-islam/] and please note the recent attempts to censor Christian sermons in Houston (I don't know if other cities did the same). Censorship of Christian and conservative opinions is growing, and I could a few (but probably unrelated to hate crimes) examples. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::Also, while you can keep you additions, would you please restore the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hate_crime&curid=3861&diff=1298155&oldid=1298153 material you deleted in this edit] (particularly those three completely deleted paragraphs)? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:11, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::Thank you for fixing the dead link and finding an additional source. You are exactly right. Hate crime and hate speech are completely different. All Conservatives disapprove of speech codes, "safe spaces policy" and political correctness. The First Amendment is clear that regulation of speech must be neutral as to the message. The person(s) who wrote the [[Hate crime]] article years ago got a bit tangled up. Liberals want hate speech codes, and Conservatives oppose them. Both Liberals and Conservatives have voted to enact true hate crime laws to protect religious freedom and to address hate violence on the basis of race. Some Conservatives argue that the list of hate targets in those laws should not include "sexual orientation," but that argument does not belong in a section discussing protecting religion.
:::I took out the two paragraphs because they were repetitive, out-of-place and not germaine. Why not add them to [[Hate speech]]? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 21:39, 7 January 2017 (EST)
::::Thank you for clarifying and for moving the content. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:00, 7 January 2017 (EST)
:::::You are welcome. Our discussion here was a bit time delayed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 22:02, 7 January 2017 (EST)
If you want to include the legislative history, it should explain which bill that was finally adopted that is being discussed and how the bill that was adopted differs from the earlier bills. The people that worked on this article years ago were obviously opposed to a series of bills and were making arguments on why a bill would be bad. Their narative is out of date. We have a number of state and federal hate crime laws on the books and we need to describe what exists, give facts and statistics about how the laws work, and include some commentary on whether the law has been applied fairly. If you want to expand the history section beyond the two sentences that I have explaining how the federal law expanded the role of the FBI, please do so. But the fact that certain people sponsored bills that did not pass before a bill did pass is not helpful unless you explain what changes were made or how the early efforts illumniates our understanding of the bill that passed. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 00:50, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:If these proposed bills became law, we should definitely include this (even if we word it differently). We should do this in order to inform the public about leftist laws and to show that they didn't always exist. Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now, so I cannot do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::1990sguy, these bills did '''not''' become law. A similar bill later became law. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:10, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::Not to sidetrack your guys discussion, but let me point out (cause the media hasn't) we have just witnessed something very rare and unusual in the US. Traditionally, because of state sovereignty, the states prosecute murder cases and federal government's role is restricted, for most of our history, to capital cases in the US military. In the 20th century federal crimes like murdering the president, or terrorism on federal property causing death ([[Timothy McVeigh]]), were added. This guy, [http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/12/us/dylann-roof-death-penalty-explainer/ Dylann Roof], has just been sentenced to death for violating peoples civil rights with a hate crime enhancement, and ''not for murder''. The federal government does not have the legal authority to try this as a murder case. In fact, Roof probably never will be tried for murder cause the State of South Carolina isn't gonna spend the time and money to do it after the feds are done. In my lifetime, I think this is only the fourth case like this I ever heard of, tho I'm sure there's been a few others. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 22:37, 13 January 2017 (EST)
:::Rob, this happened a lot in the 1960s. Civil rights workers would go South and were murdered and either the murder was not prosecuted or a local jury would acquit the accused. The FBI would then investigate and the US DOJ would successfully prosecute for civil rights violations in Federal Court. The question is whether there is enough of a commerce clause basis to allow for the passage of such federal crimes, and the courts have upheld them on the grounds that if the federal government did not prevent such intimidation, people would not feel safe crossing state lines. Also, many states have suspended or abolished the death penalty, while it remains available in federal court. State "sovereignty" is very limited and not ''actual'' sovereignty in the legal sense. To me, this is a more interesting aspect of the Hate crime article than whether or not the definition should be expanded to include "gender identity." [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 01:08, 14 January 2017 (EST)
::::I'm not sure it happened "a lot". There was the 'Mississippi Burning' case, where the local cops and others were charged with civil rights violations, but no one served more than a six year sentence. This is why "hate crime" legislation was added later, cause sentences were too light for a "civil rights violation resulting in death". The problem in those days were all-white juries exonerating murder cases, so the feds invented a way they could prosecute killers. One guy was convicted in a state trial [http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/price&bowers/killen.htm 40 years later in 2005 of manslaughter,] but he wasn't the trigger man. No one has ever been charged with the actual killings.
::::Then there was Salt Lake City case of a civil rights violation resulting in death in 1978, but Utah was never part of the Confederacy, was not put under federal scrutiny in the Voting Rights Act, nor has a history of all-white jurries exonersting whites accused of murdering blacks.

::::In the 1990s, Brian Beckwith was convicted of violating Medgar Evers civil rights by killing him in the 1970s.

::::In the 90s Timothy McVeigh was the first person executed by the federal government since, like 1956. But this was a terrorism charge resulting in death, not a civil rights violation, AFAIK. ([https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3azq6b/eli5how_timothy_mcveigh_only_got_convicted_of_8/ McVeigh was only charged with 8 counts of murder, although 168 were killed]). Since McVeigh, there's been maybe one or two other cases of people executed by the federal government.
::::Bottomline, the federal hate crime enhancement was added cause, while the feds proved they could get a conviction where the state failed to act, the penalty was too low. Since its inception, it's hard to find a single case that the law was used for what it was designed for. There is no evidence whatsoever that South Carolina would not prosecute Dylann Roos, or an all-white jury would have exonerated him if the feds failed to intrude. South Carolina has lost its right to govern itself, its sovereignty. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 06:32, 14 January 2017 (EST)
:::::If this is true, then it definitely should be added. It would give yet another ignored example of massive governmental expansion and movement towards socialism. JDano, if the 2009 proposal did not become law, then what did the actual law consist of? If the bill that was listed on the article did not become law, then there is no point in including it. However, a legislative history of successful bills would be good. However, I am still quite busy, so I will not attempt to do anything about this at the moment. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (EST)

==Contest==
I will provide the details you seek when i get some time. You were in the top 5. --Jpatt 10:19, 16 January 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the reply Jpatt! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:40, 16 January 2017 (EST)

== discuession ==

I am continuing the discussion on my talk page.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 10:39, 22 January 2017 (EST)

==Question==
What would be the best word to describe Eurosceptic's opponents? Eurocentric? Pan European? Some other? I don't like globalist in this context. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 12:42, 28 January 2017 (EST)
:I would say either "Europeanists," "Europhiles," or "Euro-Federalists" are the best. They either seem to be the most used terms. Of those three, I would personally opt for the first. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:00, 28 January 2017 (EST)

== Ban editing ==

Hi, I've noticed you sometimes change blocks by other admins to increase the time or make in infinite. I appreciate your intentions, but just thought I would point out a couple things. Firstly, the blocking admin generally has the final say over the block they have imposed. For example, if a person want to dispute the ban, they are to go to the blocking admin, and that admin decides whether to revoke the ban or not (as can be seen [[Conservapedia:Quick_reference#If_you_get_blocked|here]]). Since you are not revoking a block, it's probably not as big of an issue, but it still seems to be proper etiquette. Of course, full admins have authority over assistants such as you and I, so they have the right to direct revise of revoke blocks we make. 
Secondly, While it makes good sense to block those people forever, it doesn't really work that way. A ban applies to the username, and the IP from which they edited if the option is selected--nothing more. Vandals almost always use servers to redirect their connection, however, so that their true IP is never seen by CP. This means that when we block those users, we are really just blocking the server they were using. This is a good thing too, but the problem is that these servers are usually assigned new IPs periodically, so the block no longer applies--now the blocked IP is unassigned. Since most people in the western world still use IPv4, there are not that many spare IP addresses, so the IP is soon assigned to someone else. Now some innocent person is using an IP which for all eternity has been blocked on CP. They probably will never even know, but if we set infinite blocks enough, the chances of that happening regularly increase continuously. I know some people here do use infinite block regularly, but in my opinion its a logistical problem. This is why I almost always set a time limit, or block only the username infinitely, and leave the IP unblocked (which I prefer not to do).
Thanks for your ongoing efforts! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:05, 31 January 2017 (EST)
:Yikes, I should have thought of that. The thought of indefinitely blocking innocent people from CP certainly is not a good thing. If you haven't reverted by block change, feel free to undo it. I'm too busy right now to do it myself. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:11, 31 January 2017 (EST)

::The chances of that happening from a couple blocks are pretty low, but it can add up. Anyway, no harm done. I just thought I'd mention it. Thanks! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 22:24, 31 January 2017 (EST)

== expand ==

[[Gainful employment]]. Yes. I dare you to.--[[User:Amorrow|Amorrow]] ([[User talk:Amorrow|talk]]) 08:32, 4 February 2017 (EST)
:Why? What's the purpose of you messaging me? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:25, 4 February 2017 (EST)

==[[Abortion]] article==
It's open for you to make your suggested additions. As to the Leif Ericson image, what needs to happen is a new image uploaded in its place. I'll try to find one later. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 13:18, 6 February 2017 (EST)
:New Leif image uploaded and added to article. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 12:56, 7 February 2017 (EST)
::Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:02, 7 February 2017 (EST)

== Addiction article and TAR ==

Hello again, Regarding the [[Addiction]] article and specifically its categories, I agree with JDano. Let me attempt to explain: 

"TAR" is short for [[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] a former user and assistant SysOp here at Conservapedia. People have differing opinions of him, but mine is that he did offer some valuable contributions, but also did not understand and did not learn the rules of CP. Among some other issues, he tended to add many "See also" links to articles which were not sufficiently relevant and did the same with categories. Thus, when editors refer to "TAR" they are usually talking about this debris, which should not exist. TheAmericanRedoubt (TAR) has since stopped editing here, and his account has been deleted. However, some of the links and categories he inserted still exists, and make things look messy. For this reason, a number of editors (including myself) try to clean up these issues and restore a little more order. The guide page [[Conservapedia:How to create and maintain high-quality articles]] was the direct result of TAR's methods. 
Regarding the categories specifically, it's best to maintain a "tree" structure. A page should not connect to categories which also contain subcategories it links to. Also, it should link only to categories which contain it, not categories which the page topic can contain. In other words, a page "drug" should be in the category "medicines" but not in a category "antibiotics". 
I hope this clarifies a bit. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:Please allow me to apologize for my impatience with the "addiction" article. You accidentally stepped into the remains of a hornets' nest. TAR added lots of utterly irrelevant see-also's and categories, in what can only be described as an attempt to turn this wiki into survivalist-pedia, or perhaps James-Wesley-Rawles-pedia. He offended a huge number of people with his implications that we were all supposed to stockpile bullets, batteries, and other survivalist stuff (I could look it up but it's too nauseating) and move to a "redoubt" in Idaho or similar place while we wait for the apocalypse. We were also all supposed to be into some kind of crackpot Indian alternative medicine. (I think it was called "ayurvedic" or something like that; once again too nauseating.) The whole wiki was in an enormous uproar for a few months. (And Cons, who really doesn't subscribe to that stuff, nevertheless stirred up the pot by pretending to be in email contact with the guy.)
:So if you see suspicious see-also's or categories, especially with codewords like "nanny state" or "gun-grabbing", be aware this might be detritus from TAR. I support the second amendment, but I don't support putting all this survivalist garbage into an article on fire hydrants.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:36, 13 February 2017 (EST)
::It has taken a huge amount of work to undo TAR's damage. I suppose that you think that there is a bias against any change he had made, and there is probably some truth to that. He did not understand that our categories have a tree structure. Instead, he thought of categories as a word association test. Putting in excess categories and excessive red links makes Conservapedia less appealing to users and lowers our google search engine rankings. In theory, every article could be in every category, because there is some plausible connection between any two subjects. If we had a separate article on "Drug Addiction" then it could have categories like [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] or [[:Category:Drugs]]. The problem is that [[:Category:Illegal Drugs]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Drugs]] ''breaking up the category tree with an infinite loop.'' Here the Addiction article is on a much higher level that discusses video games, etc. So, it is not useful to a high school student looking for information about illegal drugs, in my opinion. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:46, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:::Thank you all for your explanations. Considering these things, I will try not to get in the way next time this clean up occurs. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (EST)
== Thanks! ==

You helped make [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/conservapedia.com THIS] happen.

I have never seen a non-profit website go from below 100,000 rank to nearly a 50,000 Alexa ranking in about a year. And Andy payed zero dollars for internet marketing services during this period.

And there is no sign of a nearing web traffic plateau. My guess is that Trump supporters/Trump era and the resulting political waves significantly explains the boost in traffic.

Trump supporters seem very loyal so the traffic boost could be long lasting. It also seems like there is a reawakening of right-wing politics/nationalism that will be long lasting. And right-wing populism and "[[best of the public]]" go together like peanut butter and jelly. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (EST)

:You're welcome, and thank ''you'' for all your edits! I'm happy to help improve the quality of Conservapedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:56, 13 February 2017 (EST)
==Quick project==
Dear Guy:
Our state articles list the members of Congress from each state, but they have not be updated for 2016. If five editors could update 10 states each, we would be done quickly. Could you please take a look at [[Conservapedia:Community Portal#Political directory]]? Thanks in advance, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 16:13, 15 February 2017 (EST)

Thank you for your help with the project and with People's Party. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:02, 21 February 2017 (EST)

== Tip ==

Thanks for your terrific work. One tip: the licensing information should be expressly included in the uploads. I added it here: [[File:EU_member_states.png]]. Thanks again for your edits and uploads.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 23:27, 7 March 2017 (EST)
:Thank you for the tip. I will remember to add the information next time. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:34, 7 March 2017 (EST)

==[[Template:Book]]==
Try working on it now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] ([[User talk:Karajou|talk]]) 10:48, 11 March 2017 (EST)

== Questions ==

A few months ago, you told me to ask you any questions I had, so here goes:
*When recategorizing the massive and messy [Category:Authors] by nationality, I found two authors, [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], whom I could not recategorize as [Category:American Authors]. Could you change them for me?
*When fixing the [[Francois Rabelais]] cedilla mess, I set up a redirect. Has anyone ever made a loop out of redirects? If so, what happened? I'm scared to try it.
*Lastly, where is my attention now best sent - expanding the author articles, improving our coverage of science and mathematics, or maybe tackling another recat job, like [Category:Music]?

:1) Concerning [[Theo Hobson]] and [[Carl Sagan]], those articles are protected, and as an assistant sysop, I do not have the ability to edit them. I recommend asking someone like [[User:Karajou]] or CP's owner, [[User:Aschlafly]] to either unlock the articles to allow you to fix the category or to have them change the cat themselves. I've made many similar requests to them and they will be happy to help.

:2) I have not heard of someone doing that before. I personally don't think anything bad would happen if someone did try it, as you can still access the actual redirect page to remove the loop.

:3) Honestly, all three choices are great. If I were you, I would probably choose to expand the articles already created so that the average reader would find them more interesting and worthwhile, rather than just seeing a stub. After that, I would personally move on to work on another category, so that CP is better-organized. Then after that, I would do math and science, which is (as far as I can tell) on a different theme than your other work. This is my personal preference, but if you would prefer doing it in a different order feel free! You have been very helpful to CP, and I appreciate your work. Keep it up! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:20, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

::Hi, just a quick note: A redirect loop shouldn't be a problem. I think the user is only redirected once, so after that they see the second redirect page. Redirect loops, double redirects, and dead redirects should all be avoided when possible. Thanks for your contributions! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 20:23, 14 March 2017 (EDT)

:::You are entirely correct, DavidB4; I just tried a loop with soda and pop (and removed it). Typing one would give you the page for the other, and an option to redirect. I'll proceed to expand the author pages now. Feel free to removed this section to abridge the talk page.--[[User:Abcqwe|Abcqwe]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (EDT)

== Could you please write this article? ==

Could you please write this important article: [[Atheism and ethics]]?

I may ask another writer or tow to contribute to it also. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:07, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, I think I will be able to find some time to do it. Unfortunately, I have other things on my to-do list (even for CP), but this article is important, and I will try to find time to help. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

::OK. Thanks. I think [[User:Pokeria1]] will be assisting you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:55, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

=== Sources to help you write an article ===

*[https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/04/ethics-for-atheists/# Would human life be sacred in an atheist world?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html Atheism Doesn't Lead to Immoral Behavior - Or Does It?]

*[http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheism_determinism_morality.html Does Atheism (Determinism) Negatively Impact Morality?]

*[http://apologetics-notes.comereason.org/2015/03/atheism-ethics-and-immorality.html Atheism, Ethics, and Immorality]

*[https://www.thinkingchristian.net/posts/2016/01/good-nothing-make-atheist-ethics-better-christian/ Being Good “For Nothing” — Does That Make Atheist Ethics Better Than Christian?]

*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/questions-on-atheism-ethics-and-marital-conflict Questions on Atheism, Ethics, and Marital Conflict]

*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics]

Secular sources:

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Additional sources:

*[http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality] by Paul Copan
*[http://www.equip.org/articles/atheists-and-the-quest-for-objective-morality/ Atheists and the Quest for Objective Morality] by Chad Meister
*[http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-amorality-of-atheism The amorality of atheim] by Rob Smith
*[http://www.reasonablefaith.org/can-we-be-good-without-godCan Can we be good without God?] by William Lane Craig]
*[http://creation.com/atheism#atheism-and-ethics Atheism and ethics and morality] by Ken Ammi
*[http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec06/AtheisticExplanations.html Atheist explanations of morality and common sense]
*[http://whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2015/09/does_being_an_atheist_interfer.html Does being an atheist interfere with being moral?] by Lydia McGrew
*[http://americanvision.org/2742/nietzsche-slaps-down-dawkins-on-the-illusion-of-atheist-morality/ Nietzsche slaps down Dawkins on the illusion of atheist morality] by Dr. Joel McDurmon

== quick note ==

Would you be interested in email communication with me? My email is userconservative135@gmail.com

Please let me know if you are interested. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:54, 18 March 2017 (EDT)

:Yes, that would be great! I've been thinking for some time of setting up a CP email address account, and I'll do that within the next couple of days. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2017 (EDT)
::OK. That sounds good. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 00:02, 19 March 2017 (EDT)
:::Here it is: 1990sguysdg@gmail.com --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:46, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
I just sent you an email. Let me know if you got it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:10, 21 March 2017 (EDT)
::I wrote another response to your email. Please check your email box. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 05:05, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:::I got your latest email and responded to it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 15:41, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== If you are interested, another article that needs to be created ==

If you are interested, another article that needs to be created: [[Secular ethics]]

Sources about this topic:

*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics Secular ethics]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H5 Secular Morality]

*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/n-atheis/#H4 The Moral Evaluation of Religion]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:11, 20 March 2017 (EDT)

=== A couple more article suggestions related to atheism and morality ===

Also, here are a few more articles that need to be written about atheism and morality:

*[[Evolutionary ethics]], Wikipedia has an article on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics

*[[Ethical naturalism]], Wikipedia has an article on it at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_naturalism

*[[Ethical subjectivism]], Wikipedia has an article on this subject at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism

Thanks for your assistance on the [[Atheism and ethics]] article. It was much appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:21, 22 March 2017 (EDT)

== The Project I invited you to participate in plus ==

Here is the project I invited you to participate in:

*[[Conservapedia:Atheism Project]]

It should be easy to find relevant online material in order to create some of the articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 17:19, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you, Conservative, for your suggestions. I will begin on some of these soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:53, 22 March 2017 (EDT)
::I sent you an email. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:57, 24 March 2017 (EDT)

== Blocking user "reformed" ==

Well, I've got to say that vandalizing the user page of someone with block authority is '''really''' stupid.

But I take issue with your claim that he was an "obvious sock". As one who has been blocked a number of times on completely bogus socking charges, I take that stuff seriously. (The blocking was generally done by someone (now deceased) who had "checkuser" privileges and therefore had good tools for detecting socks, but did not understand how internet addresses work.)

It is not at all obvious to me, as one who has a lot of experience at CP, that he was a sock. He was a vandal, and you should block him for that.

Oh, dear. Now I see that there's a big storm of this stuff going on. And, yes, these guys, or at least some of them, are probably socks of each other. And at least one of them is using the name "obvioussock", just to taunt you. And one says he used to be a washing machine in his previous life.

My goodness! I think you are being trolled! :-) :-) And no, I had nothing to do with this. Just block them. It will blow over soon.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 12:54, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your message. :) Due to the fact that "reformed" was created right after I blocked two users and vandalized my user page, I assumed that it was a clear sock of one or both of them. However, as it was not clear to you and possibly others, I changed the block settings to just include vandalism. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:06, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

==Screw up==
Sorry, I'm working with a tablet, and it's a piece of garbage. I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Sorry. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''CIA v Trump updated score'':CIA 3, Trump 2]] 15:31, 25 March 2017 (EDT)
:Assuming you're referring to those at [[Talk:Main Page]], apology accepted. It can happen to the best of us. They were other user's edits, however. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:33, 25 March 2017 (EDT)

== Thank you ==

For your reverts yesterday on my userpage, saw the sock puppet master was not finished with his trolling. [[User:YortKeldher|YortKeldher]] ([[User talk:YortKeldher|talk]]) 07:37, 26 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:54, 26 March 2017 (EDT)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination ==

Thank you for your improvements to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Vaccination]]. [[User:Desmonduk|Desmonduk]] ([[User talk:Desmonduk|talk]]) 16:13, 29 March 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:30, 29 March 2017 (EDT)

== small request ==

I sent you a message at the last place we communicated. Can you please read that message? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 08:59, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
:I sent you the information I promised. It is located at the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (EDT)
::Sent you message. Please check place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])
:::I sent you a quick note to the place we last communicated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:51, 18 April 2017 (EDT)
::::Could you please go to the place we last communicated? It is regarding another matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]])

==Photo size==
With a large photo, there is much more word wrap in the table of contents, which makes it even longer. We need a wide table of contents. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:08, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:I've checked and double-checked, and I see no way how the larger-sized photo does anything to the table of contents. And I'm using a standard Google Chrome, 100% zoom screen. Could it be your search engine/zoom? I don't see any reason why the larger image is a problem in any way. I think it looks better, regardless. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:06, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
:::On Firefox the TOC is longer due to word wrap. You can get other pictures to help fill the space, but the space will be shorter if the TOC is wider. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 23:19, 10 April 2017 (EDT)
I am getting a lot of 500 errors. I will wait for you to finish, and then I will go back and apply my changes. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 11:07, 11 April 2017 (EDT)
:I have done my changes. But please, when making those changes, please do ''not'' revert changes I have made, particularly changes that I have already reverted you multiple times. I'm tired of these disputes. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:09, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== IRC ==

Hello, 
After some discussion (on [[User_talk:DavidB4#Conservapedia_IRC_channel|my talk page]] and [[User_talk:Aschlafly#IRC|Andy's]]) it has been decided that I start an [[Internet Relay Chat]] channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know! 
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net 
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:33, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:Thank you for your response. I have never used or really even heard of IRC prior before now (or, more accurately, before you and Andy started talking about it). What is the purpose of IRC? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:47, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

::It is perhaps the oldest form of instant messaging. It is basically a chat room, where people can join and idle or actively chat. Visitors can ask members questions, and members can collaborate. There is even file sharing, if that would be useful. I'm going to be writing a how-to-use guide to explain the actual usage better. 
::Most people use software clients, which they install (or run portably, which a whole different story), but web clients are also available, such as [https://kiwiirc.com/client?settings=7c7240c62a5d4861a8ad0ba697929f39 this one]. With the web client, you can just pick a name and connect, without installing anything. Also, since IRC has been around so long, software for it is compatible with almost anything. All desktop and most mobile operating systems support it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the info! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:24, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Vandal ==

Already took care of that and left a note for [[User talk:Teapublican|Teapublican]] on his talk page. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 00:09, 20 April 2017 (EDT)
:Thank you. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:08, 20 April 2017 (EDT)

== Recent item on maintalk -- congratulations! ==

Sorry, I just couldn't resist making fun of you there. I immediately recognized the Breitbart article, as one that I had seen shortly before. And then I saw that it was you. No hard feelings, I hope. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 23:22, 24 April 2017 (EDT)
:None at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:37, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

::Congratulations! The [[March for Science]] article is a ''really good article''. And you made it so. (Well, with a little prodding from me.) It sets out, straightforwardly, what was going on, and it doesn't descend into namecalling. I realize that you probably have very strong disagreements with what most of those people were doing, but you kept it professional.

::Really good articles, especially on potential "hot button" issues of politics, aren't all that common. Now maybe I will make another attempt to return the [[Pussy Riot]] article to the good state it was in back when I expanded it in 2014, before it got messed up with the implication that anyone who opposes murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin must be a "leftist", "elitist", or "social justice warrior". For which I was blocked, in blatant violation of the rules of this site. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 14:25, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::Thank you for the compliment! Unfortunately, the router I'm using blocked the "Pussy Riot" article because of the first word in the title, so I cannot comment on that at all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:00, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

::::How sad. I have created the redirect [[Nadezhda Tolokonnikova]] in case that helps. But it probably won't. You had no trouble typing the "P" word above, so I guess it's a problem of your router not going to a page with that word in the title. Maybe I should have named the page with its Cyrillc letters: "Пусси Райот". Well, you're not missing anything of cosmic importance. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 16:42, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::::The redirect actually did work. Thanks! The article does not appear to have a high quality (at least in the aesthetic sense), so changes would probably be beneficial, but if you're going to make changes, I would like to remind you to be cautious and not to contradict CP's POV. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:17, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

:::In case you forgot, Sam <s>(and how fast it appears that happens with you)</s>, it was ''you'' who violated the rules of this site by putting a liberal POV into that article (among others, [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/SamHB per your history]) in the first place, then insistently readding it after your edit was reverted and you were warned about violating CP policy and about starting fights with other editors. You really should take the advice you're being given here and not continue violating CP policy. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 21:59, 26 April 2017 (EDT)

A few things:
*Today is my 9th anniversary at Conservapedia!
*I can assure everyone that I am very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP. I am also familiar with the many, many, many discussions of these points that have taken place over the years.
*@Northwest: this is the expected response.
*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.
I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "social justice warriors on the left". The latter term is straight out of Huffington Post and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an SJW to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 11:28, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:My problem is not with content; it is with organization, layout, aesthetics, etc. There are no subsections, which at least show the reader how the article is organized; it is just many paragraphs. Such articles do not appeal to the reader. IMO, it feels like reading a textbook. If it is just a few paragraphs, it is fine, but thus article has ten paragraphs. Adding a few headers and possibly an image would be beneficial (and I realized just as I wrote this that the March for Science article is approaching that length as well, so I probably either should just keep my mouth shut or add headers there as well). I did not mean to insult or degrade your work, and I apologize for giving that impression. BTW, happy 9th anniversary! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:46, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

:Sam - by your response, you're only proving what I said about your tactics and your history here right. You claim to be "very familiar with, and well versed in, the rules, commandments, guidelines, customs, and habits of CP", but you only pay lip service to them here while your actions on CP over the years (and even now) are showing that you simply choose to disregard them for the sake of pushing liberal POV on this site and to start fights with those who don't share your viewpoint. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 18:08, 28 April 2017 (EDT)

== Bill Nye ==

Could you please contact me by email at sam4557@gmail.com? I think we can make a really good article out of this. I have a number of criticisms of his behavior--my opinion of him has gone down a whole lot over the last few weeks, and I think I have some insights about this that I'd like to bounce off of you. I know that you and I disagree totally about evolution and creationism, but we can put together a good article stating the facts. We can stay away from the name-calling that so many articles contain, and avoid things like "so-and-so falsely believes that ..."

This is ''not'' about Pussy Riot, ''not'' about Conservapedia politics, and ''not'' about you-know-who. I just want to bounce some ideas off of you about Bill Nye and see if we can put together a really nice article.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:00, 4 May 2017 (EDT)

== Expanded article, footnote did not support genocide/racist abortions adequately ==

I greatly expanded this article [[Abortion and eugenics]]. The footnote in the liberal article was not supporting or at the very least inadequately supporting racist/genocidal abortion policies of [[Margaret Sanger]], etc.

Specifically, I skimmed the article as far as the footnoted article and it did not appear to strongly support such a big claim like abortion/genocide, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 01:26, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

==Something isn't right here==
... Ohhh I know what it is. ''Margaret Thatcher'' is on the list of liberals. ''Margaret. Thatcher.'' The bastion of conservatism. A favourite of Reagan. How in the ''world'' did she make the liberal list? [[User:Koidevelopment|Vive]] [[User talk:Koidevelopment|Liberté!]] 09:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Wasn't me who added her. She was not as conservative as people think she is, as she did vote in favor of legalizing abortion and homosexuality. But, that said, it would probably be better without mentioning her, to avoid people focusing on her mention in the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:24, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

::She might not have been a perfect conservative, but I still think she probably doesn't belong on that list. Of course, if you go back 80 years and read writings and speeches from liberals of the day, they sound downright conservative now. Still, she did defend liberty and much of conservatism. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 13:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Lady Thatcher's criticism of Simon Callow's performance in ''Amadeaus'' made her homophobic, I thought. Being homophobic wouldn't preclude one from being liberal however, [[Bill Moyers]] and Louis Black for example. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''The coup plotters won, for now'']] 15:31, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
I assume that adding the liberalism template to the [[Episcopal Church]] article was improper? I would like to know what the proper usage of this template is for future reference. TEC is one of, if not the most liberal Christian denomination in the US these days, sadly. I do apologize for this improper usage, as I am a new editor. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:00, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:Hello Anglican! I removed the template because I thought the article was outside the scope of the "liberal" template. What I mean is that the template links to liberal traits, but not necessarily to liberal organizations. I think the category is good for the article, but not template. I hope this helps! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
::That makes sense. Thank you for your patience. It's sad what has happened to the Episcopal Church in recent years. --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 15:14, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::You're welcome, and I agree. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:18, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on liberalism. So... ==

User: Karajou sent me and others an email saying he didn't like CP's article on [[liberalism]].

The article needs major improvements.

I am not going to work on it due to time restraints. I spent a lot of time improving the [[liberal]] article.

I would use the same approach used with the liberal article. Clearly delineate liberalism from socialism/fascism because they are very substantially different (for example, Sweden vs. Communist China vs. Nazi Germany). But mention how the gap between the ideologies has narrowed in the United States. I don't keep up with European politics to know the situation there as far as the gap other than knowing that China has become more capitalistic. European countries commonly have more major political parties in a country so the situation is more difficult to keep tabs on. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 16:33, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

:I posted the below information on RobS' talk page and thought I would share it with you also. You can go to RobS' talk page to see his response to me.

::I would work on the liberalism article. But also create 2-3 sub-articles: [[American liberalism]] and [[Western liberalism]] and [[European liberalism]]. The [[American liberalism]] article is just a one sentence stub article.

::I suggest a [[Western liberalism]] article due to the Canadians, Australia, NZ, and South Africa. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:09, 9 May 2017 (EDT)
:::Since the Brits and Canadians have the most influence in the Anglosphere on the USA, you might want to create a [[British liberalism]] article and a [[Canadian liberalism]] article too.

:::Its too bad all this wasn't done before given that CP is a political website. I was largely focused on [[atheism]] which is a dying ideology. This had an indirect relation to liberalism given the prominence of the [[secular left]] on liberal/leftist politics. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Re: American liberalism ==

I copied and pasted some of the [[liberal]] article into the [[American liberalism]] article.

Generally speaking, ideally you want the material in the section for main article linking to a sub-article to have substantially different content. In this case, you want the [[American liberalism]] article to have different content than the "American liberalism" section of the [[liberal]] article.

So if you want to reword and/or add material to the [[American liberalism]] article the would be excellent. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:17, 9 May 2017 (EDT)

== Opinion on renaming an article ==

I wanted your opinion on an idea of mines to rename one of our articles on Conservapedia before taking it to an admin or someone with the ability to actually change the name of a page.

The current page [[Exodus of Israel]], I think, should be renamed to [[The Exodus]], where [[Exodus of Israel]] should simply be a redirect to that page. Not many users would think of typing 'Exodus of Israel' to get to a page on 'The Exodus', and 'The Exodus' is just much simpler. As it is, [[The Exodus]] is currently a redirect to [[Exodus of Israel]]. I think it should be the other way around. Your thoughts?[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:No, I think it is better the way it is. My main reason is that having titles along the lines of "The...." does not sound encyclopedic. The current name, I believe, is more high quality for that reason. Now, it is true that many users might not think of typing "Exodus of Israel," but if they type "[[Exodus]]," they'll run into the disambiguation page and find the actual article. Also, I'm not sure that many people would think of typing "The Exodus." To sum it up, I think the current title is better and give the article a more encyclopedic feel, but you're welcome to ask another editor what they think. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for the thoughts. Wikipedia currently uses 'The Exodus', and I find that it simply looks better, as a title, then 'Exodus of Israel'. Secondly, I also consider it more likely for someone to type in 'The Exodus' then 'Exodus of Israel'.[[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 15:59, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
:Once again, if you want to ask another editor for their opinion, like DavidB4, feel free to do so. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:20, 10 May 2017 (EDT)
Thanks for your opinion. One thing though, do you know who can get this template locked?
{{Old Testament Books}}

At this point, all relevant pages have been created, and therefore this template no longer will ever need any more editing as it is complete. So the best thing to do is to get it locked to avoid any vandalism problems in the future. Just to note, before I came on, it was already locked, even though it still had many problems. Now that the template is fixed, the best thing to do is to get it locked. [[User:Korvex|Korvex]] ([[User talk:Korvex|talk]]) 20:57, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
:I recommend asking [[User:Aschlafly]] or [[User:Karajou]]. They have protection powers. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 21:15, 12 May 2017 (EDT)
==Block length==
Thanks for your alert blocks. But one year is a long time for a block. IP addresses often change in a shorter period. You might consider 3 months as a better block duration in many cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 22:25, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
:OK. I'll see to that. Should I change the blocks I just did? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:26, 17 May 2017 (EDT)
::I just went ahead and changed them. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:41, 17 May 2017 (EDT)

== Congratulations on Donald Trump accomplishments ==

Hey, I just checked Google. While that movie award comes up first when "Donald Trump achievements," is Googled, and you are the first result after, you get nice results with certain other phrases:
*Donald Trump accomplishments - third link, no box
*Trump achievements - first link, no box
*Trump accomplishments - fourth link, no box
*Donald Trump achievements and failures - fourth link, no box
While Conservative's essays come up first when their exact titles are Googled, bear in mind that these phrases are Googled more frequently.
Congratulations on the publicity, 1990sguy!--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 08:07, 25 May 2017 (EST)

:Great job, it is well deserved! - -[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])
::Thanks, Nathan and DavidB, I appreciate it! It seems I chose the right article to create, in terms of gaining page views. For a while, when one searched the exact title of my article, that silly award was not at the top of the article, and in its place was a box with a picture of Trump linking to my article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:24, 25 May 2017 (EDT)
== Can you chat briefly? ==

Can we chat briefly? Can you please go to place I sent you messages before? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:16, 3 June 2017 (EDT)
== Here is the the article ==

*[[Liberal vs. libertarian]]

Thanks. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 11:54, 3 June 2017 (EDT)

== It's been great ==

You've been helpful since I you first welcomed me here - me, someone who had never used wikitext or HTML in his life and never believed in a young Earth. You've really made me consider that viewpoint, and you've done it with a brilliant personal appeal, far better than User:Conservative ever has.--[[User:Abcqwe|Nathan]] ([[User talk:Abcqwe|talk]]) 16:34, 4 June 2017 (EDT)

==Europe's childless leaders==
Where do you think [http://dcwhispers.com/rather-odd-troubling-fact-european-leaders/ we can squeeze this in] [[European migrant crisis]]? In the Intro or elsewhere? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 02:13, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
:I think that would be a good idea. We could also, possibly, add it to the [[European Union]] article, and maybe [[Globalism]] or [[Liberal]], as these leaders advocate for left-wing globalist policies. Are you able to find other sources that note this fact? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:53, 9 June 2017 (EDT)
::I think this also illustrates liberal European values. They support mass immigration of peoples who do not share their culture while they themselves have no children. They are committing national/cultural suicide. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:15, 9 June 2017 (EDT)

== The reason I removed Ted Nugent from Notable Texans ==

Because Ted Nugent is actually from Michigan. Sorry that I forgot to add an explanation. ([[User:King Conservative|King Conservative]] ([[User talk:King Conservative|talk]]) 13:37, 17 June 2017 (EDT)King Conservative)
:I removed him from the list. Thanks. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:16, 17 June 2017 (EDT)

==Template tweak==

Hi, guy! Thanks for the {{tl|See also}} in [[Neil Gorsuch]]. That template works better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:53, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
==Nasty edit summaries==
Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news reporters. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news reporter sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more reporters and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have reporters is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at CNN or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== re: JDano and you getting "horse throwing" mad ==

In the recent edit changes, I saw you use all caps in your description of your edit. It was for the [[Travel ban]] article.

This tells me that you are starting to get "horse throwing" mad.

If it becomes necessary, you can impose a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] to JDano since you have blocking rights. You can make it applicable to certain articles or certain article categories. Probably a certain article would be best as a shot across his bow.

If JDano also has blocking rights, you can get Karajou/Aschlafly to impose such a ban. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:29, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
:P.S. I don't know if you are correct in this matter. And I don't have time to mediate. I am just offering you a suggestion since I have experienced JDano being unreasonable at times. Also, the majority of Conservapedians/Republicans/conservatives are more fans of Trump than Lindsey Graham. JDano appears to be in the Graham camp. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (EDT)
::Please see my comment in the section immediately above. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:51, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the "travel ban" article. ==

I just posted this message to JDano's talk page:

"You are not allowed to edit the [[travel ban]] article anymore. I am imposing a [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]] on you for this article.

By the way, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in terms of its Muslim population. The travel ban of the Trump administration does not include Indonesia."[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 19:13, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== JDano has a topical ban imposed on him for the fake news article ==

I posted this on JDano's talk page:

"The [[fake news]] article was locked/protected. It seems as if the root cause of the page being locked was an edit war involving yourself.

You are no longer allowed to edit the fake news article. I am imposing a Conservapedia topic ban on you for this article. See: [[Conservapedia:Topic bans|Conservapedia:Topic ban]]

I hope additional topic bans are not imposed on you by people with block rights." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 20:23, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

== Socks of JamesWilson ==

Socks of this clown should receive five year bans. He is a malicious provocateur, and he singlehandedly destroyed another website as well as leading dozens of people off this site. Show this schlemiel no mercy. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:16, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:I don't see why we should be giving long blocks to this guy. He's clearly using multiple ip addresses. These addresses will probably get passed to one or more people who have no intention of vandalizing CP. DavidB4 explained by long blocks are not a good idea on my talk page: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:1990%27sguy&diff=1304184&oldid=1303142] However, I will not challenge your lengthening of that block or any other. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:20, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::Maybe you do have a point because he has created a few different accounts in the past day or so. All I'm saying is that lightening up on him isn't going to work. My late friend George let this guy off easy, and he destroyed an entire community. I've had plenty of experience with this guy in the past to know his MO, and he's fanatically obsessed with Taylor Swift and "avenging" others because they "ruined" his articles. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:28, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::That's fair. This guy is clearly bad news. Regardless of what block lengths we give him (and I can see some sense in making them longer), we should try not to accidently prevent innocent people from viewing CP. Thanks for your help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:30, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
::::How do we know that this editor is a "sock" of JamesWilson? Has anyone checked the IP user logs? The Taylor Swift connection could be a false-flag operation. If George and James got into an edit-war on a different website, that would not be relevant here. Let's judge each editor separately until they can be linked by evidence. Are all of the problem users created in the past few days created from the same or very similar IP addresses? Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::He put "Sad case!- James Wilson" in the edit summary of all of his vandalism, and it was the same stuff he's always done. If he says it's him, I'm just gonna assume it's him. Dont give this guy the benefit of the doubt. He's had plenty enough breaks here and elsewhere. --[[User:RonaldB|RonaldB]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 16:03, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
:::::@JDano: Yes, I think it clearly is JamesWilson. His vandalism is very repetitive -- he even vandalizes the user pages of the same users. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 12:52, 4 July 2017 (EDT)
*FYI, even if an account is blocked indefinitely, the autoblock on the IPs is only for twenty-four hours. If the IP block was for as long as the account's block, checkusers wouldn't have to put separate blocks on persistent vandals' IP addresses. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] ([[User talk:DMorris|talk]]) 18:26, 3 July 2017 (EDT)
==Articles==
Since I've written a few articles on Christianity, please feel free to edit them to conform to the views of Conservapedia if necessary. Admittedly, writing about Christianity as a Jew can be a bit difficult at times. --[[User:RonaldB|Ronald]] ([[User talk:RonaldB|talk]]) 14:35, 5 July 2017 (EDT)
:I have not seen any factual problems with the articles you created. However, I do recommend that you add categories of the religion you are writing about to those articles. For example, that you add "Category:Christianity" to [[Secular Christianity]] and "Category:Judaism" to [[Secular Judaism]]. The people who practice these are not Jews (religiously speaking) or Christians, but the articles are relevant to those religions.

:Also, I recommend that you add at least one source to the articles you create. Adding sources to articles is Commandment #2 in [[Conservapedia:Commandments]], and it makes the articles better for readers. They know where you are getting your information from, and they can read further if they are interested. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:51, 6 July 2017 (EDT)

== Changing my username ==

I don't know if Andy saw my request on his talk page. Did he skip it or didn't see it? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:18, 10 July 2017 (EDT)

User talk:KommissarReb

2017-07-05T13:21:22Z

KommissarReb: response

User:KommissarReb

2017-03-18T19:25:46Z

KommissarReb: Added list of articles I plan on creating. Right now I have to go, but I'll be sure to get back to this later.

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me.

I am probably best labeled as a paleolibertarian in my political views, though I do have a environmentalist point of view. I believe in Old Earth Creationism, and that we need to take good care of the only world God gave us. We have about 5 billion years left of Earth at best, but if we accelerate global warming we will definatelty shorten the time between now and wehn we can travel to different planets to preserve humanity.

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

== List of Articles I plan on creating: ==
*Dr. Drew On Call
*John Amato
*KFI AM 640
*Segun Oduolowu
*Steven Crowder
*Drew Pinsky
*Robert Tur

{{userboxtop|Various things About Me}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User limited govt}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User Republican}}
<div>
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#039}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: black; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|12}}}pt; color: #000;" | '''{{{3|[[Image:Guillotine.jpg‎ |50px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #fff;" | {{{4|This user believes that the '''[[capital punishment|death penalty]]''' ''must'' exist for a deterrent.}}}
|}</div>
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{User TEA Partier}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Ben Shapiro

2017-03-17T16:56:54Z

KommissarReb: Fixed L.A. Times Link

'''Ben Shapiro''' was an editor-at-large for the [[conservative]] website [[Breitbart]] News and the author, most recently, of ''[[Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America]]''.<ref>[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/07/al-sharpton-politicsnation-advertisers-targeted-in-new-boycott.html Al Sharpton, ‘PoliticsNation’ Advertisers Targeted in New Boycott]
- ''[[The Daily Beast]]'' - David Freedlander - Oct 7, 2013</ref> He also works at [[The Daily Wire]].

==Harassment on Dr. Drew On Call==
On July 16, 2015 Ben Shapiro was one of several members of a panel on a show called [[Dr. Drew On Call]] along with [[transgender]] activist [[Robert "Zoey" Tur|Robert "Zoey" Tur]], entertainment journalist [[Segun Oduolowu]]. When host [[Drew Pinsky]] asked the three panelists of their opinions on [[Bruce Jenner|Bruce Jenner's]] achievements and pushing of the transgender agenda, Ben Shapiro pointed out that even though Jenner was a self-declared female, he still has the genetic and biological makeup of a male. While Oduolowu shied away from that part of the discussion after seeking to turn the discussion into a [[Race baiting|race issue]], Tur viciously grabbed Shapiro's neck stating "You'll cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance". Shapiro retorted "Yeah, that seems...mildly inappropriate for a political discussion".<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DE_WOCHITk</ref> The hosts of the show repeatedly blasted and interrupted Shapiro for mentioning facts while barely discouraging violent behavior from Tur.

Afterward, Tur threatened Shapiro saying "see you in the parking lot". Tur doubled down on that threat audibly fantasizing about "curb-stomping" Shapiro in a similar fashion [[Neo-Nazis]] do to Jews.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/22/transgender-reporter-zoey-tur-triples-down-on-threats-against-ben-shapiro/</ref> Tur confirmed his [[anti-Jewish]] [[hatred]] saying “[Ben Shapiro] comes from a very misogynistic cult anyway, where women are treated differently, they’re not allowed to touch men.” in an interview with [[KFI AM 640]]'s Bill Carroll.

On July 19, 2015 Ben Shapiro filed an investigative report on Robert Tur to the [[Los Angeles]] Police Department on charges of [[Battery|battery]] for grabbing him without his consent.<ref>https://www.scribd.com/doc/272008029/Shapiro-Police-Report</ref> According to some discussion forums the LAPD dismissed the charges because Tur is a member of a "victimized minority" making [[threats]] of physical violence and unwanted touching okay for them to do.<ref>http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/2116/did-zoey-tur-assault-ben-shapiro</ref><ref>http://sportshoop.la/threads/no-assault-battery-charges-for-he-she-zoey-tur.202593/</ref> [[Far-left]] journalists [[Robin Abcarian]] and [[John Amato]] celebrated the crimes committed by Tur.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-transgender-zoey-tur-20150724-column.html</ref><ref>http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/why-ben-shapiro-twerp-inciting-zoey-tur</ref>
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* "[http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/middle-school-kids-taken-hear-louis-farrakhan-call-violence-against-crackers Middle Maryland School Kids Taken To Hear [[Louis Farrakhan]] Call For Violence Against The 'Crackers']" Ben Shapiro's ''Truth Revolt''
* "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DE_WOCHITk/Ben Shapiro vs Transgender Reporter Zoey Tur in Heated Caitlyn Jenner Debate on HLN Dr. Drew [FULL]]" YouTube
* "[http://sportshoop.la/threads/no-assault-battery-charges-for-he-she-zoey-tur.202593//No Assault / Battery Charges for He/She Zoey Tur]" SportsShoopLA.com
* "[http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/2116/did-zoey-tur-assault-ben-shapiro/Did Zoey Tur assault Ben Shapiro?]" Law Stack Exchange
* "[http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/22/transgender-reporter-zoey-tur-triples-down-on-threats-against-ben-shapiro/Transgender Reporter Zoey Tur Triples Down on Threats Against Ben Shapiro]" Breitbart.com
* "[http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/why-ben-shapiro-twerp-inciting-zoey-tur/Why Ben Shapiro is a twerp For Inciting Zoey Tur by John Amato]" Crooks and Liars
* "[http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-transgender-zoey-tur-20150724-column.html/ You go, girl: Zoey Tur gets aggressive with a bully from Breitbart News by Robin Abcarian]" Los Angeles Times
==Notes==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shapiro, Ben}}

{{conservatism}}
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:American Jews]]

Robin Abcarian

2017-03-17T16:53:40Z

KommissarReb: Added new page to address redlink

'''Robin Abcarian''' is a [[liberal]] [[journalist]] for [[Los Angeles Times]] known for congratulating Zoey Tur's unwanted touching and verbal threats against [[Conservative|conservative]] political commentator Ben Shapiro.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-transgender-zoey-tur-20150724-column.html</ref> In 2014, she was criticized by her [[Propaganda|propagandic]] column on [[Bridgegate]] that downplayed the [[Internal Revenue Service|IRS]] and [[Benghazi]] scandals.<ref>http://patterico.com/2014/01/16/taking-l-a-times-columnist-robin-abcarian-to-task-for-her-misleading-column-about-chris-christie-benghazi-and-the-irs-scandal/</ref><ref>http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-stop-whining-conservatives-obama-scandals-have-not-been-ignored-20140113-story.html#axzz2qTwzolPs</ref>

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

==External links==
* "[http://patterico.com/2014/01/16/taking-l-a-times-columnist-robin-abcarian-to-task-for-her-misleading-column-about-chris-christie-benghazi-and-the-irs-scandal/Taking L.A. Times Columnist Robin Abcarian to Task for Her Misleading Column about Chris Christie, Benghazi, and the IRS scandal]"
* "[http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-stop-whining-conservatives-obama-scandals-have-not-been-ignored-20140113-story.html#axzz2qTwzolPs/Stop Whining, Christie conservatives! Obama scandals got lots of ink!]"
* "[http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-transgender-zoey-tur-20150724-column.html/You go, girl: Zoey Tur gets aggressive with a bully from Breitbart News by Robin Abcarian]" Los Angeles Times
==Notes==
<references />

{{Liberalism}}

[[Category:Fundamentalism]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[Category:Propagandists]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists]]
[[Category:Liberal Media]]

Ben Shapiro

2017-03-17T16:35:18Z

KommissarReb: ==Harassment on Dr. Drew On Call== Added inmportant information. A lot of redlinks, but will soon fix. Feel free to help make new pages out of them.

'''Ben Shapiro''' was an editor-at-large for the [[conservative]] website [[Breitbart]] News and the author, most recently, of ''[[Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences America]]''.<ref>[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/07/al-sharpton-politicsnation-advertisers-targeted-in-new-boycott.html Al Sharpton, ‘PoliticsNation’ Advertisers Targeted in New Boycott]
- ''[[The Daily Beast]]'' - David Freedlander - Oct 7, 2013</ref> He also works at [[The Daily Wire]].

==Harassment on Dr. Drew On Call==
On July 16, 2015 Ben Shapiro was one of several members of a panel on a show called [[Dr. Drew On Call]] along with [[transgender]] activist [[Robert "Zoey" Tur|Robert "Zoey" Tur]], entertainment journalist [[Segun Oduolowu]]. When host [[Drew Pinsky]] asked the three panelists of their opinions on [[Bruce Jenner|Bruce Jenner's]] achievements and pushing of the transgender agenda, Ben Shapiro pointed out that even though Jenner was a self-declared female, he still has the genetic and biological makeup of a male. While Oduolowu shied away from that part of the discussion after seeking to turn the discussion into a [[Race baiting|race issue]], Tur viciously grabbed Shapiro's neck stating "You'll cut that out now, or you'll go home in an ambulance". Shapiro retorted "Yeah, that seems...mildly inappropriate for a political discussion".<ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DE_WOCHITk</ref> The hosts of the show repeatedly blasted and interrupted Shapiro for mentioning facts while barely discouraging violent behavior from Tur.

Afterward, Tur threatened Shapiro saying "see you in the parking lot". Tur doubled down on that threat audibly fantasizing about "curb-stomping" Shapiro in a similar fashion [[Neo-Nazis]] do to Jews.<ref>http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/22/transgender-reporter-zoey-tur-triples-down-on-threats-against-ben-shapiro/</ref> Tur confirmed his [[anti-Jewish]] [[hatred]] saying “[Ben Shapiro] comes from a very misogynistic cult anyway, where women are treated differently, they’re not allowed to touch men.” in an interview with [[KFI AM 640]]'s Bill Carroll.

On July 19, 2015 Ben Shapiro filed an investigative report on Robert Tur to the [[Los Angeles]] Police Department on charges of [[Battery|battery]] for grabbing him without his consent.<ref>https://www.scribd.com/doc/272008029/Shapiro-Police-Report</ref> According to some discussion forums the LAPD dismissed the charges because Tur is a member of a "victimized minority" making [[threats]] of physical violence and unwanted touching okay for them to do.<ref>http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/2116/did-zoey-tur-assault-ben-shapiro</ref><ref>http://sportshoop.la/threads/no-assault-battery-charges-for-he-she-zoey-tur.202593/</ref> [[Far-left]] journalists [[Robin Abcarian]] and [[John Amato]] celebrated the crimes committed by Tur.<ref>http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-transgender-zoey-tur-20150724-column.html</ref><ref>http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/why-ben-shapiro-twerp-inciting-zoey-tur</ref>
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External links==
* "[http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/middle-school-kids-taken-hear-louis-farrakhan-call-violence-against-crackers Middle Maryland School Kids Taken To Hear [[Louis Farrakhan]] Call For Violence Against The 'Crackers']" Ben Shapiro's ''Truth Revolt''
* "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DE_WOCHITk/Ben Shapiro vs Transgender Reporter Zoey Tur in Heated Caitlyn Jenner Debate on HLN Dr. Drew [FULL]]" YouTube
* "[http://sportshoop.la/threads/no-assault-battery-charges-for-he-she-zoey-tur.202593//No Assault / Battery Charges for He/She Zoey Tur]" SportsShoopLA.com
* "[http://law.stackexchange.com/questions/2116/did-zoey-tur-assault-ben-shapiro/Did Zoey Tur assault Ben Shapiro?]" Law Stack Exchange
* "[http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/07/22/transgender-reporter-zoey-tur-triples-down-on-threats-against-ben-shapiro/Transgender Reporter Zoey Tur Triples Down on Threats Against Ben Shapiro]" Breitbart.com
* "[http://crooksandliars.com/2015/07/why-ben-shapiro-twerp-inciting-zoey-tur/Why Ben Shapiro is a twerp For Inciting Zoey Tur by John Amato]" Crooks and Liars
* "[http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-transgender-zoey-tur-20150724-column.html/You go, girl: Zoey Tur gets aggressive with a bully from Breitbart News by Robin Abcarian]" Los Angeles Times
==Notes==
<references />

{{DEFAULTSORT:Shapiro, Ben}}

[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:American Jews]]

User:KommissarReb

2017-03-17T15:08:35Z

KommissarReb: Corrected "About me" infomation

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me.

I am probably best labeled as a paleolibertarian in my political views, though I do have a environmentalist point of view. I believe in Old Earth Creationism, and that we need to take good care of the only world God gave us. We have about 5 billion years left of Earth at best, but if we accelerate global warming we will definatelty shorten the time between now and wehn we can travel to different planets to preserve humanity.

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

{{userboxtop|Various things About Me}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User limited govt}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User Republican}}
<div>
{| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: {{{2|#039}}};"
| style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: black; text-align: center; font-size: {{{5|12}}}pt; color: #000;" | '''{{{3|[[Image:Guillotine.jpg‎ |50px]]}}}'''
| style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #fff;" | {{{4|This user believes that the '''[[capital punishment|death penalty]]''' ''must'' exist for a deterrent.}}}
|}</div>
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{User TEA Partier}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

The Alex Jones Show

2017-03-01T14:44:33Z

KommissarReb: Fixed links

'''The Alex Jones Show''', the mainstay of talk show host [[Alex Jones]]. It is produced in [[Austin]], [[Texas]], and syndicated by [[Genesis Communication Network]] from [[Minnesota]].

==Broadcast==
The show is broadcast on AM and FM nationally in the United States on 165 radio stations, as well as on WWCR Radio shortwave, on XM Radio Channel 244, online on [[YouTube]], via audio podcast, and on the official sites [[Infowars]] and PrisonPlanet.

==Reddit AMA censorship==
On February 24th, 2017 the Alex Jones Channel's [[YouTube]] channel posted a Q&A livesteam video where Alex Jones answers viewer's questions posted on [[Reddit]]. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NB8PEG63II</ref> When one user asked a question regarding the amount of trust [[American conservatism|conservatives]] and [[Libertarians|libertarians]] have for current [[Russian Federation|Russian]] President [[Vladimir Putin]], the comment was [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5vnaqz/alex_jones_here_to_maga_ask_me_anything_and_lets/de3gr1f/?context=3 deleted] instead of being answered at all. <ref>https://www.reddit.com/user/KommissarReb/</ref>Ironically, Alex Jones himself had always condemned [[censorship]] and advocated that his viewers questioned everything. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-VH5S56HI8</ref>

==External links==
* [http://www.infowars.com/ Infowars]
* [http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/alexJones/ Syndication by Genesis Communications Network]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel YouTube]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NB8PEG63II/ The Defense Of Liberty 13 Hour Special Broadcast: Epic Alex Jones AMA - 02/21/2017]
* [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5vnaqz/alex_jones_here_to_maga_ask_me_anything_and_lets/de3gr1f/?context=3/ Infowars Reddit AMA ]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-VH5S56HI8/ Alex Jones on censorship against PewDiePie and in general]
* [https://www.reddit.com/user/KommissarReb// Account of Reddit user who's comment was deleted by Alex Jones]

[[Category:Libertarian Media]]
[[Category:Libertarian Podcasts]]
[[Category:Radio Shows]]

The Alex Jones Show

2017-03-01T14:40:01Z

KommissarReb: Mentioned the shows' censorship regarding questions about Vladimir Putin

'''The Alex Jones Show''', the mainstay of talk show host [[Alex Jones]]. It is produced in [[Austin]], [[Texas]], and syndicated by [[Genesis Communication Network]] from [[Minnesota]].

==Broadcast==
The show is broadcast on AM and FM nationally in the United States on 165 radio stations, as well as on WWCR Radio shortwave, on XM Radio Channel 244, online on [[YouTube]], via audio podcast, and on the official sites [[Infowars]] and PrisonPlanet.

==Reddit AMA censorship==
On February 24th, 2017 the Alex Jones Channel's [[YouTube]] channel posted a Q&A livesteam video where Alex Jones answers viewer's questions posted on [[Reddit]]. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NB8PEG63II</ref> When one user asked a question regarding the amount of trust [[American conservatism|conservatives]] and [[Libertarians|libertarians]] have for current [[Russian Federation|Russian]] President [[Vladimir Putin]], the comment was [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5vnaqz/alex_jones_here_to_maga_ask_me_anything_and_lets/de3gr1f/?context=3 deleted] instead of being answered at all. <ref>https://www.reddit.com/user/KommissarReb/</ref>Ironically, Alex Jones himself had always condemned [[censorship]] and advocated that his viewers questioned everything. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-VH5S56HI8</ref>

==External links==
* [http://www.infowars.com/ Infowars]
* [http://www.gcnlive.com/programs/alexJones/ Syndication by Genesis Communications Network]
* [http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel YouTube]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NB8PEG63II]
* [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5vnaqz/alex_jones_here_to_maga_ask_me_anything_and_lets/de3gr1f/?context=3]
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-VH5S56HI8]
* [https://www.reddit.com/user/KommissarReb/]

[[Category:Libertarian Media]]
[[Category:Libertarian Podcasts]]
[[Category:Radio Shows]]

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2017-02-24T14:49:28Z

KommissarReb: Added my two cents to the legal status of marijuana mentioning States' Rights

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

Totally! Not only for medical reasons...people will stop drinking and driving and move onto smoking and flying...one other thing though:
What about the smoking ban, I mean, will people be able to smoke in public places or will there be special areas in cities, or will we have the same rules that we do about smoking cigarettes.
Also, one question, does the smoking ban include cigars 'cos they are P.I.M.P whereas cigarettes are rather townie.
Just a wondering :) [User:bealecr] 15:57, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It should be legalized, because it's none of the government's damn business what I do on my own property so long as it stays on my own property, and does not make me violent or suicidal or such.... That differentiates marijuana from cocaine, heroin, opium, pcp, lsd, even perscription drugs of abuse.... Plus, if it's legal it can be regulated more effectively - people smoke pot now and they go to drug dealers to get it, dealers who also want to sell them more dangerous drugs.... but if it is legal, people will go to the corner drugstore to get it from someone who won't even sell cigarettes to a 17-yr old. So I say make it legal for persons over 21 to buy, and if a handful do irresponsible things because of it, punish those irresponsible things, not all of society!! [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 23:38, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

By outlawing drugs, we have effectively turned over a huge section of the economy to criminals. Because they operate outside effective regulation, they pursue unethical marketing practices that are not allowed by legitimate businesses. They operate a multi-level marketing system where new users are recruited through free samples and peer pressure, and the victims can be any age. Once regular users, the victims then have an incentive to recruit other victims to pay for their habit. When new drugs arrive they use the distribution systems which are already set up, which is why cocaine penetrated the US market so quickly in the 1980s. The result is that outlawing drugs leads to higher usage. That is why the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada have higher rates of drug use and addiction than the Netherlands.

In addition to the damage that drugs cause, the activities of drug dealers have created an even greater crime problem as they battle for control of this profitable business. And of course many drug users turn to crime to support their habits.

Furthermore, it is a huge waste that the United States keeps one percent of its population in prison, mostly for drug-related offences, let alone the huge financial costs of law enforcement.

All of these are the unintended consequences of the failed War on Drugs.

Unfortunately it is easier to follow perceived common sense than to accept the evidence. Drugs are banned because they are harmful, but the ban is not working, merely making a bad situation worse. --[[User:The Four Deuces|The Four Deuces]] 21:36, 16 November 2007 (EST)

Yup IMO ,hey btw [[DrDaniel]]

yes, the cannabis trade is thriving, even if its not legal, and if the goverment tapped it, we could make massive amounts of money through taxation and regulation. Pot is also a fairly harmless drug if used responsibly. Sure its a danger if you get behind the wheel, but so it talking on your cell phone, eating and drinking, or many legal drugs like antihistamines and cough medicine. It is also literally impossible to OD on (unless you have 100% pure THC delivered at a high volume through an IV) nad has few negative health effects if used through a vaporizer or eaten. Sure there are people who smoke massive amounts of it, but the same is true with many legal substances. Besides that, hemp is an enomrmously useful plant--[[User:BenBr|BenBr]] 20:58, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Speaking from an economic stand point yes. And here's how you do it. You leagalize not just mary jane, but most, or all drugs. You then take it and tax the holy hell out of it. you can even raise the prices depending on the toxicity of the drug. This is something that will actually raise revenue, unlike everything else the government does to try and make money. Because lets face it, the government is just as bad as the people who pay off credit cards with credit cards. I would not be surprised to hear "I didn't know what to do with the money, so I ate it" from the treasury. mattfelton

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

:Long-term effects on the brain? OH, you must mean Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and Cannabidiol's neuroprotective and antioxidant properties. [http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=20965]

::It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: It's actually a lot harder for me to get alcohol than it is to get marijuana. I can't find anyone who will buy me alcohol ever whereas all the dealers that live by me are some of the "friendliest" people I know. [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 20:47, 12 November 2008 (CDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Though I suspect you are trolling by saying illegal aliens are worse than terrorists, you have to realize that most marijuana smoked in America is grown in America. Who would buy from a drug lord in Columbia when you can buy from Joe Schmoe down the road who grew it in his own home? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

:Wait, are you serious Joe? I don't mean to bash on what you believe, but I find that to be a tad...."silly". [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]

Cigarettes are the result of slave labor and 400,000 American's deaths each year. Marijuana is one of the ingredients of Christ's anointing oil, know in the bible as kaneh bosm. Marijuana has also resulted in zero deaths from OD or even cancer, look it up if you don't believe me, the truth is out there.[[User:Independentthinker|Independentthinker]] 14:15, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Marijuana is a dangerous gateway drug. If it were legalized, there would be awful consequences. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:24, 9 November 2007 (EST)
:you mean more personal freedom and less people getting criminal records for being in possession of a dried up flower? ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))

I'm a noob at this editing thing so please go easy on me.
NO, marijuana should not be legalized just as I believe alcohol shouldn't being legal either. But, our government has too much to gain from the legalization of alcohol and as a result it will never become illegal. I'm well aware they tried it once before during the Prohibition and it simply didn't work. Marijuana is another drug just like alcohol and will only add to the many problems we already see in our society as a result of alcohol related injuries, deaths, illnesses, and public intoxication. Why add fuel to the fire? I believe too many people are already addicted to alcohol because it is so easily accessible to the general populace. I know of at least a handful of people that are alcoholics by definition. Should marijuana become legal we will only see more addictions and ultimately more problems associated with it. Last but not least, I don't want my tax dollars supporting yet another unnecessary item should marijuana become legal, not to mention the medical costs associated with it. Federal funding of abortion and the NEA are already more than I can stand to waste my tax dollars on. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 23:07, 8 January 2008 (EST)
:Think about how much tax money is spent on the war on drugs, and then think about how much money the government could make off taxing marijuana, Marijuana is a multi billion dollar industry. ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:05, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
No. We don't need our government telling our children that its alright to burn your brain and body. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:09, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:We don't need our government telling us what we can and can't put into our own bodies.([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:24, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:: Why not? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
:::May 25, 1981, 13 sailors were killed on the flight deck of USS ''Nimitz'', prompting the Navy to institute a "zero tolerance" policy regarding illegal drug use. Were drugs used indicriminantly by several of those sailors? Yes. Was marijunana used? Possibly. The point, Pebusman, is you might as well hang up getting your pro-joint views accepted here. It's not going to sit well with me at all. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:52, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
::::I am zero-tolerant to narcotics abuse, and double-zero-tolerant (its not a real word, I just made it up, but you get the point) to narcotics abuse in the Armed Forces. In my own service, I saw too many accidents caused by illicit drug use, including several fatal ones. A few years back, one of a pair of sentries accidentally shot his buddy through the abdomen at "point blank" range with a 9mm Sterling submachine gun. Although the victim survived and eventually recovered (''physically'' - the ''mental'' trauma remained with him for a long time afterwards, and I once came across him sobbing in the washrooms with fear just before he pulled another sentry duty) the "shooter" - an otherwise great guy, well-liked, due to be married tested positive for cannabis. While on subsequent leave under investigation, he drove his car head-on into a wall in an act of apparent suicide. A sad end to a young life. Many lives were affected by that instance of someone smoking a joint when they shouldn't have. As for the Nimitz incident, I think it should also be pointed out that, while some deck crew members tested positive for cannabis, it is widely held that it was pilot error which ''caused'' the incident. The illicit drug use was uncovered ''as a result'' of the crash. Just to clarify. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 13:23, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
:::::Those are both sad stories but those are both problems that the navy/armed forces/what ever need to deal with on their own. As for ordinary citizens, the government should have absolutely no right to tell us what we can or can not put in to our bodies so long as we don't hurt anyone else. Innocent pedestrians and other drivers get killed every year as a result of drinking and driving, why don't we make that illegal? [[User:Rotskep|Rotskep]] 21:07, 11 November 2008 (CDT)

==Yes==
I think it should be legalized for a few reasons. Just watch the film: Traffic.

^ Agreed. Here are some more ideas (An Amber Rant): And the "essay" below that someone wrote is not even concise at all. It's a five page paragraph with BROAD GENERALIZATIONS. I talk about amendments for evidence. You can't get cooler than that.

Speech, religion, search, and seizure are rights under the Bill of Rights that the government cannot meddle with. When America became independent, the society preserved the rights of the individual. After all, the Preamble begins with “We, the people.” The amendments of the Constitution, focusing on the individual, didn’t put restrictions on what people can do; restrictions were put on what the government can do. However, marijuana prohibition has put restrictions on people’s ‘inappropriate lifestyles.’

Marijuana prohibition essentially violates the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments. The First Amendment prevents the government from making any laws about religion, speech, press, or assembly. Marijuana has been used for religious purposes. Hindi and Buddhist tribal celebrations use marijuana sacramentally. The Rastafarians obtained a court ruling that gave them the right to do marijuana during their ceremonies in 1996. However, their right was eventually taken away from them under “drug kingpins.” Hindu men drink bhang, a cannabis-infusion, to build a stronger connection with Shiva, their Godly figure. The First Amendment also gives people freedom of speech. However, the FBI and Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) use selective arrest and prosecution to pro-marijuana advocates. The government has been violating Americans’ free speech and religious freedom when it comes to prohibiting marijuana.

The Fourth Amendments gives Americans privacy and security against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the police have been known for searching people’s cars and houses if they were even a tiny bit suspicious because of the well-known stereotypes today. Just because a policeman thinks someone looks like they smoke copious amounts of marijuana doesn’t mean that they have the right to unreasonably pull them over and check inside their car.

The Fifth Amendment gives citizens rights if they have been accused of crime and also restricts the government from taking away property without “due process of law.” The Supreme Court has decided that random drug testing is acceptable, which is unconstitutional. The Constitution enforces immunity. State and federal governments have prosecuted drug crimes, which is unconstitutional, because the crime was punished more than once.

The Sixth Amendment gives citizens the right to “speedy public trials.” There have been several court cases that haven’t followed the Constitution. Bryan Epis provided medical marijuana and was offered a plea-bargain for four and a half years. He didn’t accept the bargain and was sentenced to ten years in prison. The Symbionese Liberation Army, on the other hand, admitted they were guilty for the murder of a bank costumer and were sentenced for less than eight years. The court also ruled that defendants do not have the right to mention “medical necessity.” Keith Alden, like Epis, provided medical marijuana and was forced in court. However, Judge Martin Jenkins didn’t mention medicine, illness, medical-marijuana, or California’s medical-marijuana proposition in the court proceedings. Courts take absolutely nothing in consideration when someone is accused of drug crime and make decisions that are unconstitutional according to the Sixth Amendment.

The Seventh Amendment grants citizens the right to “trial by jury.” Marijuana defendants are subject to this right, obviously. However, the court threats marijuana defendants if they plea to the charge. Judges and district attorneys loathe jury trials and manipulate people to give up their constitutional rights, which is a crime in and of itself.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits “excessive bail, fines, and punishments.” People have been sent to jail for a plethora of years, without the possibility of parole, for having a joint. Homes and properties have been seized for growing the plant. That is obviously violating the Eighth Amendment. Murders and rapists rarely get prison for life without parole (LWOP), but marijuana entrepreneurs almost always get LWOP. Prison for life for growing marijuana clearly violates the Constitution and is also violating human rights.

The Ninth Amendment reserves rights to Americans that are not mentioned in the Bill of Rights. The Constitution gives citizens certain rights but does not mean that citizens are limited to those rights. When the Bill of Rights was written, drug rights were not being threatened, so naturally the authors didn’t include the right to get high or do drugs. In 1798, anyone could grow or buy marijuana without being penalized. In 1937, the feds started to tax marijuana because making marijuana illegal would be unconstitutional, and taxation meant control. In 1967, it was criminalized unconstitutionally.

The Tenth Amendment says that any legal powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government that are not prohibited by the state governments are reserved to the people and the states representing the people. California passed Proposition 215 that allowed medical-marijuana, but the federal government has meddled with California’s internal affairs, which is against the Tenth Amendment. “The federal government, which was supposed to have specifically limited powers, has now become so powerful that it leads to world in prisons, sting operations, secret police, paid informants, aerial surveillance, wiretaps, urine testing, searches, and seizures” (Rosenthal 11).

Prohibiting Marijuana doesn’t only affect citizens’ individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but the economy that the citizens’ live in continually declines. By prohibiting marijuana, taxpayers are being cost billions each year in enforcement costs. The economy is also losing money in profits and wages. Marijuana has helped save economically declining areas, like Humboldt County, California. It was California’s most prosperous areas in the 1980’s as land values kept raising because the marijuana’s growers’ spending was supporting other county businesses. When the government formed stricter laws against marijuana, the county began to decline like it was in the 1960’s.

By legalizing marijuana, tax payers could have a new tax revenue steam. “Based on experiences with vice taxes on cigarettes, liquor, and other substances, the federal excise and manufacturing taxes, licenses, and fees could generate about $7 billion a year in revenue for the government including state licenses, taxes, and fees, and these are just directed revenues directed by regulation. Indirect revenues from taxes generated on sales of paraphernalia, from recreational establishments, and from new industries would increase the government’s revenue steam considerably” (Rosenthal 26).

Who wouldn’t want to be a domestic farmer if marijuana farming is 20% of the total farm income? The value of the marijuana crop is about $15 billion to $20 billion each year. Large farms have recently been enclosing, so more farmers should look into selling marijuana because they wouldn’t lose their jobs. Having a marijuana garden of less than 100 feet can earn someone roughly $30,000-$50,000 a year. “‘A few marijuana plants can double my income and increase my net several times,’ said a Wisconsin farmer” (Rosenthal 27). Allowing marijuana farms would save small farms and give people better paying jobs.

Cannabis hemp, the non-psychoactive variety of the plant, is prohibited in order to sustain the marijuana laws. Hemp is consisted of the longest fiber in the plant species and is extremely strong and durable. It could be used for insulations, textiles, clothing, and rope. The fiber and pulp can also produce non-deteriorating paper. The United States is the only industry that prohibits industrial hemp. Yearly, the United States spends $10 billion to $15 billion a year on industrial hemp products. If the United States, however, legalized industrial hemp, we’d be an exporter of the product; not an importer, which would ultimately give us money instead of us wasting copious amounts. After all, George Washington once said “Make the most of the hemp seed. Sow it everywhere.”

The United States hasn’t bee using their money wisely. In 1999, the federal state spent $7.7 billion on sustaining marijuana laws. This money could have been used on more reasonable things, like crimes and terrorism.

It even costs a lot of money to put marijuana users in jail. The Marijuana Policy Project in 1999 determined that “At an average cost per prisoner per year of more than 20,000, the total cost to tax payers of marijuana-related incarceration reaches more than $1.2 billion per year. (This does not include cost of investigating, arresting, and prosecuting the hundreds of thousands of marijuana users arrested every year).” It can cost as high as $450,000 to arrest, prosecute, and jail a one sole drug dealer. Carl Hiassen, a former drug-crime reporter for the Miami Herald, summed it up and said “If you squeeze a balloon in one place, it will pop out somewhere else. Pot’s popularity will not go away … I don’t think it can be controlled … It’s no longer a law enforcement issue; it’s an economic issue.”

==No==
I wrote a 5 page debate for this in health class. Here it is:

Marijuana is a dangerous illegal drug that comes from the Indian hemp plant Cannabis. It is the most widely used of all illicit drugs, giving off the false guise that it is not as dangerous as it truly is. It contains over 420 different chemicals, including d-alpha-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). As with other mood-altering drugs, marijuana raises the levels of dopamine in the brain. After the drug’s effects wear off, the user is left craving more. In the year 1999 alone, over 200,000 Americans entered substance abuse treatment with marijuana as their primary drug. If legalization occurred, the number of users would grow exponentially, and we, as future taxpayers, would be forced to support their immoral habits. Along with mental addiction, marijuana has many adverse effects including: hallucinations, paranoia, impaired short-term memory and reaction time, difficulty with concentration and coordination, loss of motivation, risk of infertility, coughing, heart and lung damage, increased risk of lung cancer, and a weakened immune system just to name a few. It is the job of the US government to protect its citizens from harm, legalizing marijuana would do the exact opposite.
I already know what one of your major arguments is going to be: marijuana should be legal because alcohol and tobacco are legal and they cause many more deaths. However, there are some serious flaws in this argument. For one, because marijuana is illegal, it has been much more difficult for scientists to conduct research on the long-term effects of using the drug- while they have been doing controlled studies on alcohol and tobacco for decades. The facts are that marijuana is a stimulant, depressant, and hallucinogen- so it exhibits similar traits to both of these substances and many others. Tobacco, as we know, is one of the major causes for lung cancer is the US. Marijuana contains 50-70 percent more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than cigarettes, along with the fact that marijuana users inhale more deeply and for longer than cigarette smokers. Marijuana increases the heart rate of the user by 20-100 percent and it is 4.8 times more likely that the user will have a heart attack in the first hour after smoking. As a hallucinogen and depressant, marijuana is extremely dangerous for drivers. Marijuana impairs judgment, interferes with depth perception, and slows reflexes. Also, while alcohol and its effects are usually eradicated relatively quickly, marijuana can have effects on the user for days after using and can be detected in their system after up to 90 days. Now, think about it, if marijuana were made legal, people in public transportation, such as school bus drivers, would be able to get high on weekends, and then drive the American youth in the week. That’s not a risk I think any of us are willing to take. Yes, tobacco and alcohol are legal, but the US government is doing everything in their power to inform their citizens not to use these drugs. You can’t watch TV for a half hour without seeing a commercial about the harmful effects of cigarettes or the .08 BAC for alcohol. However, the government trying to illegalize these substances would result in a giant fiasco for it is much harder to take something away from the population that they’ve had forever, than it would be to keep prohibition (which is what the US government is successfully doing with marijuana at the present.
In addition to the harmful effects of marijuana alone, it is commonly mixed with other drugs and substances which increase the risks exponentially. It is a gateway drug that increases the users risk to move onto even worse drugs. An individual who uses marijuana is 17 times more likely to use cocaine than someone who has never used marijuana. In Holland, where, as most of you know, marijuana is legal, the drug problem has grown substantially. Not only is there the expected increase in marijuana users since the drug is legal, but heroin addiction levels have tripled as well. The European drug model is not successful and not the way the US should go. So wouldn’t this allow us to infer that legalizing marijuana would only increase the war on drugs, except against different drugs?
Now is the issue of medical marijuana, of which I am sure you will try to praise for its numerous health benefits and how it is a medical panacea. In 1999, the Institute of Medicine conducted a study to assess these so called healthful benefits. They concluded that smoked marijuana is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition. In addition, there are more effective medications that are currently available. Marijuana weakens the immune system, so giving it to patients with HIV/ AIDS and compromised immune systems would actually speed the progression of the disease. Recent studies by the Mayo Clinic show that THC is actually less effective than standard treatments in helping patients regain lost appetites. Besides all the proven information that THC is not the most effective way to treat many diseases, a synthetic version of the drug, Marinol already exists. Medical marijuana already exists in a pill form and has been legal since 1985. It is much more effective than smoked marijuana at treating nausea, vomiting, and loss of appetite; even though there are other effective medications to treat all three of these. So doesn’t it seem a little strange that people are still pushing so hard for the legalization of medical marijuana even though it already exists. Clearly it is just a guise to legalize all forms of marijuana for recreational use. Legalization activists have turned the argument from decriminalization to a way to help those with incurable diseases. Really?! The argument for medical marijuana is a load of crap, developed by the extreme narcissists who plague this country and only care about their own bodily pleasures, rather than the good of the nation as a whole.
Contrary to popular belief, marijuana use is not as widespread as many activists would like you to believe. Only 1 in 7 10th graders are current marijuana users and that number has been dropping steadily. Legalizing marijuana would send a bad message to most high-schoolers: If the government thinks it should be legal, than it clearly cannot be doing too much harm to me. Drugs users and addicts, especially young users would shoot up. The argument of free will is wholly wrong here as well. Marijuana is addictive. Addictions cause the user to develop a mental craving and need for the drug. They no longer have the free will to make that choice as their body needs the drug.
The War on Drugs has been an ongoing battle against harmful illicit drugs for decades now. Many men have lost their lives fighting to protect others for what they believed in. Legalizing marijuana would mean they would have died in vain. Yes, billions of dollars have been spent, but the results shouldn’t be measured by money spent but rather the thousands of American Youth who have been saved from the horrors of drugs. The war on drugs is an ongoing struggle that will never be completely 100% solved. However, just like any other social issue, the struggle should not be abandoned. We wouldn’t ever give up on reducing poverty or increasing education just because we have eliminated all of the problems. It simply isn’t plausible.
The majority of drug users seek treatment, not ending up in jail. Only 5 percent of inmates in federal prisons are there simply for possession. Crime rates would actually increase and jails would fill more if marijuana was legalized. This is because crime and drug use go hand-in-hand and with US government regulation and taxation, marijuana prices would increase. Also six times more homicides are committed by people under the influence. While possession charges for marijuana would be gone, the influx of new users would cause more violence related charges.

You can try to refute this but I am sure that my position is correct.

==No==
If marijuana was to be legalized, there would be a rise in arrests in public intoxication, and, when the human body becomes intoxicated, the mind is more prone to violence, whether it be animal cruelty or domestic violence. Narcotics have also been known to cause mental imparement, such as memory loss or slurred speech. What is stopping them from running over little Jimmy who is walking across the street to the school bus. Heck, little Jimmy might be the drug user someday!

Think about this and you'll see my point.

==State's Rights/Tenth Amendment==
Regardless of whether or not marijuana is harmful in the long-term, any issue not mentioned in the United States Constitution should be left up to each and every state to decide how the matter should be decided. This includes [[Obergefell v. Hodges]] where the Supreme Court unconstitutionally decalred that homosexual marriage was to be legal in all 50 states.

I am worried about [https://thinkprogress.org/trumps-white-house-is-for-states-rights-except-when-it-s-against-them-b57c55409e89?gi=36ccfe6420e4 federal breaches to the 10th amendment]. While I would never use the drug myself for recreational purposes, I think we'd be saving money by removing marijuana from the list of drugs outlawed by the Federal government if we actually recognized the States' right to rule themselves on matters the Constitution don't mention. We could go back and forth about whether or not recreational marijuana is Satan reincarnated as a plant, but no outcome of that will reduce my concern about the Consitution becoming "a living breathing document" by extension.

On a side note, wasn't hemp historically used to make sailcloth? I know it isn't the same cannabis plant the druggies use, but I think it's amusing to think of a formidable British Royal Navy of Ships of the Line (possibly) historically built upon hemp. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:50, 24 February 2017 (EDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Please do not compare marijuana to things like assault, robbey, arson, etc. Those things do harm to other people, whereas smoking marijuana harms only the user. I for one believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process. Legalize it for use in private residencies, but throw people caught using it in public in the drunk tank for a while. And banning things, at least in marijuana's case, does NOT make it go away, it was named the country's #1 cash crop, take a look: [[http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=2735017&Business=true]] ([[User:Pebusman|Pebusman]] 00:22, 11 April 2008 (EDT))
:::: Why the distinction between "other people" and "the user"? In both cases harm is being done. Okay, so you "believe people should be able to do whatever they want so long as no unconsenting party is hurt in the process". I don't believe that. Why is your belief correct and mine not? Of course, this is ignoring that marijuana ''does'' harm others. First, somebody under the influence could lose control (e.g. while driving) and harm someone else. Second, a person harming ''himself'' causes distress for those that care for them. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:06, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
You mean psychedelic? Can you explian how this makes it dangerous?

All I can say about marijuana is this... may God have mercy upon the person that I catch ever trying to sell marijuana to my kids. --[[User:Watchman|Watchman]] 22:40, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

This is more of a control issue verses if it is bad or good. The war on drugs first started as a discimination practice against the Mexicans. When you live in a FREE country you should be able to do what you want in your own home. We are not talking about getting high and going to work. Alcohol and tobacco is not done there either. Just in the privacy of your home. Smoking is already banned in California if you live in an apartment. If you pay rent I still consider this to be your home. Do you think people actually stopped? You should arrest those criminals? And if you want to ban mind altering substance, kiss cheese good bye because it acts like morphine on the brain. Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing and leave the Government out of it. They control enough already. It is all about control and nothing to do with the substance. After all it is a natural product and not a man made concotion. Other drugs will crop up in its place if it is too scarce. Why do you think Meth came around? Proper law enforcement should be substituted with education on the effects. Education not propoganda. I did read where there is one entire northern Califorian county that exclusively relies on Marijuana for its economy.
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

"Lets decriminalize instead of legalizing." I know somebody who is always telling me we should decriminalize marijuana, but she has thus far been unable to effectively articulate what the heck the difference between decriminalization and legalization. Can you help me out? --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:26, 5 December 2009 (EST)

If you legalize it, you can tax and regulate it. Decrimimalization is while it is still illegal, therefore can't be regulated and taxed, the crime carries no penalty.

Ah, okay. Honestly, that doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Assuming that the government has, at any time, the authority to legalize, tax, and regulate the stuff anyway, why not just legalize, and NOT tax or regulate. That way those people who obey the law as a matter of conscience aren't disadvantaged. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 15:58, 5 December 2009 (EST)

The people I know that smoked the most weed were also total losers. is there perhaps a causal link? don't know what legalising it would do though. [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 07:22, 10 October 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Vladimir Putin

2017-02-22T14:49:56Z

KommissarReb: Added discussion. Considered editing Vladimir Putin and RT pages, but I will wait until I have more solid information first.

==Anna Politkovskaya==

maybe you should mention that Anna Politkovskaya was shot by most likely putins men. she is dead and it should say so.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Thanks, I'll find a source put it down. I actually didn't know that. I'm writing a paper on Putin right now, which explains why I have all these sources in front of me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:56, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::writing about Vlad the impaler should be fun. Putin is not a good man.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

Thanks for fixing the cite, Onetimeuse, but your edit took out my sentence about Anna Politkovskaya, and I can't figure out how to fix it, so the article as is now doesn't make sense. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:12, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

==Dictator?==
Should we add the Dictator category here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)
:I don't think dictator is warranted as a description of Putin - yet. The fact that he has stayed in power long after his term has expired leads me to think he'll be a dictator soon enough. [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==See also==
Non of these articles in the see also section has anything to do with Vladimir Putin. Should we delete them? [[User:Maupiti|Maupiti]] 14:55, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==KGB==
No mention of him being a former KGB man? [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:50, 28 August 2008 (EDT)
(oh by the way making an analogue between him and Vlad Tepes is an insult to Vlad Tepes. Tepes scared the crap out of invading Turks and helped keep them out of Europe proper. Putin on the other hand is just evil...)

== This article is ridden with many hateful subjective allegations. Stay objective!!! ==

Well, isn't it kind of simplistic to claim that Anna Politkovskaya was murdered by Putin? It hasn't been proven officially anywhere, and if this encyclopedia claims to be objective maybe it should BE so!
"KGB Putin has complete control of Russia's future, as a dictator would." - sounds like it was written by a 8 year old! If you're bringing up the KGB past, at least say Ex-KGB (KGB doesn't even exist anymore). Also you're alleging that he's a dictator, and while I may agree, at least make a separate section about why IT IS COMMONLY BELIEVED that it so, give sources, not just write your own personal opinion! Otherwise you might as well write that he also raped donkeys and fed on the souls of the damned! (stay OBJECTIVE people OBJECTIVE!)
Politkovskaya was an outspoken critic of Putin yes, but not only! She had made many enemies, especially during her assessments of the Chechen wars, where she claimed that both sides had committed war crime type stuff.. and when you get Chechens angry, people die! Period! (just look up Kadyrov or Barayev)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/movsar_barayev.htm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/ramzan-kadyrov-the-warrior-king-of-chechnya-430738.html

Also, other people had to benefit from her death (hey another motive), Berezovski for example was not a particular fan of her, but to murder her, play the blame game, and then piggyback on her memory to blame Putin (his greatest enemy) would be very beneficial!
This article is ridden with many hateful subjective allegations, it is too biased.
I would suggest somebody with a lot of experience here should rewrite. If I tried I would probably get banned right away. (I can see it now, some staunch close-minded person calling me a liberal homosexual or a communist. HA!)

Also, there is no serious military alliance between Russia and China, and there is an apparent growing rivalry between the two.
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/airforce/Russian-Chinese_Su-33_fighter_deal_collapses100017306.php

Russia fears China more than it does the United States (due to an actual border, and the fact that China is right next to the energy rich Siberia, which it REALLY wants) - and in my opinion, the US should be more concerned over China than their traditional COLD WAR enemy due to the fact that China has TOO much control over the US economy and interests, and is growing stronger politically and militarily by the hour!
http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/i26htWesterman_ChinaArrogance.html
Thanks for reading! -[[User:Abanamat|Abanamat]]

== Litvinenko ==

Should we add the poisoning of Alex Litvinenko to this page, or on it's own page? [[User:JDBowen|JDBowen]] 00:51, 11 July 2009 (EDT)

==Putin or America?==
If Donald Trump (as well as those of you who'd call yourselves paleoconservatives) truly believe that America should come first, you should be wary of current Russian President Vladimir Putin. While I am not anti-Russian, I do ''not'' support Putin at all. As President for life,Putin is seeing what he can get away with whilst slowly restoring the old Soviet imperialist ways and will quickly turn on Trump if he gets in the way of that. If it comes down to supporting Trump or supporting Putin, which will you choose? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:50, 22 February 2017 (EDT)

==Re-Adding German Liberal Deletions of Conservative David Horowitz==
* [[David Horowitz|Horowitz, David]], [http://frontpagemag.com/2013/frontpagemag-com/putin-and-the-shadow-of-the-kgb-on-the-glazov-gang/ Putin and the shadow of the KGB on the Glazov Gang], Sherman Oaks, [[California]]: [http://www.frontpagemag.com/about/ David Horowitz Freedom Center]], Published April 5, 2013. David Horowitz is a conservative and not all conservative support Putin. See [[Joel Skousen]], [[Alex Jones]], [[James Wesley Rawles]]. Alternate conservative viewpoints are reasonable.
[[User:TheAmericanRedoubt|TheAmericanRedoubt]] 14:21, 17 January 2015 (EST)

:Could you please tell me why I am a Liberal? And why is it important that I am from Germany?--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 14:59, 17 January 2015 (EST)

::Stop trolling his every edit Joey.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 18 January 2015 (EST)

User:KommissarReb

2017-01-25T12:38:06Z

KommissarReb: Changed some information.

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me.

I am probably best labeled as a paleolibertarian in my political views, though I do have a environmentalist point of view. I believe in Old Earth Creationism, and that we need to take good care of the only world God gave us. We have about 5 billion years left of Earth at best, but if we accelerate global warming we will definatelty shorten the time between now and wehn we can travel to different planets to preserve humanity.

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

{{userboxtop}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User Republican}}
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{Userbox|Green|White|<s>Homosexual Marriage</s>|This User does NOT believe in Homosexual Marriage.}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Essay:Worst Liberal Video Games

2017-01-25T12:34:24Z

KommissarReb: There's nothing liberal about being merciful or nonviolent. If anything, that makes it go against the tide of the video game establishment.

The video game industry is a very liberal market. Here are some of the worst examples of liberalism in video games by developer

==Ubisoft==

Ubisoft claims to be a very diverse company. It seems they aren't very diverse politically as they have some of the most liberal games on market

• The Assassin's Creed franchise: Anti-Christian, as it claims that Jesus Christ was a fraud[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Jesus_Christ], with the villains of the series being the Knights Templar. The worst of the franchise is Syndicate, which has you killing capitalists in Victorian age London, working with the evolutionist [[Charles Darwin]] and [[communist]] [[Karl Marx]]. Ubisoft also had a transgender in the game, even though such a person was nonexistent back then. The only slightly conservative game is the third, where the Assassins help the American Revolution by killing the Templar leaders of the British. However, a DLC came out for the game that has you kill all of the [[Founding Fathers]].

• Watch Dogs 2: While the first game is generally conservative (Pro-family, Anti-big government, Anti-crime), the sequel is one of the most liberal games to date. Taking place in San Francisco (go figure), the main characters are anarchists, and the game has you fighting big corporations. You also have to work with many gays and transgenders.

==Indie/Small Developers==

• Undertale: On one hand, it teaches the importance of core Christian values such as mercy and compassion by discouraging killing characters, and instead solving conflicts non-violently. On the other hand, it involves homosexual and bisexual relationships, some of which may involve the player character (who is 12 years of age) depending on what dialogue choices the player makes.

Talk:Donald Trump

2017-01-20T15:00:00Z

KommissarReb: Added another response

==Fear of giving offense==

Trump shows no more fear of giving offense than early American patriot [[Patrick Henry]], who said of the momentous questions facing the nation in his time:

:For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/ebooks/books/GiveMeLiberty/GiveMeLiberty.html]

Should we add this to the media section? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 14 February 2016 (EST)

=="Unlike most other candidates,"==
There is nothing before this sentence that indicates that Mr. Trump is a candidate for anything. The article is locked (...at least for me), but the intro needs a few words about the fact that he is running for something, or the passage lacks context and does not make sense. [[User:GerryV|GerryV]] ([[User talk:GerryV|talk]]) 14:49, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

== Trump & Jehu ==

I see by doing a little internet search that I am not the only one who has seen a possible parallel between Donald Trump as president and King Jehu of N. Israel (2 Kings 9-10) IMHO very entertaining stories (black humor). Jehu methinks exterminated the Baal priesthood & gave Baal worship in N Israel a fatal blow, tho Jehu was quite ungodly & continued the idolatry at Dan & Bethel (perhaps done in the name of YHWH). http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/05/14/trump-is-gods-choice-for-president/. You may compare other internet postings and the series on ChristianChat http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/132268-cruz-trump-josiah-jehu.html. Imagine Trump with a repub congress impeaching in mass all the federal judges who have legislating abominations from the bench, like Jehu got rid of Baal priests. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 00:40, 22 August 2016 (EDT))

:Ha! I missed this comment before, but I can see that. "His campaigning is like the campaigning of Jehu, for he campaigns furiously!" It looses something in "translation," but he does seem the type. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 23:39, 19 January 2017 (EST)

== religious affiliation? ==

Do we have any information on what church or denomination he is in.
:Presbyterian.[http://religionnews.com/2016/01/31/donald-trump-religion-bible-evangelicals/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:58, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

== New image ==

Which of these three images of Trump does anyone think should be uploaded to this article?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_13.jpg][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_(29273256122)_-_Cropped.jpg][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_10.jpg] All three of these images have a much higher quality, give a much more lifelike image of Trump, and are all more recent that the current one, so we should definitely replace the current one. I am just having trouble deciding which one, of the three, is the best. I personally like Trump's facial expression in the middle image, but I also like the American flag backgrounds in the other two. In addition, it might be worth noting that the third image is currently being discussed on Wikipedia for becoming the new article image, but it will take several days, at least, for it to be changed (however, the current image at the top of this article is also at the top of the Wikipedia article). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:20, 13 September 2016 (EDT)
:Nobody's responded, so I will request for the middle one to be uploaded. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:29, 16 September 2016 (EDT)

::Alright, I've uploaded it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:35, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

==Undermining his legitimacy==

In addition to claiming that Russia influenced the election, some are pointing out that Trump didn't get the popular vote - as if this implies
*he's not really the president;
*he shouldn't be; or,
*he simply has no mandate

Should we include this (implied) argument in the lede? Or create a section on detractors? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:38, 18 December 2016 (EST)

:The flawed arguments of naysayers would be better placed near the end of this entry, wouldn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:23, 18 December 2016 (EST)

::It probably would be a good idea to mention and refute it, but I agree with Mr. Schlafly--let's not give it prominence. It's funny how they had no problem getting Obama without popular vote, but now that it isn't working in their favor, they get all mad. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 18 December 2016 (EST)

:::We wait for investigation to see who actually got the popular vote after counting & excluding the votes of non-citizens illegally cast in this election. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 11:42, 23 December 2016 (EST))

::::And when that's done, it'll show that, when the votes from illegal immigrants, those who illegally voted multiple times, votes from those in prison (who forfeit their right to vote when they go to prison for their crimes) and votes from "the dead" - all of which would have voted Democrat - are removed from the equation, Hillary will have far less votes than first claimed, which will give Trump both the electoral college ''and'' the popular vote, thereby pulling the Democrats' and other detractors' last flimsy argument out from under them. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 13:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Added discussion ==

After reading [http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/andy-schlafly-pro-life-groups-misleading-trump-on-supreme-court-picks this] I wonder if anyone may question Trump's judgement. I never did trust Trump, and I still hold that he said all the conservative things he needed to say just to get in office and not because he really cared. Now that he's going to be our president in two weeks, I am both curious and apprehensive what he'll do. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 2:20, 4 January 2017 (EDT)
:All I can say is that we'll see what happens. I hope Trump appoints a truly pro-life nominee, but let's not forget that if he doesn't, it would be equally the fault of the "pro-life" groups who are pushing him to appoint [[PLINO]] justices when they should know better. These groups seems to have a lot of influence in this (but I could be wrong). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:27, 4 January 2017 (EST)
::Most politicians are expected to appoint people who supported them during the campaign. If a candidate did not draw support from, say, Latinos, it is not a historic example of discrimination if none of the cabinet are Latino. Trump wants the best people in these jobs and is not under some law that says, "You must appoint a woman and Latino cabinet secretary."[[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 05:20, 20 January 2017 (EST)
:::So has the [[National Right to Life Committee]] been infiltrated by opponents, or are they staffed by incompetents who do sloppy research?<s> And why doesn't CP have an article on them?</s> [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]] 07:21, 20 January 2017 (EST)
::::I heard a few days ago that Donald Trump was planning on replacing Obamacare with a different form of healthcare. [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-to-keep-some-obamacare-says-clintons-gracious/ He said on 60 Minutes] that he would try to keep some aspects of Obamacare. Because of this, he's already facing opposition from Republicans that want absolutely ''no'' healthcare at all. I'm actually kind of proud of Trump for this, my relatives and I have high hopes for him. I hope he'll have good luck facing the kingmakers in the GOP.

::::I also heard that Trump was going to [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/06/donald-trump-break-campaign-pledges-asking-congress-cash-build/ ask Congress for 10 billion dollars to build the wall he proposed]. Apparently, he can't get Mexico to pay for it like he promised. I support the idea of more efficient border security, but I fear what this'll do to our economy. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:33, 20 January 2017 (EDT)
:::::Trump can get Mexico to pay for the wall--it just won't be in the form of a direct payment. Also, national and border security, preserving the rule of law and national identity and sovereignty outweigh any economic downturn that could result from this (also, Trump could create many jobs through this). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 09:49, 20 January 2017 (EST)
::::::Does the Mexico Government even have the money to pay for such a wall? Private businesses based in Mexico probably do, but I don't know how Trump would get ''them'' to help fund the wall. Maybe via tarrifs or something? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 10:10, 20 January 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Political Spectrum

2017-01-20T14:31:52Z

KommissarReb: /* Asked a question */ new section

=Draft=
{{Talk:Political spectrum/usage}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/definitions}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/origin}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/history}}

RedBlue wrote: ''Other periods would be helpful too... but this is a start...''

{{Talk:Political spectrum/movements}}

==References==
<references/>

=Discussion=

==Proposed section headings==

*Definition
*Origin
*Contemporary US usage
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

==Alternative section headings==

*Contemporary US usage
*Origin
*Definition in political science
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

In spite of all the argument, it seems we mostly agree what to put in those sections.
What's been so controversial is which aspects to emphasize. So a good arrangement of sections
would be very useful. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

----
*The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. [http://www.politicalcompass.org/]

Any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:These are some vivid and timely illustrations of the problem. While the idea has worked as a sort of shorthand for condensing substantive analysis, the problem stems from treating it as a doctrinal truth. This wouldn't be a problem if it was used comparatively after surveying different issues, ideas, groups, or individuals, but that is not what happens. It's used as the starting point for any discussion and analysis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Some sort of y and z dimensions to the political spectrum could be explained - personal freedom vs. economic freedom?

PS: Does this mean that PF Fox can call the Nazis right wing now :-p ? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*The '''political spectrum''' of contemporary U.S. politics places [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right.
Neither party enjoys being compared to the Communist left or the Nazi right, but both seem to get mileage out of using such a comparison for their political opponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, that's why we need a definition of the political spectrum (what, if anything, do Dems/Reps have in common with Commies/Nazis), which is why I wrote the comment mentioned below. So I am going to include my suggested distinctions now on the political spectrum page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's a long comment at [[Talk:Rightist]] which indicates the need for a merge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''I disagree.''' Respectfully. Even though actions are being taken without consult with the other Sysops or users, in a most disrespectful way. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**Nothing has developed at [[Leftist]] or [[Rightist]] other than the typical namecalling without any real efforts to give a valid definition. Then we have the argument that this abuse has occured for decades in other print publications, so why shouldn't we just continue it. The ''New York Times'', for example reported as late as 1912 that a highly sophisticated civilization existed on Mars; and the ''New York Times'' certainly is as credible as source as Merriam Websters. Again we are faced with the same dilemma: this is only a theory and should be properly identified as a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
***It's not a [[theory]], it's a [[definition]]. There's nothing to test about it, it's just a (very imperfect) way of classifying (some, not all) political viewpoints. 'Red' state is not a perfect description of politics in Texas, just like 'red' couch is not a perfect description of the color of the furniture in your livingroom. Would you say that describing some couches as red, and other couches as blue, is 'just a theory, and should be properly identified as a theory'? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nolan chart==
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|A 2-d view of politics]]
*The one-dimensional "left versus right" model of political thought is pervasive in American society today. It's what was originally taught to me in high school, though there were two distinct variations of this model. The first, a "liberal-centric" model, divided [[politics]] between those on the "[[left]]" ([[liberals]] and [[radicals]]) and those on the "[[right]]" (conservatives and [[reactionaries]]) and posited that those on the "left" favored change and [[progress]] while those of the right favored [[tradition]]al and the s[[tatus quo]]. The second, a more "conservative-centric" model, divided politics between those on the "left" (liberals, [[socialist]]s, [[communist]]s) and those on the "right" ([[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s) and posited that those on the left favored (to varying degrees) [[bigger government]], [[egalitarianism]], and [[collectivism]] while those on the "right" favored [[smaller government]], [[free market]]s, and [[individualism]]. [http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB?tag=libertarian]

The Nolan chart (who was Nolan?) could be a great topic for another page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:This is just more theory; piling on more theory ontop of theory doesn't really help to clarify anything, unless of course you properly disclaim it as such. We all were taught this junk by the [[Democrat#Economic_policy|NEA]]; 260 million Russian were taught the glories of [[Marxism]] in public schools for 70 years, as contiues in China, North Korea and Cuba. Let's do an empirical survey and compare American schools and test scores with former Soviet, Chinese, North Korean and Cuban to see how they rank. Then we'll investigate if there's any validity whatsoever to the statement that because you learned it school, therefore it must be true.

:There is actually a key to understanding this theory, which helps make sense of it. But none of the advocates of perpetuating these myths have discussed it yet--which implies advocates of the theory themselves know little of its origin, use, meaning, or purpose. So I'll just remain silent on that aspect until somebody actually raises it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, his chart is "on the right". :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== A Matter of Common Usage ==

I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense. No, "left" and "right" are not always exact terms when they're used in the context of politics, but neither is "liberal" or "conservative" and you guys seem perfectly willing to use those terms, even going so far as to set up separate entries for "liberal" and "conservative." As I've already observed to Ed Poor, the entry on Communism plainly states that "Communism is an economic system, social organization, and LEFTIST political movement." Why, if you're willing to allow a statement about Communism being "leftist" to stand, are you squeamish about applying "right wing" to the Nazis?

They were considered "right wing" in the Nazi era in Germany. They have been referred to as "right wing" since by historians. Diarists of that time referred to them as "right wing," journalists, travel books, critics of the Nazis, supporters of the Nazis, all referred to them as "right wing." Attempting to remove that label is nothing more or less than historical revisionism, and since the term "leftist" has remained in the reference to "Communism" even after I've pointed it out, it is decidedly suspect and one-sided revisionism.

The arguments I've encountered for not applying the term "right wing" to the Nazis are an illustration of just how ridiculous is this attempt to change common usage. The Nazis rose as a response to many of the liberal policies of the Weimar Republic, the emacipation of the Jews, the increasing freedoms enjoyed by women, the rise of avant garde artists. Cramming this reality into the argument that "the Nazis weren't right wing" requires misrepresenting history, figuring out some way that the Nazis DIDN'T oppose the Weimar Republic. Thus, I've been told that the Weimar Era didn't end until 1939 and been offered a fudged quote from Albert Speer to support a claim that's not just dubious but positively surrealistic. Doesn't it give you pause that this silliness is the only way this rejection of the term "right wing" can be defended?

These objections to the "political spectrum model" come across here as simply an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles. Words have meanings, folks. What those meanings are generally depends on common usage. That's how language works. Attempts to alter common usage are almost always less about precision than they are about fulfilling a political or religious agenda.

Give up using the words "conservative" and "liberal" and maybe, just MAYBE your arguments about the words "left" and "right" will begin to have some merit. But of course you all know as well as I do that's not going to happen. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:You made a good point, which I have added to the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95340&oldid=95045] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Calling Nazi's right-wing, was a contrivance of the left. A pejorative idea, to diminish Conservatives, the right wing. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 13:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Then every journalist, every historian, every writer of travel books, every contemporary observer of Nazi Germany, every respected writer who's written about them since were and are all part of "the left." You sure you want to stick with this claim? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yeah, like suspecting all of the above is a bad thing? Not in my world! "Respected" writers are like nattering nabobs of dissent. "Conventional Wisdom" is neither. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Riiiiiigggghhhht TK... It's ALL a commie plot involving William Shirer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Milton Meyer, Victor Klemperer, Walter Cronkite, the publishers of Fodors, anybody for or against the Nazis who kept a diary at the time, and every journalist who covered them (including the guys who wrote for TIME.) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em. Try to think for yourself, not pay so much attention to people you think are icons. ;-) Time isn't considered much of a source, outside of Liberal circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::hitler and stalin were buddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact . [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::*A Socialist, by any other name, is still a Socialist. A dictator by any other name, is still a dictator. A thug is still a thug, as time goes by......... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So were Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/]. That is also of no relevance but interesting all the same.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive using the word "buddies" is inappropriate. Now, I would have to check with Don, but I don't think they were actual buddies....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK says: "Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em." LOL! Then why didn't he? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Jaques says "Hitler and Stalin were buddies." Briefly. Hitler and Hirohito were "buddies" for the duration of the war, so I guess the next step in this revisionism is for you guys to claim that Hitler wasn't a racist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hitler was indeed an out-and-out racist. And a Socialist. Hence the "National Socialist Party", and their style of governing, and the welfare state they used to control the masses. Same as the New Deal eventually led to a welfare class in the United States, one used to manipulate the vote, quite successfully. Not exactly "new" ideas. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe part of the problem is that the European right wing is different than the American right wing...European conservativism and American conservativism are just really different animals. European conservativism is statist, elitist, and monarchical, and developed out of a rejection of the classical liberal tradition. American conservativism is individualist, democratic, and republican, because "classical liberalism" is that way. The Nazis were definately a "rightist" party, and when they first took control of the government, they had to do it in coalition with the DNVP, a party on the right that was nationalistic and monarchical. That doesn't mean that they're anything like the American rightwing. But they definately weren't socialist. Any socialist elements in the Nazi party were destroyed with the Strasser purge. And there was already a welfare state in Germany before the Nazis..Bismarck introduced all sorts of social welfare programs--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK have you ready ANY books or contemporary accounts of the Third Reich -- or are you just depending on what your favorite websites tell you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Stalin was pretty racsist himself.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You are impertinent, P.F. Fox. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I am well informed, TK, and well read. Anyone who imagines that Henry Luce would have fired a reporter for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" is not very well informed.

:::From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932):

:::"There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That means nothing. How parties were characterized in the 1930's especially European political parties, had and has little to do with reality. It would be the same thing to call the Libertarian Party more like the Republican Party, or even the Democratic. While simplistically one could make some comparisons, but overall, highly inaccurate. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Ralph Waldo Emerson --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::How parties were characterized in the 1930s had much more to do with the reality of that time than how someone plainly unfamiliar with that era and with a political axe to grind characterizes them over 70 years later. What you and others here are trying to do is change the common usage of the term "right wing" that has been in effect from the 30s TO THE PRESENT. And it's interesting to note that where you were earlier stoutly declaring that "Henry Luce would have fired" reporters who referred to the Nazis as right wing, you are now denouncing his agreement with that assessment as meaningless. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see. So Socialism is a right-wing deal? Back then? No? Both? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, Socialistm is not "a right-wing deal." And the Nazis were not Socialists. Have you read ANY books on this subject? If not, don't you think that you should? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==A cultural difference==
In the United States, the term ''Right'' particularly became disabused because of its European origin. Originally it was associated with a titled nobility. No such thing ever existed in the United States, and in fact was prohibited by the United States Constititution. Hence, Europeans today have an extrememly discolored view of the "American right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:How does one "disabuse" an abstract term, which is incapable of thinking and therefore incapable of having misconceptions of which it needs to be "disabused?"

:The origins of the meaning of the word "right" and whether or not it was associated with "titled nobility" have absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. And those differences between the manner in which Europe defines "right wing" and the manner in which the United States define "right wing" are not so great that anyone either on this side of the Atlantic or the other, now or in the 1930s, had any disagreement about the Nazis being "right wing."
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:33, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Article Protection ==

Why was this article protected? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*It should be obvious, Colin. If not, talk to Andy. Revert-wars, in a pique of temper, are not encouraged here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Whether it's obvious or not, no reason for protecting it was listed. Was the article vandalized? Not from what I see. If it's just the case of a revert war, then why not try this: I will revert the article back to the version prior to the revert war (for now.) and unlock the article with the understanding that neither side of the revert war will make any edits to the debated part. The two sides can then debate/hopefully reach a compromise at [[Talk:Political_spectrum/common_usage]] and when this matter is resolved, the corrected text can be entered. Sound good? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, it's pretty obvious. Many people here seem to be intent on proving the point I was making to Ed Poor that this whole "Political Spectrum" argument is nothing more than a clumsy attempt at self-serving historical revisionism. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, Colin. I put in a reason. You are not the "decider" here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not claiming to be the decider. I'm trying to resolve this issue in a way that benefits Conservapedia, rather than leave this site with another locked page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there is the fallacy in your argument. This isn't Wikipedia, and that idea about locking pages is their good idea, and obviously yours. I don't see a problem locking a page for a few hours, or a day.

::You've got to understand, Colin, that they aren't going to revert it back to what it was before the "edit war" because they don't LIKE what it was before the edit war. This is not about preventing an "edit war." It's about altering common usage so that the leftists are dumped in with the Communists, but the Right Wingers aren't associated with Nazis. It's about trying to pass off Hitler as a leftist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::We have 50 locked articles. Wanna help me figure out which ones aren't vandalism targets or edit war battlezones? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sure, Ed. I don't consider that figure unacceptable, or bad. Shame on me! :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Ahhh, I see.....nothing pressing on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Much better! ==

'''Thank you, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My! Getting even better! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==

Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page, and replacing it with this '''complaint''':

:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.

Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?

::Couldn't agree more; I count [[User:Redblue]] having made 20 edits to [[Political spectrum]] mainspace, 9 edits to [[Leftist]], and 9 edits to [[Rightist]], and where are we any closer to any definitions than before any of these three pages were started? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:

:'Right' means defending traditional institutions and values; 'left' means challenging them.

Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.

::OK. So I am challanging the veracity of the spectrum theory; does that me make leftist? Others claim they should be accepted-- even without defining them--because it's traditional and they were taught it in high school; does that make them rightists? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.

::I agree with all of this. What I disagree with is using the Left/Right Spectrum Theory as the starting point of classification. It may have some comparative value, but what usually happens is a new group comes on stage--take [[Wahhabism]] for example--nobody knows what it is, so somebody defines it is "rightist", i.e. bad guys, and then whatever minor embarassing details need to be trimmed can be conveniently ignored later. The case of Wahhabism is one in particular I think we should examine in addition to the National Socialist, because both are very revealing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.

::One word can clarify all this--'''theory'''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.

So don't delete my definition. If you can figure out and defend a better one, that would be great. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Now I added references from a couple of introduction-to-political-science textbooks supporting my definition. I have no idea whether the authors are "leftists" or "rightists" or whatever. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Rob's complaint should be turned into a '''description''' of a well-sourced scholar view, like this:
:*According to the Confoundatarian Party, all political spectrums are illegitimate because they wind up being used pigeonhole persons and groups with false stereotypes.
:Any flaws in a left-center-right [[model]] should be noted, but not as an opinion of one CP editor - rather, attributed to a verifiable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, read my comments, please!! All I'm asking for is a '''definition''' of what's the difference between left and right. There's nothing wrong with what your old version says, only what it '''doesnt''' say: it doesnt define why some things are called left and some are called right. I provided a very simple definition, and backed it up with two sources. How can you
revert to an unsourced version without the most basic information? Meanwhile you deleted a lot of other people's contributions too... I will revert back (just once, you're the editor).

:I read that comment <grin>. It's like saying all I want for Christmas is "peace on earth, good will to men". You forget to mention a chicken in every pot and a [[perpetual motion]] machine. </grin>

:::Nonsense, Ed, it's nothing of the kind. The definition of left and right I cited can be found in Merriam Webster's Ninth. There's nothing so abstract and subjective about it that it's comparable to the platitudes you've cited. The only reason some here are upset about it is because they want a definition that would put Hitler on the left with Stalin. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF- what does MW say? I tried looking up 'political spectrum' in MW online and found nothing. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 11:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines the political usage of the term "right" (Under "R," defintion 2.8) as "individuals sometimes expressing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order." That same source defines the political usage of the term "left" (Under "L", definition 2.3) "those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics and usu advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"those professing views usu characterized by desires to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics "''
::::::This definition describes both Adolf Hitler & Osama bin Laden as lefists pretty good. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Only if you carefully ignore the part about the left "overthrowing the established order" and the right "favoring traditional attitudes and practices." Both Osama bin Laden and Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices. That puts them soldily in "the right." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Not so my friend; Hitler wanted to "overthrow the established order", i.e. the Versailles Treaty. "Hitler wanted to turn the clock back to "traditional" practices"; when was [[genocide]] as "traditional practice"? And the case of bin Laden I think we can get into more specifically as well, but not quite yet... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." And the only thing really new about the Third Reich's genocide was the modern technology and record keeping [[Heinrich Himmler]] brought to it. See the article on [[Third Reich]] for a detailed discussion of Hitler's desire to return Germany to what it was before women and Jews had gained more rights and art had moved beyond the romanticism Hitler preferred.

:::::::::I look forward with interest to seeing what definitions you're going to mangle and what historical facts you'll get thuddingly wrong in trying to pass Bin Laden off as a "leftist." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::''Hitler advocated "the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order," which is covered in the definition of "right." ''
::::::::::Well my friend, you can't make this statement because we haven't properly defined the term, "right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Robs, Sure I can. The terms "right" and "left' have been defined for years, their definitions are readily available in most dictionaries, and those definitions have ben used in regard to the Third Reich for over seven decades by both liberals and conservatives. Your attemps to pretend otherwise is as silly as your attempt to redraw the timeline for the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, enough joking around. Seriously, the problem is that no one can agree on the definitions. This article makes our creationism and evolution articles look simple (and I've reserved several even '''more contentious''' subjects for a later date - don't ask).

:Could we please '''list''' the various definitions someplace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, listing would be great. ESPECIALLY if people provide some references for their defs. Let me know if you lose my refs in all the editing/reediting. By the way, good job. I assume the fact that there is more silence now means people agree with most of the material in the draft sections... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==By the way==

By the way, this comment has nothing to do with the content of the page. So why is it included?

:The Left-Right theory does not explain how international coalitions come about. For example, the Atlantic Charter which gave birth to NATO was a statement of common objectives and inaugurated by the progressive Franklin Roosevelt and monarchist Tory Winston Churchill. Nor the common objectives pursued by George H. W. Bush and Shimon Peres of the Isreali Labor Party. Nor the alliance of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to name only a few from a multitude of examples.

The Left-Right definition was never intended to be a theory of how coalitions come about. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Ohh...yah...I see; the poltical spectrum theory is a theory that describes politcal views but when we have real life illustrations, it doesn't apply. Yes, now we understand. And it makes absolute perfect sense, too. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry Redblue...I responded on my talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sections==

We need to divide the article into sections, to avoid wasting time on edit conflicts. There are two ways to do this. The easy way requires an update to MediaWiki, so I'm going to do this the hard way. Please bear with me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for creating sections, as long as this allows actually putting some information in this page about how political scientists and tradition define the political spectrum. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Some useful sections could include "definition", "origin", "contemporary US usage", "history", and "political movements".
And "criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint" --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, here they are:
:*[[/definition]]
:*[[/origin]]
:*[[/usage]]
:*[[/history]]
:*[[/movements]]
:I'll set these up as unprotected templates that appear at the head of this talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

<blockquote>
'''We need to find a way to agree. I suggest planning. --Ed Poor 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)'''
</blockquote>

*I am glad this was fully discussed, and all parties who wanted to, have given their comments, ''in the few minutes'' since you suggested it, Ed. Thanks for allowing absolutely no input, or responding to me. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Fairness ==

Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage? [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed Poor]]

Tally: 5 yes, 0 no, 0 other

Yes:
# Gonna assume this gap is for people to fill! It's not just unfair, its an abuse of privilege! Sysop's who use their powers in such a way should have their powers removed! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Yes (to maintain count, rest of comments are being backed out by commentatrix) [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 17:01, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
#*We need to find a way to agree. I suggest [[Conservapedia:planning|planning]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Protection is for preventing vandalism, not enforcing content. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Of course it is unfair. There's some question about this? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No:

Other: ''Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
We need to find a way to agree. I suggest planning.'' --Ed Poor 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Unanimous? Sorry to break it to you Little Kings...you ain't the majority around here Anything produced will give full faith and credit to the Conservative side and the Christian side. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:41, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Nothing wrong with that, TK -- so long as you do no violence to the truth while presenting the conservative side. Unfortunately trying to pass Hitler off as a leftist and implying that Henry Luce would have fired reporters for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" does violence to the truth, whether the writer is deliberately misrepresenting things or is just saying what he or she would LIKE to be true without going through the sordid process of actually READING A BOOK OR TWO on the subject at hand. On a website that is supposed to be "educational" those kind of "errors" should be intoleratable to anyone no matter what their political persuasion. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Sorry, PF, that is where you are wrong. This site is not supposed to conform to SCIENCE, secular science. I know the Students hate seeing everything here secularized beyond any reason. I have two undergrad degrees, one post, working towards my second. I read lots of books, btw, so sorry if the thinking is "out there", beyond your ability to understand. Giving full faith and credit to Christian ideas, does, however, sometimes take a leap of faith, something secularists can't do. With prayer, I am sure you will find the strength/ability to understand. Your continued put-downs are not appreciated by most here, I have heard from over a dozen since last night, thanking me, saying they are glad someone is standing up to tyrants, aside from Conservative, intent on ramming secular/liberal content down their throats. I suggest you try harder to live up to the ideals of this site. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Whether or not Hitler was a right winger and whether or not Henry Luce would have fired someone for saying so is not a matter of "science" or "religion." It's a matter of fact and a matter of having a decent regard for the truth. Telling young people that the Nazis were leftists and that conservatives of that era like Henry Luce would have agreed with such nonsense is untrue. If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject before "teaching" students about it. If the person uttering this untruth knows better, they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*I am sorry and sad if postulating heresy makes you uneasy, or that you latch on to your misinterpretations to try and denigrate, marginalize and insult those you disagree with. You might want to ask yourself why you are so hostile to anyone suggesting alternatives to what you have preconceived notions about.....and I am not talking about stating that the Nazi's were leftists, though in matters of governance they indeed were, in model and form. Do you lack any form of intellectual openness to examine the differences between what intellectuals said in the 1930's and and the reality of their actual administration of government as opposed to their political thoughts? All I see above, posted by others in the past six hours or so, is a couple of people wanting to "bang out" a page, based on their preconceived notions, and excluding all others who might dare to suggest others topics. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::So far you have not shown enough knowledge about history to lead anyone to believe that you're really aware of the Nazi's policies in "matters of governance." And calling the Nazis' "intellectuals" is as ridiculous as calling them "leftists". They were, like most despots, profoundly ANTI-intellectual, as their book bonfires, their library purges, and their attacks on "degenerate" art shows indicate.

::I don't "bang out" pages based on preconceived notions. I base them on \reading of history, contemporary accounts and in some cases, first hand conversations with people who actually exprienced the Nazi era and/or the Red Scare. If you have sources to offer that contradict what I've posted about the Nazis opposition to feminism, avant garde art, and the rights of minorities, by all means cite them. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:30, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::PF's a guy who's views we need to study and reflect upon. A true Wikipedian in that regard, his views are unchanging and undetered by facts. For example, on the KKK page I laid out two plausible courses for development of that article [[Talk:Ku Klux Klan#Moving forward]]. PF opted to pursue the first of these two. What followed was comical [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=prev&oldid=93534][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93534][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93627][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93644][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ku_Klux_Klan&diff=next&oldid=93711] in the vein of the a classic POV nuclear arms race. This can't be anything other than frustrating to those who insist upon this kind of an approach. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Food for thought. I wonder why PF and Ed Poor want this "disposed of", rammed down everyone's throats so quickly? Did someone start a clock I am unaware of? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:23, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It is my policy to stamp out this kind of revisionism the minute I've seen it. I react in a similar manner to Holocaust revisionism. Doesn't it embarrass either of you in the slightest that the only way you can defend your absurd premise that the Nazis were leftists is by claiming that the WR didn't end until 1939, that Henry Luce would have fired reporters for calling the Nazis "right wing," and that Luce was part of some vast left-wing conspiracy (one that apparently included that wild-eyed commie, Henry Ford) to label the Nazis as leftists instead? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Ed's raised some good points, and we need some time to digest them. My own view is this page should be moved to [[Political spectrum theory]] and stood side by side with [[Theory of Evolution]]. Both date roughly from the same era, both have been misapplied in American public schools for more than century, and the resolution of both ultimately is same--they are only theories that each and every one of us individually have the freedom to embrace or reject. But to pass off either as an unchallengeable doctrinal truth just makes no sense anymore in the modern world. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, it seems as if my friend, Ed, has taken a turn, and become a pupeteer, and only insterested in moving production. Being from TV, I guess that is understandable, LOL! It does make me sad, because I thought we got along well, here and on the phone. RobS, would you look at the list "Conservative" put on my talk page, and perhaps consider taking one of the topics? I can agree with you RobS about moving it now....you've changed my mind. :-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:43, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
:Do we take a poll on the move or does WP:BOLD apply? On the list, I'm gonna try & weasel out; I can't pretend any knowledge on the scientific and technical stuff, the [[National Right to Life Committee]] is interesting but I'm afraid it might give the impression I'm a partisan or biased editor (go ahead, laugh). Truth betold, I prefer historical subjects cause there's usually little of the guessing game left and most if not all the cards are finally laid on the table. I only get involved in contemporary stuff when I'm bored, tired, or throwing a change-up. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*I just am tired of people ramming junk through, at flank speed, without allowing or wanting additional input. I just don't see the rush, haven't been informed of a need for it, and whenever two people, mostly, are engaged in a talk page, and a question is proffered, and the solution/answer follows by three minutes, it makes me uneasy. It is akin to being outflanked with Parliamentary rules at a meeting. One wonders what the underlying motive is to cut things off, and do things a certain way.......and why some have such a venomous reaction to ideas.......--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Puppetry is not necessarily a television thing, but I did take unilateral action here. If you want something different, go ahead. I just thought have individually editable sections might break the deadlock. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:55, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:While the organized approach is admirable, the problem is Step 1, "Definition"; they simply are not going to be able to complete this section in any reasonable or meaningful manner, which render the rest moot. "Common understandings" is more fitting, and then you can cite whatever theoretician you please.

:To grossly oversimplify the root problem, the original meaning or definition is inextricably linked up with Church/State issues, or "the God question" as I refer to it from the late 18th century Enlightenment period. At its root is faith vs rationalism, or atheism vs the Church, etc. The so-called "right", defined as "traditional interests" meant the Church & monarchy who ruled by [[Divine Right]]. With 20th century fascism a need arose to define certain Socialists, atheists, and other anti-God elements as "right wing", which PF Fox never stops refering to. So it's a redefinition of the term that we're talking about. No longer does one have to be faith-based or God fearing to be defined as right-wing, you can mold your hatred of God & the Church to anyone you despise. In fact, it really doesn't matter what your political views are, since the definition is left wing = good guy, freedom loving, and for the betterment of humanity, whereas right wing = pro oppression. So if they don't like you, voila, you are a right wing bigot (leftists, by definition, cannot be bigots).

:We've seen something very similiar regarding Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial had been around since 1945 when Herman Goering argued in his defense at Nuremberg it was "technically impossible". In the late 70s David Irving did not deny the Holocaust occured as Goering had done, he denied Hitler order it. So the term was redefined to apply to persons who did not deny the Holocaust occured. Now the term "Holocaust denier" can be applied to anyone, since denying the Holocaust occured is nolonger a prerequisite to earn the label. This in fact is the what the Wikipedia/Daniel Brandt dispute is all about (see [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]], #43).

:Ed, can we go ahead and move [[Political spectrum]] to [[Political spectrum theory]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:02, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Ed, "by your example (unilateral action) so shall you lead. This is why there is so little cooperation, and so much uni action. Can a Wiki or business endure by uni action? What is the rush on all of this? We have little hitlers running around manipulating the software to hide their treachery, moving Christian and Conservative articles to disambiguation at will, removing all articles but one from certain classifications, to circumvent debate. When all that fails, their morally bankrupt minds turn to insults and attempts to marginalize others by insulting their education, or ability to read. I am almost sure that I could go to a Satanist site and find people who were kinder, more accepting and tolerant of newbies. The underlying tone of this place has to change! I know this is not all your fault, I do feel you are trying mightily But sometimes trying to cooperate with others only emboldens them to continue their "elitist" ways. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:12, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

If I knew how, or wouldn't be attacked for doing so, I would move it Rob. If you know, you don't have to wait for Ed to okay it, you know. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 17:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

*Now if I acted like most here, I would say that because no further discussion, all is decided, make the changes, and be "done".--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

===More Church/State stuff===
The so-called "leftist" elements were born out of the enlightened, atheistic, rationalistic trends that overran entrenced interests and entrenched thinking. What does it mean to be "enlightened"? It means essentially to wake up and realize there is no God, that the monarchy & church were set up to keep poor people & peasants (perhaps wage earners too) down on the farm. This enlightened view of "Leftism" is little changed in 200 years.

Deist movement can also be regarded as, what we would call today, a "code word", for something that was utterly unholy & unspeakable in the 1790s. Few upstanding members of any community openly professed atheism, but their challenge to the existing order (political, scientific, literary, academic) in thier "rationalizations" and writings, even today we can read it as an intellectualized atheism. All true what you said about fascism & nazism, but in its final distilled form it certainly does not adhere to traditional orthodox (Protestant or Catholic) Christian doctrine. As to contemporary African-Americans, I have wracked my brain trying to recall anyone openly profess atheism, and have failed. Nonetheless, if the object is to try and develope as clear a line as possible from the French Revolution to today of a "Left" & "Right", I think it may be found (with some deviations) by examining the school of thought known as rationalism (which stereotypically extends to atheism & "enlightened thinking"), or by examining Church/State issues.

There are broad socio-political movements, some stridently ideological, some born of the practical necessity of the moment, with only an ideological veneer. Individuals can be hard to assign a category. Robespierre may be an excellent example. He opposed leftist anarchy & rightist restoration, yet understood society needed a political foundation. All the moderate-centrists of today would be offended to have Robespierre in their midst, but that's what he may well be, a centrist-terrorist, if there is such a thing, born of the practical necessity of his time (without forgiving him), of recognizing the need for some kind of order, and not being burdened with ideological inconsistencies.

:This is good stuff, Rob, but I think you can see know that our task is almost hopeless at this point. We should first define and explain the building blocks before trying to describe the architecture of the building (let alone try to account for the twisted mess of debris resulting from the building's collapse. ;-) Do you know anything about [[Hellenism]] or [[Hebraism]]? How about the [[Renaissance]] and the [[Reformation]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::The problem is I don't subscribe to any of this garbage; I do not beleive all politcal views, actions and groups are ideologically driven. And it can be proven, as Redblue says, the theory is not all encompassing, and frequently falls down. I don't see any more value to ascribe a person or group as left or right than beleiving the human species walked on all fours at one time. To me they are both bizarre theories that each and everyone of us has the personal freedom to either accept or reject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Do you subscribe to calling Red "red," blue "blue," Yellow "yellow," etc? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Definition STILL needed==

Ed Poor-- when you log on I hope you will finally be ready to put some definitions of 'political spectrum' on the political spectrum page. I have now written up three definitions of political spectrum, and provided three references supporting the one I think is most standard. RobS made some irrelevant criticisms of the three definitions, which I have rebutted. Nobody else has proposed any definition other than the ones I gave.

RobS seems to assume I am some sort of leftist, so let me just state for the record that I was born and raised and still consider myself a conservative American Catholic. I'm disappointed that I need to say that. I hoped making intelligent, helpful, respectful contributions, factual and with references, would suffice. Unfortunately this site is not living up to my initial expectations, and the biggest contributions I've made on this site (ie a lot of work on the political spectrum page) got reverted completely by Ed... I understand Teresita was pretty upset about losing her contributions too.

:Congratulations. We are glad you feel good about yourself, too.

It seems I shouldn't need to explain why an encyclopedia page about the political spectrum should define the political spectrum. But notice that there have been hot debates here again and again about whether the Nazis etc etc are leftist or rightist. The page as it currently stands ONLY says who is CALLED leftist or rightist.

:''who is CALLED leftist or rightist''
::who is CALLED a leftist or rightist '''by whom'''?

It makes no attempt to explain why. Therefore any debate about where some group falls on the spectrum is just NAME CALLING,

::NAME CALLING of who, by who?

and nothing more. What we need is A DEFINITION (or some definitions) so that PF Fox and RobS can say "well Osama is a ---- because definition 1 says ----" or "no, Osama is a ---- because definition 2 ---- implies -----". They would probably still detest each other, but at least they would be having a real debate instead of just engaging in name calling.

One point RobS seems upset about is that he seems to think the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. I don't think any political scientist uses it that way. SOME political positions can be classified on the left-right axis, not all.

:This is exactly my point; nevertheless, abuses occur.

I added a preamble to the list of definitions to try to clarify that.

I have inserted the word 'theory', in the hope that it might help convince RobS. Personally I think it's silly to call the left-right spectrum a 'theory':

:So, if it is not theory, then what is it?

it's just a definition

:definition by whom?

used to classify something, like 'crunchy' versus 'mushy'. If I say a bowl of cereal is mushy, it seems silly to call that a 'theory'... I'm just classifying according to a definition. But if 'theory' makes Rob happier, I guess there is no harm in that.

Another thing that bothers RobS is that he seems to think calling somebody 'right' is slander. I don't understand that. According to the main definition I proposed, 'right' means standing up for traditional institutions and values, which sounds extremely respectable to me.

:Oh, so you like PF Fox, maintain [[genocide]] is "standing up for traditional institutions and values"?

In particular, in Europe the words left and right are used without any sense of insult at all. I know, because several years ago my company sent me to live and work in Spain, and I speak Spanish, and read the local papers, and know many people here. Obviously, if you start calling somebody 'extreme right' or 'extreme left', you are looking for a fight. But if you just call them left or right, that's just like calling them liberal or conservative in the US. In fact, lots of people respectfully say left/right in the US too, it's just a little less common.

Also, I almost never use the word 'liberal' any more, because it is much too confusing. If I say it to an American, they think 'left'; but if I say it to a European, they think 'right' (and if I say it in a mixed group, well, nobody understands).

That's one of the things that disappoints me about Conservapedia. There are lots of contributors running around calling each other names, but many pages completely lack definitions. We need to DEFINE the words we use, so that we can have more civil and intelligent debates.---[[User:Redblue|Redblue ]]

:*Please don't think me rude in saying this, but poor Ed Poor is but one Sysop, although a highly valuable one! His "powers" are exactly the same as all of us who are Sysop's. Now, his abilities of persuasion, and communication, are in many cases, greater than the rest of us! ;-) --- Please don't be too impatient, as many things have been happening lately. The need for decision here is not on the "back burner", and is on our minds. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 08:02, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

[[Image:NolanChart70-0.png|right|thumb|Libertarians try a 2-d approach]]
:I set up the subpages and templates with you specifically in mind, RB. (May I call you RB?) You are the best organized writer on the topic. I couldn't have an edit war, or take part in one, and I suddenly thought of a possible way out. I need to write this up at [[Conservapedia:Partial page protection]].

:Nobody should have to give their political credentials, but that's how it is in this country: everyone wants to label you and pigeonhole you ... which leads us right back to the topic! :-)

:Sorry about my big reversion. I didn't actually delete anything, it's all in the [[page history]], but I definitely got the message about how upsetting it was. I spent a lot of time setting it up so that we can get back on track and not have any more edit wars on the topic. I hope it works out.

:I daresay a lot of politics is (as you suggest) simply [[name calling]]. Dukakis is "a [[Liberal]]". Bush is "an [[idiot]]". The Israeli prime minister is "a [[Nazi]]." The [[contras]] were "[[terrorist]]s". Etc. Do these terms actually mean anything? Linguists make a distinction between the [[denotation]] and [[connotation]] of a word. Would you rather have a segment of muscle tissue from an immature castrated bull, or a "nice thick juicy steak"?

:RobS is right: the political spectrum is supposed to classify every single political position. However, where everybody goes wrong is in thinking that this is actually possible. It's not the right tool for job, and you'll go crazy trying to make this square peg fit into the round hole. "I have to, but I can't," as [[Brian Tracy]] puts it.

:I disagree with using the term ''theory'' in connection with the spectrum. There's no theory without an explanation (see [[theory and fact]], an article which I recently started).

:And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]], the world's most universally despised man. I'd be better off calling you a 'mofo' or Obama a n****, because, "Son, them's fightin' words!"

:Sure, we need a definition, but these political labels don't have any actual definitions, and we would be false to our readers to pretend (1) that they have definite meaning or (2) that any of us here are capable of saying what those meanings are.

:The word [[Conservative]] implies standing up for traditional institutions and values; whether that is a noble of foolish thing to do is anyone's guess. To an opponent of slavery and racism, tearing down such institutions and values would be more respectable than preserving them. To an antebellum Southern gentleman, the opposite would hold.

:Civility comes from within, but intelligence can be developed on the foundation of reliable and trustworthy knowledge.

:I have replied to you at length, because you are a valuable contributor and this is but the '''easiest''' of a whole slew of '''really tough''' issues we are going to face. We need to stick together and help each other. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
*''And now I come to the main point, which is that some people resist being called "right-wing" because it associates them with [[Adolf Hitler]],''
**the sad truth about this is, I can provide the contemporary evidence where this is exactly the case, from organizations funded by the Democratic National Committee to do exactly that--link and tie the Republican Party through pseudo-scholarship and guilt by association slanders to National Socialism. And Redblue stated as much, his high school NEA teachers brainwashed his impression young mind with this slanderous garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:17, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*It is difficult to undo several decades of babble speak, wherein the leftists sought to remove any connection between the National ''Socialist'' Party and the themselves. While people have not a care in the world saying Socialist's are leftist, the true fact is, the Nazi's were indeed Socialists. Aside from Hitler's wacky race ideas, their governing completely fits socialist norms. Perhaps given enough time, they would have even become more communistic in their model. I know it makes people traditionally molded into lock-step thinking, all one has to do is examine their governmental model, without NSP or Nazi labels on it, and the only conclusion one would make is that it was some typical European Socialist government. That being said, it shouldn't, IMO, hold up our progress here. Perhaps a short statement questioning conventional thought as to why Political Scientist's made this error, would be enough....my personal experience mirrors exactly what Rob wrote above. I was in college, and a wise professor presented several governing models, factual models of actual governments, all with labeling them. Without exception the class said model "C" was a typical socialist governance model. We were shocked to learn, absent the racial "facts" that sprung from those anti-Semites sick minds, the (Nazi) National ''Socialist'' Party was indeed just that.--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::::My view is that [[Fascism]] and [[Communism]] are both [[Totalitarian]]. The battle between the two about 'right' and 'left' is but a [[smokescreen]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::This is turning into a fruitful discussion. I think Church/State issues originally defined the spectrum, but it was redefined several times over the decades. American founding fathers were "leftist" in this regard, in not cowtowing to the Church of England and Constitutionally rejecting a titled nobility. Conservative [[Tories]] who were loyal to Crown, like [[Benedict Arnold]], founded that Tory colony of Canada. Then that commie symp [[FDR]] made an alliance with that Tory Churchill which true American "leftists", i.e. true to the principals of the founding fathers, opposed. Finally that Tory Thatcher laid a rose on that classical liberal economic thinker, Ronald Reagan's coffin, signifying true American liberals loyal to the principals of the founders have finally made peace with anti-American Tories and traitors who once sought to destroy the Union. My, how far we've come. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:25, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

*ROFL!! A good turn of phrase there, Rob! And on point, Ed! Everything since the mid-thirties has been "spun" completely out of Whackyville, so as to render definitions useless. And that was my obtuse point. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:31, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
**OK, so Ed dissents, but still agrees it is only theory. Once we make the page move, then we can include whatever whacked-out theory you want, provided we have a source to say, for instance, the Prophet Mohammad was a Right-wing fundementalist, whereas his daughter Fatima, founder of Shi'a Islam, was a Left-wing reformer who challenged the existing order. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::*-Faints- :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

:::From TK "*It is difficult to undo several decades of babble speak, wherein the leftists sought to remove any connection between the National ''Socialist'' Party and the themselves."

::::So it's your premise that Henry Ford and Henry Luce were "leftists?"

::::From TK "While people have not a care in the world saying Socialist's are leftist, the true fact is, the Nazi's were indeed Socialists. Aside from Hitler's wacky race ideas, their governing completely fits socialist norms."

::::Examples of this, please. And it wasn't just their racism that put them on the "right" -- it was their attitude towards art, culture, women, the military, etc.

::::Have you gotten around to actually READING something on the subject? William Shirer would be a good place to start.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:30, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::PF, here's a good link [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948. I suspect we're gonna use a lot of this material on Conservapedia. Excerpted,

"Left and Right, indeed, have become the characteristic political terms of our time. Without specific color or content, they define the polar ends of the political spectrum - a spectrum in which the word Center, fashionable a generation or two ago, is harder and harder to find. Yet the terms themselves have bred a new confusion. '''They were adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century''', when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. '''But the twentieth century''', here as elsewhere, '''introduced new ambiguities'''.

"The Fascists, for example, were not conservative in any very meaningful sense. They did not wish to preserve the existing order, or even to turn back the clock to some more stable century. They purposefully planned to transform the existing order into a new and all-absorbing authoritarianism, based upon the energies and frustrations of modern industrialism. The Fascists, in a meaningful sense, were revolutionaries. Yet their totalitarian ideal hardly fitted into the pattern of the Left, which had been the traditional home of greater freedoms and more generous aspirations. So, '''after boggling and uncertainty, ''they were assigned'' positions on the far Right'''.

:Note the keyword Schlesinger uses, '''''assigned''''', the same word I used in my defintion, '''''a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold.''''' [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95904&oldid=95895] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:20, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Page title ==

I see no reason for the move to "theory". A theory is an explanation. The present article provides no explanation, and hardly even any examples. So I moved it back. Maybe unprotecting it will help. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:32, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
:The problem is, in absense of the disclaimer "theory", we are embracing a doctrine here, which is impossible to articulate. As a theory, the student is free to accept or reject the underlying premises of the theory without swallowing what really is an unstated or ever-changing doctrine. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::My point, and possibly Schlesinger's as well, is that the terms are not well-defined. I agree that the "model" is inarticulate. Reminds me of the climate models used to justify [[anthropogenic global warming theory]]. You can't test a model which is not based on a theory, so there's no way to [[falsify]] it, and it is therefore [[pseudoscience]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:27, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It is a useful comparative device ''after the models have been developed''; it is not a point of origin for building a doctine. In otherwords, it is useful to say British Tories & American Republicans share these things (fill in the blank) in common, therefore comparatively they may be called "right". To say the ''point of origin'' of "Leftist" means "challenging the traditional order", therefore al-Qeade and gay rights movement are leftist. This is patently absurd. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:21, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

You completely lost me, there, Rob. What model is there other than "right preserves" & "left seeks change"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's no evidence for "left seeks change" to begin with. You yourself asked who is "who is right-wing in Russia today, free-market Thatcherites or unreformed Stalinists". Both are seeking change now after 70 years of stagnated Leftism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:29, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

== Structure ==

What is the point of having two sections, "Origins", and "History"; seems redundant, unless we plan to document each twist and turn in the road where a redfinition took place. " Criticisms of a one-dimensional view " is flawed and meaningless, cause nobody agrees on anything else to begin with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:28, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

*I agree, Rob. I think we are all thinking too detailed, and some articles, like this one, would be better presented in a more vague, less detailed way. Thoughts? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:44, 12 April 2007 (EDT)
**That's the hard part; I thought calling it a theory gave us the opportunity to speak in vaguaries and generalities, but we haven't got a concensus on that. So that means we gotta present detailed facts and keep misinformation out.
**Repeatedly, how the problem works is this: a student becomes indoctrinated into the vague concept of "Leftism"; then whatever hackneyed idea can dressed up as "leftist" becomes kosher, and whatever needs to be demonized is simply called right-wing reactionary, and no real analysis of substance or content takes place. That why I say it should not be used as a "point of origin", but rather has only value comparatively, i.e. after detailed analysis of substance and content is completed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==typo==

"Islam of Czarist Russia" (end of first paragraph under "definitions")should obviously be an "or" not "of", fix at your leisure... [[User:Human|Human]] 14:22, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Bakunin critiques Marx==
Here's an interesting critique of [[Karl Marx]] by [[Mikhail Bakunin]] written in 1873.
*Michael Bakunin, ''Statism and Anarchy'', (1873), in Sam Dolgoff, ''Bakunin On Anarchy'', (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1972), p. 330.

:"..if the [[proletariat]] is to be the ruling class, over whom is it to rule? ...the peasant "rabble" who, as it is known, does not enjoy the sympathy of the Marxists who consider it to represent a lower level of culture, will probably be ruled by the factory proletariat of the cities. Or, if this problem is to be approached nationalistically, the Slavs will be placed in the same subordinate relationship to the victorious German proletariat in which the latter now stands to the German bourgeoisie."

This quote from Bakunin is not only prophetic about what [[National Socialism]], (i.e. Nazism), (a) is, but what National Socialism (b) did. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:19, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

==Political ideas==

We are wasting a lot of time trying to pin down a rainbow. Give it up, gents!

Better to describe the views of various thinkers or parties. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:55, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
:Labeling it a theory is the easiest route; elsewise we need good, solid, factual cites for any claim or generalization. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:01, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Why not go with the first two paragraphs, and leave it? That is enough to explain the term. Concise is good. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 19:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

::*The rest of the stuff is real good, and we're gonna need it sooner or later. And I have much, much more. But I still think the best alternative is to label it a theory, and that will eliminate a lot of contentious disputes. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:02, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

:::*Okey-dokey by me. It will need to be protected, I am assuming, for a while, to avoid constant wholesale change? Do we have a template notice to warn against lots of changes, pending posting about it here? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 20:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Asked a question ==

I was wondering if anyone was interested in making a Conservapedian political spectrum quiz. There are many quizzes like this online, but not all of them are trustworthy or accurate. If we made one, it could accurately guage our location on the political spectrum with a wide range of political issues and answers that range beyond two polarized answers. Also possibly "Libertarian" and "More Government" as areas on the spectrum to go with "Liberal" and "Conservative". Does anyone feel as though [http://www.isidewith.com/ iSideWith.com] already does a good enough job with this? --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 9:42, 20 January 2017 (EDT)

Talk:Donald Trump

2017-01-20T14:22:55Z

KommissarReb: Added response

American Civil War: 1863

2017-01-06T14:36:11Z

KommissarReb: Added info of Russian assistance to the USA

{{American Civil War3
| image =Confederate-prisoners.jpg
| president =[[Abraham Lincoln]]
| president2 =[[Jefferson Davis]]
| vicepresident =[[Hannibal Hamlin]]
| vicepresident2 =[[Alexander Stephans]]
| secstate =[[William Seward]]
| secstate2 =Judah P. Benjamin
| secwar =[[Edwin M. Stanton]]
| secwar2 =James A. Seddon
| secnavy =Gideon Welles
| secnavy2 =Stephan R. Mallory
}}
At the beginning of 1863, the Confederacy seemed to have a fair chance of ultimate success on the battlefield. During this year, however, three great campaigns would shape the outcome of the war in favor of the North. The first would see the final solution to the control of the Mississippi River. A second, concurrent with the first, would break the back of any Confederate hopes for success by invasion of the North and recognition abroad. The third, slow and uncertain in its first phases, would result eventually in Union control of the strategic gateway to the South Atlantic region of the Confederacy—the last great stronghold of secession and the area in which the aims of military operations were as much focused on destroying the economic infrastructure of the South as defeating main-force rebel units.

For the social, political, economic and diplomatic history see [[American Civil War homefront]]

==Eastern Theater==
The course of the war in the east in 1863 was dramatic and, in many ways, decisive. After the battle of Fredericksburg in December 1862, Maj. Gen. [[Ambrose Burnside]]’s Army of the Potomac went into winter quarters on the north bank of the Rappahannock, while the main body of General [[Robert E. Lee]]’s Army of Northern Virginia held Fredericksburg and guarded the railway line to Richmond. During January of the new year, Burnside’s subordinates intrigued against him and went out of channels to present their grievances to Congress and President [[Abraham Lincoln]]. When Burnside heard of this development, he asked that either he or most of the subordinate general officers be removed. The President, not pleased with either Burnside’s string of failures or his ultimatum, accepted the first alternative and on January 25, 1863, replaced Burnside with Maj. Gen. [[Joseph Hooker]]. He was highly favored in Washington, but in appointing him the President wrote a letter that went right to the point:

:''Major General Hooker:''
:''General.''

:''I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Of course I have done this upon what appear to me to be sufficient reasons. And yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things in regard to which, I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be a brave and a skilful soldier, which, of course, I like. I also believe you do not mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You have confidence in yourself, which is a valuable, if not an indispensable quality. You are ambitious, which, within reasonable bounds, does good rather than harm. But I think that during Gen. Burnside's command of the Army, you have taken counsel of your ambition, and thwarted him as much as you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country, and to a most meritorious and honorable brother officer. I have heard, in such way as to believe it, of your recently saying that both the Army and the Government needed a Dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spite of it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gain successes, can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The government will support you to the utmost of it's ability, which is neither more nor less than it has done and will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit which you have aided to infuse into the Army, of criticising their Commander, and withholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assist you as far as I can, to put it down. Neither you, nor Napoleon, if he were alive again, could get any good out of an army, while such a spirit prevails in it.''

:''And now, beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but with energy, and sleepless vigilance, go forward, and give us victories.''

:''Yours very truly''
:''A. Lincoln'' [http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/hooker.htm]

Under Hooker’s able administration, discipline and training improved. Morale, which had fallen after the Fredericksburg debacle, rose as Hooker regularized the furlough system and improved the flow of rations and other supplies to his front-line troops. Abolishing Burnside’s grand divisions, Hooker returned to the previous corps organization of seven corps, each numbering about 15,000 men. One of Hooker’s most effective innovations was the introduction of corps badges to provide a sense of identity in a unit and improve esprit de corps. He also took a long step toward improving the army’s cavalry arm, which up to this time had been assigned many diverse duties and was split up into small detachments. Hooker regarded cavalry as a combat arm of full stature, and he concentrated his units into a cavalry corps of three divisions under Brig. Gen. George Stoneman. On the other hand, Hooker made a costly mistake in decentralizing tactical and administrative control of his artillery to his corps commanders. This may have improved tactical usage of artillery, but it prevented the focusing of massive amounts of artillery on a single front. As a result, the artillery, in which the Union had a distinct advantage in numbers, would not be properly massed in the coming action at Chancellorsville and thus was not as effective as it could have been.
[[Image:Joe Hooker.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Major General Joseph Hooker. A misinterpretation of a battle report he sent by telegram to the press with the words "Fighting - Joe Hooker", meant to be a tag in print as to who was fighting, led to its being printed without the hyphen, and to a nickname he detested.]]
Hooker had no intention of repeating Burnside’s tragic frontal assault at Fredericksburg. With a strength approaching 134,000 men, Hooker planned a bold double envelopment that would place strong Union forces on each of Lee’s flanks. He hoped to take advantage of his superior numbers to outmaneuver Lee. He ordered three of his infantry corps to move secretly west up the Rappahannock and Rapidan and to ford the streams to outflank Lee to the north. Meanwhile, two more corps, having conspicuously remained opposite Fredericksburg, were to strike across the old battlefield there to tie down Lee’s forces. Two more corps were held in reserve. The cavalry corps, less one division that was to screen the move upriver, was to raid far behind Lee’s rear to divert him.

Hooker’s plan was superb, his execution faulty. The three corps moved quickly up the river and by the end of April had crossed and advanced to the principal road junction of Chancellorsville. They were now in the so-called Wilderness, a low, flat, confusing area of scrub timber and narrow dirt roads in which movement and visibility were extremely limited. Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick crossed the Rappahannock at Fredericksburg on the twenty-ninth, and the two remaining corps moved to within supporting distance of Hooker at Chancellorsville. So far everything had gone according to plan, except that Stoneman’s diversion had failed to bother Lee. One of Brig. Gen. J. E. B. Stuart’s brigades kept Stoneman under surveillance while the main body of cavalry shadowed Hooker so effectively that the Southern commander knew every move the Union Army made. By the morning of April 30, Lee was aware of what was afoot and knew that he was threatened by double envelopment. Early on May 1, Hooker was sending his columns east, toward the back door to Fredericksburg. A less bold and resolute man than Lee would have retreated south at once and with such ample justification that only the captious would have found fault. But the Southern general, his army numbering only 60,000, decided to take a bold risk. Using the principles of the offensive, maneuver, economy of force, and surprise to compensate for his inferior numbers, he decided to attack an enemy almost twice his size. Instead of retreating, he left a small part of his army to hold the heights at Fredericksburg and started west for Chancellorsville with the main body. Lee’s superb intelligence and reconnaissance, based largely on his expert cavalry force, provided him with accurate and timely intelligence so Hooker’s every move was known to him while his own plans were hidden from Hooker.

===[[Battle of Chancellorsville]]===
[[Image:SWall.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Stonewall Jackson, photographed for the last time, four days before Chancellorsville.]]
[[image:Chancellorsville May1 2.png|thumb|200px|right|Chancellorsville on May 1–2, 1863; Lee had just divided his army.]]
Then Hooker lost his nerve. Since he did not know exactly where Lee was, he began taking counsel of his fears and failed to follow his own plan. Over the vehement protests of his corps commanders, he ordered the troops back into defensive positions around Chancellorsville, surrendering the initiative to Lee. The Federals established a line in the forest, felled trees for an abatis, and constructed earth-and-log breastworks. Their position faced generally east and south, anchored on the Rappahannock on the east; but in the west along the Orange turnpike, it was weak, unsupported, and hanging in the air. Lee brought his main body up and on May 1 made contact with Hooker’s strong left. At the same time, Stuart’s cavalry discovered Hooker’s vulnerable right flank and promptly reported the intelligence to Lee. Conferring that night with Lieutenant General [[Thomas J. Jackson]], Lee made a truly daring decision. Facing an army much greater than his own, having already divided his forces by leaving some units back at Fredericksburg, he decided to divide his forces again to further envelop the envelopers. Accordingly, Lee committed 17,000 men against Hooker’s left to hold it in place while Jackson with 26,000 men made a wide, fifteen-mile swing to get beyond Hooker’s right flank. Lee’s decision was technically a violation of the principles of mass and concentration; but the principles are guides, not laws. A bold commander can knowingly undertake a higher measure of calculated risk if the potential reward is high enough. And Lee was probably the boldest risk taker of the war. In addition, while Lee’s two forces were separated, their common objective was the Army of the Potomac and their ultimate routes converged on a common center.

Jackson’s force, in a ten-mile-long column, moved out before daybreak on May 2, marching southwest first then swinging northwest to get into position. The Federals noted that something was happening off to the south but were unable to penetrate the defensive screen; Hooker soon began to think that Lee was actually retreating. In the late afternoon Jackson turned onto the Orange turnpike beyond Wilderness Tavern. This move put him west of Hooker’s right flank; since the woods thinned out a little at this point, it was possible to form a line of battle. Because time was running short and the hour was late, Jackson deployed in column of divisions, each division formed with brigades abreast, the same kind of confusing formation General Albert S. Johnston had used at Shiloh. Shortly after 5:00 P.M. Jackson’s leading division, shrieking the "rebel yell" and driving startled rabbits and deer before it, came charging out of the woods, rolling up the different brigades of Maj. Gen. Oliver O. Howard’s XI Corps. Despite a few heroic attempts to stand in the face of the rebel onslaught, the Union troops retreated in disarray. Jackson pressed forward, but fresh Union troops, the disorganization of his own men, and oncoming darkness stymied the attack. While searching for a road that would permit him to cut off Hooker from United States Ford across the Rappahannock, Jackson fell victim to friendly fire. During the night of May 2, Stuart, Jackson’s temporary successor as corps commander, re-formed his lines. Against Stuart’s right Hooker launched local counterattacks that at first gained some success, but the next morning he withdrew his whole line. Once more Hooker yielded the initiative at a moment when he had a strong force between Lee’s two divided and weaker forces.

Stuart renewed the attack during the morning as Hooker pulled his line back. To complicate matters further, Hooker was knocked unconscious when a shell struck the pillar of the Chancellor House against which he was leaning. Until the end of the battle he was dazed and incapable of exercising effective command, but he did not relinquish it nor would the army’s medical director declare him unfit. Union artillery, centrally located but not centrally controlled, might have proven decisive at this point of the battle; but its fires were not coordinated. Meanwhile, Sedgwick, who shortly after Jackson’s attack had received orders to proceed through Fredericksburg to Chancellorsville, had assaulted Marye’s Heights. He carried it about noon on May 3, but the next day Lee once more divided his command, leaving Stuart with 25,000 to guard Hooker, and moved himself with 21,000 to thwart Sedgwick. In a sharp action at Salem Church, Lee forced the Federals off the road and northward over the Rappahannock at Banks’ Ford. Lee made ready for a full-scale assault against the Army of the Potomac, now huddled with its back against the river on May 6; but Hooker ordered retirement to the north bank before the attack. Confederate losses were 13,000, Federal losses 17,000. Lee’s brilliant and daring maneuvers had defeated only one man — Hooker — and in no other action of the war did moral superiority of one general over the other stand out so clearly as a decisive factor in battle.

Stonewall Jackson was taken to a small cabin at Guinea Station, Virginia, where his left arm was amputated. He seemed to recuperate, and progress was sent to General Lee, who replied that while "Jackson has lost his left arm, I have lost my right arm." But pneumonia had set in, and on May 10 he was dead. Some said that his last words conjured up memories of his boyhood home, pleasant images of Jackson's Mill. "Come, let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees."

==A second invasion north==
[[Image:Gettysburg Campaign.png|thumb|200px|right|The Gettysburg Campaign]]
Indecision seemed to strike General Hooker again. He waited for nearly a week before ordering his troops to break camp and then marched cautiously northward, keeping his army between Washington and the suspected Confederate route of march. By this time, Lee's troops had already defeated a Union force at Winchester, Virginia, and crossed the Potomac River into Maryland.

General Lee was not ready to sit idle and wait for the next Union thrust after Chancellorsville. He had communicated with Richmond for several months on his desire to make another invasion of the North and by late May saw an opportunity to take the initiative while Union forces appeared to be in disarray. Lee's objectives were quite simple: take the war out of Virginia so that the land could recover, a necessary measure to provide relief to farms and farmland devastated by battle and foraging armies, and to gather supplies for his hungry army. His army's movement north of the Potomac River would not only force the Union Army out of Virginia, but hopefully also draw Union troops away from the ongoing siege of Vicksburg. Once his army had raided northern territory, he could gather his troops for battle in an area to his liking where advantages of position could force the Union to attack and Lee counterattack as opportunities were presented. Politically, Lee reasoned a conclusive victory on northern soil would add weight to the growing Northern peace movement, apply pressure to the Lincoln administration to end the war and sue for peace, and provide sufficient reason for official recognition of the Confederacy by European powers. Only the political diplomacy of the Lincoln administration had kept England and France from recognizing the southern government as an independent nation. Lee's argument was reasonable to Jefferson Davis and though the Confederate president was nervous about Richmond not being fully protected by Lee's forces, he approved the plan.

Despite the loss of Stonewall Jackson, the Army of Northern Virginia was never stronger both in manpower and high morale than in the summer of 1863. "It was an army of veterans," recalled A.H. Belo, Colonel of the 55th North Carolina Infantry, "an army that had in two years' time made a record second to none for successful fighting and hard marching." In mid-June, Lee's soldiers crossed the Potomac River and stepped into a rich land barely touched by the war. Except for some persistent Union cavalry units, the southerners tramped along unopposed as militia units retreated from their path leaving the land and its residents to the mercy of the Confederates.

For Lee's men who had been living for months on reduced rations, Maryland and Pennsylvania were bursting with plenty. "I can hardly believe that a rebel army has actually left poor Virginia for a season," wrote Major Eugene Blackford of the 5th Alabama Infantry. "Of course there is no end of milk and butter which our soldiers enjoy hugely." Encounters with the civilian population of Maryland and Pennsylvania made for good subject matter in letters home such as that of Private William McClellan of the 9th Alabama Infantry, who described Pennsylvanians as, "the most ignorant beings of the world. They don't care how long the war lasts so they are not troubled." Like many of his comrades, McClellan especially detested the females who, "would not look at a Rebel, they would turn up their nose and toss their heads to one side as contemp(t)uously as if we were high way Robers."

"There's hardly any sickness or straggling in the army," added Private Eli Landers, 16th Georgia Infantry. "We have a large army now in Pennsylvania and it is good and in fine spirits. We intend to let the Yankey Nation feel the sting of the War as our borders has ever since the war began." Despite the feelings of retribution that Landers and his fellow soldiers had, on June 21, General Lee issued Order No. 72, which forbade the seizure or theft of private property. Federal property was another matter. Confederate quartermasters used their authority to seize Federal stores found in government warehouses, post offices, and railroad depots. Anything that was of use to the southern army was quickly inventoried and carried away, much to the dismay of Federal authorities. Quartermasters also purchased needed supplies from merchants and privately owned storehouses. Soldiers begged for food from civilians and were often rewarded by farmers too frightened to refuse the Confederate money handed them in payment. Apart from some minor infractions, the Confederates obeyed General Lee's order and respected civilian property.

Yet, northern store owners found themselves in a quandary when their shops were suddenly filled with armed men who helped themselves to boots and shoes before inspecting other goods the owner may have in stock. Cloth, hats, canned foods and other groceries were in high demand. Much to the storekeeper's dismay, the Confederates paid in southern script that was worthless above the Mason–Dixon line. But most accepted the Confederate paper hoping that it could be eventually exchanged for Federal notes. Many more were careful to hide some of their inventory before the Confederates arrived or be strangely absent with shop doors bolted when the dusty column of Confederates entered a town whose civilian population was already on edge from rumors of rampant thievery and towns burned to the ground. Many of these wild rumors centered around the feared "Louisiana Tigers", rumored by many northerners to be the toughest southern soldiers and the most lawless. Such was the case when the first Confederate column, commanded by General Jubal Early entered Gettysburg, demanding supplies and money. "After matters had been satisfactorily arranged between our Burgess and the Rebel officers," recalled Fannie Buehler who resided on Baltimore Street, "the men settled down and the citizens soon learned that no demands were to be made upon them and that all property would be protected. Some horses were stolen, some cellars broken open and robbed, but so far as could be done, the officers controlled their men. The 'Louisiana Tigers' were left and kept outside of town."

This first encounter was not without a bloody mishap. A small squad from the 21st Pennsylvania Emergency Cavalry was chased out of town and Private George Sandoe was shot and killed, the first official casualty of the coming battle. Early did not tarry for long in Gettysburg, but moved on toward York and Columbia where he was stopped by Pennsylvania militia that burned the bridge over the Susquehanna River. Meanwhile, other Confederate forces had occupied a large area of south central Pennsylvania and some had even closed on Harrisburg, threatening the state capitol.

The slow pursuit of Lee by the Army of the Potomac not only alarmed War Department officials but shocked governors of northern states who clamored for something to be done to stop the rebel invasion. Political pressure on the Lincoln administration added to the tug of war between General Hooker and the US War Department, which finally ended on June 28 as the Army of the Potomac concentrated at Frederick, Maryland. Completely frustrated by the mistrust and lack of support from War Department officials, Hooker requested to be relieved of command, which was quickly granted.

Major General [[George Gordon Meade]] was ordered to take command of the army. "I have been tried and condemned", the surprised general remarked after receiving word of his appointment. Using traces of information known on Lee's whereabouts and objectives, Meade decided to send the army north to feel for the enemy and draw Lee into battle on a defensive line he wanted to establish on Pipe Creek, Maryland. The very next day, the Army of the Potomac marched out of their camps to search for the Confederates in Pennsylvania.

==[[Battle of Gettysburg]]==
On June 30, Confederate troops left their camps at Cashtown and marched toward Gettysburg in search of supplies. Upon reaching the edge of Gettysburg, scouts spied a column of Union cavalry south of town, closing fast. Under orders not to initiate a battle, the Confederates returned to Cashtown where they reported the encounter to their commander, Lieutenant General Ambrose Powell Hill. Hill agreed to send two divisions of his corps toward Gettysburg the next day to investigate the arrival of the mystery cavalrymen and the stage was set.

===The first day===
[[Image:Gettysburg Battle Map Day1.png|thumb|200px|right|The first day of battle]]
The battle began early on the morning of July 1 when a Confederate column under General Henry Heth, marching east from Cashtown encountered Union pickets three miles west of Gettysburg. Opponents sparred over the gently rolling farmland west of Gettysburg, until the cavalrymen were forced back to McPherson's Ridge where Union infantry were just then arriving at 10 AM.

Some of Heth's Confederates reached McPherson's Ridge where they were hit by a vigorous Union infantry counterattack and forced back. North of the Chambersburg Pike, other Confederates were briefly victorious before they, too, were counterattacked, many being forced to surrender in the railroad cut. One of the first officers to fall was Major General John Fulton Reynolds, commander of the Union First Corps, instantly killed as he led his troops into the fray.

A brief noon-time lull gave commanders on both sides time to plan and augment their battle lines. Union troops manned a jagged line extending from the McPherson Farm northward along Seminary and Oak Ridge with troops of the Eleventh Army Corps, which had just arrived, were deployed north of Gettysburg on the grounds of the county Alms House. Confederate forces were arrayed against this line in heavier numbers, with more troops expected to arrive at any moment. The battle was renewed at 2 PM when Confederate forces attacked McPherson's Ridge and Oak Ridge. Union troops fought desperately, repulsing the attacks with heavy losses to both sides. General Lee arrived on the battlefield and though a battle had been initiated against his orders, he immediately saw an opportunity. Having already ordered his troops east of Gettysburg to concentrate near the town, Lee allowed the attack to continue knowing that the battered Union line would be pressured from three directions as soon as General Richard Ewell's Corps arrived from the direction of Dover, Pennsylvania.

After two hours of desperate fighting, it was apparent to General Abner Doubleday, commanding the First Corps after the death of Reynolds, that none of the ridges west of Gettysburg could be held and he ordered a fighting withdrawal to Seminary Ridge. North of Gettysburg, the Eleventh Corps was in a predicament with too few troops to defend a large area. Some Union regiments dissolved as Ewell's Confederates hit them from three directions at once while others valiantly fought back, losing scores in killed and wounded including General Francis Barlow being among the latter.

The Union line finally collapsed and thousands of Union soldiers pushed headlong through the streets, yards and alleys of Gettysburg, many taking refuge in outbuildings and churches already filled with the wounded and dying. Terrified citizens fled to their cellars while others risked their lives to help the injured. Those who could find their way to Cemetery Hill were met by Major General Winfield S. Hancock, sent to Gettysburg by General Meade, and reorganized into a line of defense from Cemetery Ridge to Culp's Hill. General Lee entered Gettysburg and located General Ewell who he requested him to continue his attack south of Gettysburg "if practicable". Unable to consolidate his forces before nightfall and with the threat of a large Union force on his left, Ewell deferred. The sounds of battle slowed to a murmur as night fell. Exhausted soldiers of both armies collapsed beside stone walls and fences, in fields and woods, and streets and alleys to wait for the fighting to resume on the morrow.

July 1 was a great victory for General Lee, but not a decisive one. Though the Union forces had been badly mauled, they had retreated to a strong position south of Gettysburg. General Meade arrived on the battlefield near midnight and after discussions with his corps commanders, decided to wait for the rest of his army to concentrate around Cemetery Hill. Come the morning, he would attack Lee or defend the prominent hills where his men now rested. Lee, meanwhile, seated in his headquarters tent on Seminary Ridge, pondered the growing strength of the Union position south of Gettysburg. If only he could hear from his cavalry chief J.E.B. Stuart and information he could provide about the remainder of the Union army.

===The second day===
[[Image:Gettysburg Day2.png|thumb|200px|right|The second day of battle]]
Lee attacked late in the afternoon, striking both flanks of the Union position. The fighting raged until after nightfall.
By the morning of July 2, the Union army had established strong positions along a giant U-shaped line from Culp's Hill to Cemetery Ridge. Satisfied with this position, General Meade decided to wait while the remainder of the Army of the Potomac hurried to the battlefield. From Seminary Ridge, General Lee studied the distant Union position. Though the Union right flank appeared to be a difficult position to attack, the left flank did not appear to be anchored on any significant feature. Simultaneous attacks on both the right and left flanks could roll up the Union line toward Cemetery Hill. Lee directed General A.P. Hill to continue to hold the Confederate center while General James Longstreet's Corps would attack the Union left and General Ewell's Corps would attack the right. Both had to strike at the same time to throw the Union off balance, not giving Meade time to shift troops to the threatened areas.

Situated on the left of the Union line was the Third Army Corps under the command of Major General Daniel E. Sickles, an audacious and sometimes belligerent commander. Unhappy with the location assigned him and finding that Confederates were massed on Seminary Ridge almost a mile in his front, Sickles ordered his corps to advance away from the main Union line on Cemetery Ridge and occupy high ground on the Emmitsburg Road, midway between Cemetery Ridge and Seminary Ridge. In doing so, Sickles' unknowingly made Meade's established line vulnerable. Meanwhile, General Longstreet's column finally reached the southern tip of Seminary Ridge at 3:30 PM after an exhausting 18 mile march. The Confederates deployed along the ridge through Pitzer's Woods and south along Warfield Ridge. The men only had a few moments to rest and search for water before they were called into line and the attack began.

At 4 PM, Confederate cannoneers opened fire on Sickles' line from Devil's Den to the Peach Orchard. Confederates under General John Bell Hood swung eastward toward Devil's Den while fighting erupted in the Wheatfield, at the Peach Orchard and on the slopes of Little Round Top. Bravery and gallantry saved Little Round Top, a key feature on the southern end of the Union line, but Union troops could not hold Devil's Den and the adjoining area, later known as the "Valley of Death". Nearby was the Wheatfield, where soldiers who fought there compared it to a "whirlpool" of tides and eddies that continually swept around the field. Over 6,000 officers and men from both armies were killed, wounded or captured in charge and counter-charge across that field and in the woods surrounding it. Fighting spread to the Peach Orchard, along the Emmitsburg Road, and up Cemetery Ridge. At the height of the attack, General Sickles was seriously wounded while near his headquarters. Carried from the battlefield on a stretcher, the general inspired those passing by him with encouraging words and a wave of his hat.

At approximately 6:30, General McLaws sent forward his Mississippi brigade commanded by Brigadier General William Barksdale, who had waited impatiently with his men at Pitzer's Woods. The Mississippi attack rammed through Union regiments near the Peach Orchard and other Confederate units rushed from Seminary Ridge to exploit the break. The battered Union line wavered and slowly collapsed under the relentless Confederate pressure that swept across the Abraham Trostle Farm at the center of Sickles' line. Here the southerners found themselves at the doorway of a sizeable gap in the Union line between Cemetery Hill and Little Round Top, held by a handful of Union artillerymen and one regiment of foot soldiers, the 1st Minnesota Infantry. The Minnesota regiment was about to do the impossible- stop the Confederate attack before they reached the center of Cemetery Ridge. The Minnesotans charged into the Confederates and succeeded in slowing their attack, but at a terrible cost. Union reinforcements arrived and drove the Confederates back, but not before they had threatened the Union line right up to its center.

====Culp's Hill====
In cooperation with Longstreet's attack on the Union left, General Ewell opened his cannonade on the Union right flank at 4 o'clock, but an overwhelming response of Union artillery from Cemetery Hill delayed the infantry assault, designed to first strike Culp's Hill, the strong point of the Union right. Confederate infantrymen under General Edward Johnson encountered numerous difficulties getting into position and night had fallen by the time his men splashed across Rock Creek to climb the hill's wooded slopes. Suddenly they were struck by accurate and deadly Union rifle fire delivered by a single brigade of New York troops under Brigasier General George S. Greene. Johnson's men scattered for cover though a portion of his force discovered abandoned earthworks above Spangler's Spring. Confused by the Union defense and believing that he was heavily outnumbered, Johnson decided to halt his attack to wait for reinforcements and then renew his assault the next morning.

Northwest of Culp's Hill, two Confederate brigades under General Jubal Early momentarily penetrated the Union defenses at Cemetery Hill. In the gathering gloom of dusk, "Louisiana Tigers" and North Carolina soldiers overran Union troops on the eastern side of the hill and rushed through to the summit into Union batteries stationed there. Union reinforcements rushed to the scene and immediately attacked with rifles and bayonets, throwing the Confederates off Cemetery Hill for good.

Union troops of the Twelfth Army Corps, pulled away from Culp's Hill on July 2, returned the following morning and attacked Johnson's troops before they could begin their attack. The roar of musketry was deafening. From the summit of the hill to the meadow near Spangler's Spring, combatants kept up a constant stream of rifle fire, showered all the while with leaves and branches cut from trees by bullets and shells. Unable to break the Union stranglehold on Culp's Hill, Johnson finally withdrew after six hours of continuous fighting, leaving the slopes covered with dead and wounded. By 11 AM on July 3, the southern threat at Culp's Hill had ended.

Late into the night, both army commanders evaluated the results of a long and brutal day. Apart from the precious foothold on Culp's Hill, the Confederate gamble of simultaneous attacks had failed. Knowing that he could not sustain more than another full day of battle, a frustrated Lee was working at his headquarters when a smiling General Stuart arrived. The smile quickly vanished when the disgusted army commander admonished Stuart for his long absence and failure to report Union movements in the weeks prior to the battle. Yet it was quickly back to the business at hand for Stuart's cavalry would fit prominently into Lee's strategy for the next day of battle. Meanwhile, General Meade held a "Council of War" at his headquarters on the Taneytown Road. Though the Union line had been restored by midnight there was still a sizeable Confederate force on Culp's Hill. Almost to a man, his generals agreed to stay at Gettysburg, retake and secure Culp's Hill, and then wait for Lee to attack. If he did not, then Meade should order a counterattack and force Lee to fight or flee. The Gettysburg Campaign was about to reach its climax.

===The third day===
[[Image:Gettysburg Day3.png|thumb|200px|right|The third day of battle]]
[[image:Gettysburg.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Photographer Timothy O' Sullivan arrived on the battlefield two days after it ended, recording for posterity the carnage wrought, such as this example appropriately titled ''A Harvest of Death'']]
Intense fighting erupted on Culp's Hill at 4 AM on July 3, and by 11 AM Union troops had secured the hill, firmly anchoring the point of the Union "fishhook" line. With the loss of his advantage at Culp's Hill, Lee decided to alter his strategy. Having already ordered Stuart to ride around the Union position and attack the Union supply line, Lee decided to strike what he thought to be a weakened Union center on Cemetery Ridge where he observed few troops and only a handful of batteries. If this section of Meade's line collapsed, it would threaten the Union rear and those strong hill positions. He issued orders for a massive bombardment aimed at this area followed by an assault of 18,000 men, coordinated and commanded by his trusted corps commander General James Longstreet.

====Pickett's charge====
At 1 o'clock, two guns stationed in the Peach Orchard fired the signal to begin the bombardment. Over 120 Confederate guns on Seminary Ridge simultaneously exploded, sending shot and shell toward Cemetery Ridge. Startled Union artillerymen sprang to their guns and soon both ridges were covered with thick, acrid smoke. The pounding of the guns in the great duel shook the earth for nearly an hour, when the Union fire finally slackened. Longstreet reluctantly gave the order for the infantry to advance and nearly 12,000 Confederate soldiers began the long march toward the Union line. Suddenly the Union artillery came back to life, blasting the formations and cutting large swaths through them. As they reached the Emmitsburg Road, they were startled by the blast from hundreds of Union muskets. Officers were replaced by captains and sergeants, urging the men on until they reached "the Angle". Brig. General Lewis Armistead, the lone unscathed general of Pickett's Division, pierced the Union center, crossing the stonewall with about 300 men who raced into the remains of a Union battery and nearby grove of young trees, shrubs, and vines. This was the "High Water Mark" of the battle and, for the Confederacy, of the war.

North of the Angle, troops under Generals Pettigrew and Trimble reached the Emmitsburg Road to attack the Union line between Pickett's command and Ziegler's Grove only to meet a solid wall of musketry and artillery. Groups of Confederates leapt the fences and forged ahead, the size of each melting away as they surged up the slope toward the terrible stonewall that literally boiled with fire and smoke. None would pierce the Union line in this area. All along the line the attack ground to a halt and those who were able, turned back to Seminary Ridge. Pickett's Charge had failed. The retreating Confederates staggered back to their lines; assembled behind the stone wall the Federals repeatedly shouted "Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg! Fredericksburg!"

General Meade rode onto the scene just as the last shots died away. A staff officer approached and informed the general that the southerners had been whipped. His army had done the unthinkable - beaten Robert E. Lee and the best troops he could throw at them. The tired general managed to utter a hoarse "Hurrah!", then rode on to inspect the line.

General Lee witnessed the southern tide crest. Among the few soldiers walking towards him was Pickett. Lee looked at him and gave him an order to reform his division. "General Pickett", Lee said, after getting no response, "you must look to your division."

"General Lee," said Pickett wearily. "I have no division."

Stunned at the news of the loss, Lee had to admit to himself that the battle was over. Afterward, he spoke with the survivors, calming them with words of encouragement and preparing them for the Union counterattack that was sure to come. Within the hour, a courier informed Lee of Stuart's defeat three miles east of Gettysburg at what is known today as East Cavalry Field. Stuart successfully marched east of Gettysburg and turned his force south where they encountered a strong Union cavalry force blocking the Hanover Road. A spirited battle ensued with troopers of both armies fighting on foot and horseback. Southern charges meant to slice through the Union line were stopped cold by Union cavalrymen led by Brig. General George Armstrong Custer. His attempt to raid the Union rear thwarted, Stuart withdrew and retired toward Gettysburg.

Lee realized his army could no longer remain in Pennsylvania. Returning to his headquarters, he dictated orders for the army to withdraw, retreat to the Potomac River, and return to Virginia. "Too bad, too bad," a staff officer heard the general say in his discouragement. "Oh, too bad."

Storm clouds blackened the early evening sky. A heavy rain soon fell, symbolically washing the land of the carnage wrought by three days of bloody battle, the largest battle fought in the Western Hemisphere.

==Western Theater==
In the west, the major challenge facing the Union armies was the capture of Vicksburg and the seizure of control of the Mississippi River. Initially, the Federals faced the same problems of divided command that had plagued armies in the east. Major General [[Ulysses S. Grant]], with over 60,000 men, remained in western Tennessee guarding communication lines. Brigadier General Don Carlos Buell’s army of 56,000, after containing Confederate General [[Braxton Bragg]]’s invasion of Kentucky, had been taken over by Major General William S. Rosecrans, whose hard-won victory at Murfreesboro at the end of 1862 had nevertheless immobilized the Army of the Cumberland for nearly half a year. To the south, Union forces under the command of Major General Nathaniel P. Banks controlled New Orleans as part of the Department of the Gulf. Coordinating the movement of all these forces would prove a true leadership challenge.

Late in 1862 President Lincoln and Secretary of War [[Edwin M. Stanton]] worked out their own plans to accomplish the fall of Vicksburg, however without coordinating that plan effectively with their senior military commanders. They wrote somewhat vague orders for a simultaneous advance north from New Orleans and south from Tennessee. General Banks was to command the move northward from New Orleans, and command of the southbound expedition was to go to Major General John A. McClernand. Both were relatively untried as Army commanders. They were also volunteer officers who's profession before the war was in the halls of Congress; as professional politicians they often dabbled in intrigue to gain favors. Further, McClernand was to operate within Grant’s department but independently of him, often a recipe for trouble. When General Halleck found out about the Lincoln-Stanton plan, he persuaded the President to put Grant in command of the southbound expedition and to make McClernand one of his subordinates.

===The Vicksburg Campaign===
Grant first tried a combined land and water expedition against Vicksburg in December 1862–January 1863. He sent Major General [[William T. Sherman]] downriver from Memphis, but the Confederates under Major General [[Earl Van Dorn]] and Brigadier General [[Nathan Bedford Forrest]] raided and cut his 200-mile-long line of communications. Sherman himself bogged down before Vicksburg; Grant, perhaps also wishing to keep close rein on McClernand (who ranked his friend Sherman), then determined on a river expedition that he would lead in person. Late in January Grant arrived near Vicksburg with upwards of 45,000 men organized into three corps: the XIII Corps under McClernand, the XV Corps under Sherman, and the XVII Corps under Major General James B. McPherson. During the ensuing campaign Grant received two more corps as reinforcements to bring his total strength to 75,000 men.

Vicksburg had almost a perfect location for defense. At that point on the river, bluffs rose as high as 250 feet above the water and extended for about 100 miles from north to south. North of Vicksburg lay the Yazoo River and its delta, a gloomy stretch of watery, swampy bottom land extending 175 miles from north to south, 60 miles from east to west. The ground immediately south of Vicksburg was almost as swampy and impassable. The Confederates had fortified the bluffs from Haynes’ Bluff on the Yazoo, 10 miles above Vicksburg, to Grand Gulf at the mouth of the Big Black River 40 miles below. Vicksburg could not be assaulted from the river, and sailing past it was extremely hazardous. The river formed a great "U"-shaped bend there, and Vicksburg’s guns threatened any craft that tried to run by. For the Union troops to attack successfully, they would have to get to the high, dry ground east of town. This would put them in Confederate territory between two enemy forces. Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton commanded some 30,000 men in Vicksburg, while the Confederate area commander, General [[Joseph E. Johnston]], concentrated the other scattered Confederate forces in Mississippi at Jackson, the state capital, 40 miles east of Vicksburg.

During late winter and early spring, with the rains falling, the streams high, and the roads at their wettest and muddiest, overland movement was impossible. Primarily to placate discontented politicians and a critical press, Grant made four attempts to reach high ground east of Vicksburg. All four were unsuccessful, foiled either by Confederate resistance or by natural obstacles. One of the more spectacular efforts was digging canals. These projects had as their objective the clearing of an approach by which troops could sail to a point near the high ground without being fired on by Vicksburg’s guns. All failed. That Grant kept on trying in the face of such discouragement is a tribute to his dogged persistence, and that Lincoln supported him is a tribute to his confidence in the general. The trouble was that Grant had been on the river for two months, and by early spring Vicksburg was no nearer falling than when he came.

On April 4 in a letter to Halleck, Grant divulged his latest plan to capture Vicksburg. Working closely with the local naval commander, Rear Admiral [[David D. Porter]], Grant evolved a stroke of great boldness. He decided to use part of his force above Vicksburg to divert the Confederates. The main body would march southward on the west side of the Mississippi, cross to the east bank below the city, and, with only five days’ rations, strike inland to live off a hostile country without a line of supply or retreat. As he told Sherman, the Union troops would carry "what rations of hard bread, coffee, and salt we can and make the country furnish the balance." Porter’s gunboats and other craft, which up to now were on the river north of Vicksburg, were to run past the batteries during darkness and then ferry the troops over the river. Sherman thought the campaign too risky, but the events of the next two months were to prove him wrong.

While Sherman demonstrated near Vicksburg in March, McClernand’s and McPherson’s corps started their advance south. The rains let up in April, the waters receded slightly, and overland movement became somewhat easier. On the night of April 16 Porter led his river fleet past Vicksburg, whose guns, once the move was discovered, lit up the black night with an eerie bombardment. All but one transport made it safely; and starting on April 30, Porter’s craft ferried the troops eastward over the river at Bruinsburg below Grand Gulf. The final march against Vicksburg was ready to begin.

At this time the Confederates had more troops in the vicinity than Grant had but never could make proper use of them. Grant’s swift move had bewildered Pemberton. Then too, just before marching downstream, Grant had ordered a brigade of cavalry to come down from the Tennessee border, riding between the parallel north-south railroad lines of the Mississippi Central and Mobile and Ohio. Led by Colonel Benjamin H. Grierson, this force sliced the length of the state, cutting railroads, fighting detachments of Confederate cavalry, and finally reaching Union lines at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Most important, for the few days that counted most, it drew Pemberton’s attention away from Grant and kept the Confederate general from discerning the Union’s objectives.

Once more, divided counsel hampered the coordination of Confederate strategy. Davis had sent Johnston west in December 1862 to take overall command of the theater, an imposing task, for Pemberton’s army in Mississippi and Bragg’s in Tennessee were widely separated. Things were further confused by Davis’ directive to Pemberton to hold Vicksburg at all costs while Johnston recognized the potential trap and ordered him to move directly against Grant. In such a situation Pemberton could do little that was right. He tried to defend too great an area; he had not concentrated but dispersed his forces at Vicksburg, the Big Black River, and along the railroad line to Jackson, where Johnston was gathering more troops. As is often the case, whoever tries to defend everything often ends up losing everything.

Grant took Port Gibson on May 1, and Sherman’s corps rejoined the main force. Now the Union commander decided that he must defeat Johnston before turning on Vicksburg. He moved northeastward and fought his way into Raymond on May 12, a move that put him squarely between Johnston and Pemberton and in a position to cut the Confederate line of communications. The next day Sherman and McPherson marched against the city of Jackson with McClernand following in reserve ready to hold off Pemberton if he attacked. The leading corps took Jackson on May 14 and drove its garrison eastward. While Sherman occupied the state capital to fend off Johnston, the other two corps turned west against Pemberton and Vicksburg. Pemberton tried too late to catch Grant in open country. He suffered severe defeats at Champion’s Hill (May 16) and Big Black River Bridge (May 17) and was shut up in Vicksburg. In eighteen days Grant’s army had marched 200 miles, had won four victories, and had finally secured the high ground along the Yazoo River that had been the goal of all the winter’s fruitless campaigning. In this lightning operation, Grant had proven himself a master of maneuver warfare and a bold risk-taker.

Grant assaulted the Vicksburg lines on May 15 and 22, but as Sherman noted of the attacks: "The heads of columns have been swept away as chaff from the hand on a windy day." The only recourse now was a siege. Grant settled down and removed McClernand from command after the attack of May 22, during which the corps commander sent a misleading report, then later slighted the efforts of the other corps and publicly criticized the army commander. Grant replaced him with Major General Edward O. C. Ord and ordered the army to dig trenches around the city and place powerful batteries of artillery to command the enemy positions.

The rest was now a matter of time, as Sherman easily kept Johnston away and the Federals advanced their siege works toward the Confederate fortifications. Food became scarce, and the troops and civilians inside Vicksburg were soon reduced to eating mules and horses. Shells pounded the city, and the Federal lines were drawn so tight that one Confederate soldier admitted "a cat could not have crept out of Vicksburg without being discovered." The front lines were so close that the Federals threw primitive hand grenades into the Confederate works. By July 1 the Union troops had completed their approaches and were ready for another assault. But Vicksburg was starving, and Pemberton asked for terms. Grant offered to parole all prisoners, and the city surrendered on Independence Day. Since Grant was out of telegraphic contact with Washington, the news reached the President via naval channels on July 7, the day before General Banks’ 15,000-man army, having advanced upriver from New Orleans, captured Port Hudson. The Union now repossessed the whole river and had sliced the Confederacy in two. Once more Grant had removed an entire Confederate army, some 40,000 men, from the war, losing only one-tenth that number in the process.

===Chickamauga===
One week before the surrender of Vicksburg and the Union victory at Gettysburg, General Rosecrans moved out of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and headed for Chattanooga, one of the most important cities in the south because of its location. It was a main junction on the rail line linking Richmond with Knoxville and Memphis. President Lincoln had long recognized the importance of railroads in this area. In 1862 he said, "To take and hold the railroad at or east of Cleveland [near Chattanooga], in East Tennessee, I think fully as important as the taking and holding of Richmond." Furthermore, at Chattanooga, the Tennessee River cuts through the parallel ridges of the Appalachian Mountains and forms a natural gateway to north or south. By holding the city, the Confederates could threaten Kentucky and prevent a Union penetration of the southeastern part of the Confederacy. If the Union armies pushed through Chattanooga, they would be in position to attack Atlanta, Savannah, or even the Carolinas and Richmond from the rear. As Lincoln told Rosecrans in 1863, "If we can hold Chattanooga and East Tennessee I think the rebellion must dwindle and die."

After the spring and summer campaigns in the east, the Davis government in Richmond approved a movement by two divisions of Longstreet’s corps of Lee’s army to the west to reinforce the hard-pressed Bragg. Longstreet’s move, a 900-mile trip by rail involving 10,000–15,000 men and six batteries of artillery, began on September 9. But a force under Burnside, who now commanded the Department of the Ohio, which was not part of Rosecrans’ command, had penetrated the Cumberland Gap and had driven the Confederates from Knoxville. Longstreet had to go around by way of Augusta and Atlanta and did not reach Bragg until September 18. The rail network was rickety, and Longstreet’s soldiers quipped that such poor rolling stock had never been intended to carry such good soldiers. Movement of Longstreet’s troops from Virginia was nevertheless an outstanding logistical achievement for the Confederacy and a bold operational move.

Rosecrans meanwhile began planning how to use his numerical superiority (65,000 versus Bragg’s 46,250) to maneuver Bragg out of his positions in eastern Tennessee and move against Chattanooga. Faced with Confederates in strong positions around his base at Murfreesboro, Rosecrans decided to conduct a series of feints to mislead the enemy. Starting on June 24, he dispatched one division to the southwest of the city and a corps to the east to distract Bragg while moving the bulk of his army under corps commanders Major Generals [[George H. Thomas]] and Alexander M. McCook to the southeast in a main attack on a critical mountain gap. Despite torrential rainfall and problems with muddy roads, the Union troops successfully seized Hoover’s Gap, unhinging the Confederate defensive line. Forced to retreat, Bragg fell back on Tullahoma to defend his supply lines. However, after a few days of recovery it was apparent to him that Rosecrans intended to use his superior forces to continue trying to outflank his position. Rather than be trapped, Bragg retreated again and, abandoning eastern Tennessee, he moved back over the rain-swollen Tennessee River on July 6. He returned to Chattanooga and prepared to defend that key city. In a few weeks of rapid maneuvering, Rosecrans had driven Bragg’s forces back to where they had started their offensive almost a year before.

After months of delay Rosecrans had accomplished the feat of completely outmaneuvering Bragg without a major battle. He next demonstrated across the river from Chattanooga as a diversion while actually sending the bulk of his army to cross the Tennessee River miles to the southwest. He planned to get in behind Bragg and bottle him up in Chattanooga. However, the Confederate general saw through the scheme and slipped away southward, abandoning the city while carefully planting rumors that his army was demoralized and in flight. Rosecrans then resolved to pursue, a decision that would have been wise if Bragg had been retreating in disorder.

There were few passes through the mountains and no good lateral roads. In full pursuit mode, Rosecrans dispersed his army in three columns over a forty-mile front to make use of the various passes. Watching Rosecrans carefully, Bragg stopped his retreat and concentrated his army about September 9 at La Fayette, Georgia, twenty miles south of Chattanooga. As his force was three times as large as any one of the Union columns, Bragg anticipated that he could hit each column in turn and defeat Rosecrans in detail. But his intelligence service failed him: he thought there were two, rather than three, Union columns and prepared plans accordingly. He first planned to strike what he thought was Rosecrans’ right (actually Thomas’ corps in the center) at McLemore’s Cove on September 10. However, his subordinates moved slowly, and the attacks were made in desultory fashion. By the time Bragg’s forces could converge, Thomas had pulled his troops back into safe positions. Bragg next planned to strike at Major General Thomas L. Crittenden’s corps on the Union left flank. Again, poor coordination prevented him from catching the enemy; Crittenden also pulled back behind the safety of Missionary Ridge. Thus, twice in three days Bragg missed a fine opportunity to inflict a serious reverse upon the Federals because of his subordinates’ failure to carry out orders.

By September 13 Rosecrans was at last aware that Bragg was not retreating in disorder but was preparing to fight. The Union commander ordered an immediate concentration, but this would take several days and in the meantime his corps were vulnerable. Although Bragg was usually speedy in executing attacks, this time he delayed, awaiting the arrival of Longstreet’s corps. He intended to attack the Union left in an attempt to push Rosecrans southward away from Chattanooga into a mountain cul-de-sac where the Federals could be destroyed.

By September 17 Bragg was positioned just east of Chickamauga Creek, a sluggish stream surrounded by dense woods and named for a Creek Indian word that some said meant "river of blood". When Longstreet’s three leading brigades arrived on September 18, Bragg decided to cross the Chickamauga and attack the Federal left. But Rosecran’s forces there, with two corps almost fully concentrated, defended the fords so stoutly that only a few Confederate units got over the creek that day. During the night more Confederates slipped across, and by morning of the nineteenth about three-fourths of Bragg’s army was over the creek and poised to attack.

By then, however, Rosecrans’ third corps had arrived on the scene and Bragg faced a much stronger force than he had expected. The heavily wooded battlefield had few landmarks, and some units had difficulty maintaining direction. Bragg planned to attack all along the Union line, starting on its left and rippling down the line to the Union right in quick succession from roughly northeast down to the southwest. Over the course of the day, several of Bragg’s toughest divisions (Major Generals Alexander P. Stewart’s, John Bell Hood’s and Patrick R. Cleburne’s) attacked and almost broke through the Union line on three separate occasions. Only the hasty movement of Union reserves stemmed the tide in each case.

The fighting was brutal and often hand-to-hand in the dense woods along the choked Chickamauga Creek. It was afterward called a soldier’s battle, with little chance for grand strategy or operational deployments except for the tactical shifting of small units in response to crisis. By the evening of the nineteenth neither side had gained much terrain and the troops lay exhausted in the dense woods. The Union troops labored all night to cut down trees to fortify their positions as the Confederates gathered and reorganized for the next day’s attacks.

Bragg, sensing victory but seeking to ensure a coordinated attack on the twentieth, reorganized his army into two wings: the right wing under the command of corps commander Lieutenant General Leonidas Polk and the left wing under the newly arrived General Longstreet. He planned to begin the attack again in the north with Polk attacking at dawn followed by attacks all along the front from northeast to southwest. Longstreet would attack last with three divisions into nearly the center of the Union line.

Confusion started the day on the twentieth; Lieutenant General Daniel H. Hill, now subordinate to Polk, failed to receive any orders to attack as the lead element of Polk’s wing. Polk had not been found by a messenger the night before and had no knowledge of the day’s plan. Finally, Hill’s corps attacked at 9:30. The attack against Thomas’ corps was delivered with spirit; and Thomas began requesting, and Rosecrans providing, reinforcements to fight off the rebels. By late morning it seemed as if the line was holding, but even more reinforcements were being readied to move to the aid of the Union left. At that moment, Longstreet attacked with four divisions in column formation against the Union center and right. Moving along a road but under cover of the dense woods, Longstreet’s men exploded out of the tree line and attacked the Union positions. Their attack had even more impact since they hit a hole in the Union line created inadvertently by Rosecrans’ moving a division out of line because of an erroneous staff report. The combination of a gap in the lines and a powerful Confederate attacking column blew away Union defenses. As the lead Confederate division commander later put it, the attack "cast the shattered fragments to the right and left." The attack penetrated a mile into Union lines, and Rosecran’s right wing and center evaporated. The men fled in panic back toward Chattanooga. General Rosecrans himself was caught up in the rout and fled on horseback with most of his staff to the safety of the city.

The only major Union units left on the field of battle by early afternoon of September 20 were the hard-pressed divisions of Thomas’ corps. Adding to these units as they stood their ground were bits and pieces of regiments fleeing from the disaster on the Union right flank. These units and survivors pulled back onto a small piece of high ground called Snodgrass Hill to the rear of Thomas’ original defensive position. Arriving at this site in the early afternoon, Thomas saw that only a strong defense would preserve what was left of the army. If the position fell, he stood a good chance of losing the entire army and the city of Chattanooga. He began shifting units from different parts of his hasty defensive line to deal with successive Confederate attacks. When Longstreet brought his divisions on line against him, he must have despaired of holding; but the timely arrival of elements of Major General Gordon Granger’s reserve corps with fresh troops and more ammunition stemmed the Confederate tide. From then until darkness fell, Longstreet sent attack after attack up the hill against the stubborn federals. But Thomas, who won for himself and the U.S. 19th Infantry the title "Rock of Chickamauga", held the line. A Confederate remembered that afternoon how "the dead were piled upon each other in ricks, like cord wood, to make passage for advancing columns." As darkness fell and the exhausted Confederates ceased their attacks, Thomas slowly withdrew his units from Snodgrass Hill and conducted a careful withdrawal back toward Chattanooga. His retreat was in good order, saving almost two-thirds of the Army of the Cumberland from total destruction.

After the draining daylong attacks, Bragg concluded that no further results could be attained that day. Polk, Longstreet, and Forrest pleaded with him to push the defeated Federals and recapture Chattanooga. But 18,000 casualties (the Federals had lost only 1,500 fewer) so unnerved Bragg that he permitted Thomas to withdraw unmolested from the field to a blocking position extending from Missionary Ridge west to Lookout Mountain. The next day Thomas retired into Chattanooga. Polk wrote to President Davis of Bragg’s "criminal negligence," and Forrest a week later insubordinately told the army commander, "You have played the part of a damned scoundrel, and are a coward and if you were any part of a man I would slap your jaws." Yet nothing could erase completely the fact that the Confederates had won a great victory and had Rosecrans’ army in a trap.

Rosecrans’ army, having started out offensively, was now shut up in Chattanooga as Bragg took up positions on Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge dominating the city. The Union commander accepted investment and thus surrendered his freedom of action. Burnside, at Knoxville, was too far away to render immediate aid. There were no strong Confederate units north of Chattanooga, but Rosecrans’ line of communications was cut away. The Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad, instead of running directly into the city, reached the Tennessee River at Stevenson, crossed at Bridgeport southwest of Chattanooga, and ran through Confederate territory into town. River steamers could get to within only eight miles of Chattanooga; beyond, the Tennessee River was swift and narrow. Supplies therefore came over the mountains in wagons; but starting September 30, Confederate cavalry under Major General [[Joseph Wheeler]], one of Bragg’s cavalry commanders, raided as far north as Murfreesboro. Though heavily and effectively opposed in his effort to tear up the railroad, he managed to destroy many precious Union supply wagons. With the mountain roads breaking down under the heavy traffic in wet weather, rations in Chattanooga ran short. Men went hungry, and horses and mules began to die of starvation. Rosecrans prepared to reopen his line of communications by means of an overland route to the west. But this route was dominated by Confederate troops on Raccoon and Lookout Mountains. Additional troops to clear these strong points were required if the Army of the Cumberland was to survive.

===Chattanooga===
[[Image:Chattanooga Battle.png|thumb|200px|right|The Battle of Chattanooga]]
Washington finally awoke to the fact that an entire Union army was trapped in Chattanooga and in danger of capture. In a midnight council meeting on September 23, the President met with Secretary Stanton, General Halleck, and others to determine what could be done. As General Meade was not active in the east at that time, they decided to detach two corps, or about 20,000 men, from the Army of the Potomac and send them by rail to Tennessee under the command of General Hooker, who had been without active command since his relief in June. The selected forces included ten artillery batteries with over 3,000 mules and horses. The 1,157-mile journey involved four changes of trains, owing to differing gauges and lack of track connections, and eclipsed all other such troop movements by rail up to that time. The troops began to entrain at Manassas Junction and Bealton Station, Virginia, on September 25, and five days later the first trains arrived at Bridgeport, Alabama. Not all the troops made such good time: for the majority of the infantry the trip consumed about nine days. And movement of the artillery, horses, mules, baggage, and impedimenta was somewhat slower. Combined with a waterborne movement of 17,000 men under Sherman from Mississippi, the reinforcement of the besieged Rosecrans was a triumph of skill and planning.

Chickamauga had caused Stanton and his associates to lose confidence in Rosecrans. For some time Lincoln had been dubious about Rosecrans, who, he said, acted "like a duck hit on the head" after Chickamauga; but he did not immediately choose a successor. Finally, about mid-October, he decided to unify command in the west and to vest it in General Grant, who still commanded the Army of the Tennessee. In October Stanton met Grant in Louisville and gave him orders that allowed him some discretion in selecting subordinates. Grant was appointed commander of the Military Division of the Mississippi, which embraced the Departments and Armies of the Ohio, the Cumberland, and the Tennessee and included the vast area from the Alleghenies to the Mississippi River north of Banks’ Department of the Gulf. Thomas replaced Rosecrans as Commander of the Army of the Cumberland, and Sherman was appointed to command Grant’s old Army of the Tennessee.

Now that Hooker had arrived, the line of communications, or the "cracker line" to the troops, could be opened. Rosecrans had actually shaped the plan, and all he needed was combat troops to execute it. On October 26 Hooker crossed the Tennessee at Bridgeport and attacked eastward. Within two days he had taken the spurs of the mountains, other Union troops had captured two important river crossings, and the supply line was open once more. Men, equipment, and food moved via riverboat and wagon road, bypassing Confederate strong points, to reinforce the besieged Army of the Cumberland.

In early November Bragg weakened his besieging army by sending Longstreet’s force against Burnside at Knoxville. This move reduced Confederate strength to about 40,000 about the same time Sherman arrived with two army corps from Memphis. The troops immediately at hand under Grant (Thomas’ Army of the Cumberland, two corps of Sherman’s Army of the Tennessee, and two corps under Hooker from the Army of the Potomac) now numbered about 60,000. Grant characteristically decided to resume the offensive with his entire force.

The Confederates had held their dominant position for so long that they seemed to look on all of the Federals in Chattanooga as their ultimate prisoners. One day in November Grant went out to inspect the Union lines and reached a point where Union and Confederate picket posts were not far apart. Not only did his own troops turn out the guard, but a smart set of Confederates came swarming out, formed a neat military rank, snapped to attention, and presented arms. Grant returned the salute and rode away. But plans were already afoot to divest the Confederates of some of their cockiness.

Grant planned to hit the ends of the Confederate line at once. Hooker would strike at Lookout Mountain; Sherman, moving his army upstream across the river from Chattanooga and crossing over by pontoons, would hit the northern end of Missionary Ridge. While they were breaking the Confederate flanks, Thomas’ men could make limited, holding attacks on the center. The Army of the Cumberland’s soldiers, already nursing a bruised ego for the rout at Chickamauga, realized that in the eyes of the commanding general they were second-class troops.

Hooker took Lookout Mountain on November 24 after a short struggle known as the Battle above the Clouds because of the height of the mountain and the mist that enshrouded it. On the same day Sherman crossed the Tennessee at the mouth of Chickamauga Creek and gained positions on the north end of Missionary Ridge. The next day his attacks bogged down as he attempted to drive south along the ridge. To help Sherman, Grant directed the Army of the Cumberland to take the rifle pits at the foot of the west slope of Missionary Ridge. These rifle pits were the first of three lines of Confederate trenches. Thomas’ troops rushed forward and seized the pits. Then, having a score to settle with the Confederates positioned above them, the troops kept going up the hill despite attempts by their officers to stop them. Coming under fire from the pits above and in front of them, the Federals inexorably swept up the hill. One of the charging Union soldiers, Lieutenant Arthur MacArthur, was awarded the [[Medal of Honor]] for his heroism; it would later inspire his son, [[Douglas MacArthur]], to greater things.

When Grant observed this movement, he muttered that someone was going to sweat for it if the charge ended in disaster. But Thomas’ troops drove all the way to the top, some shouting "Chickamauga, Chickamauga"; in the afternoon Hooker swept the southern end of the ridge. The Federals then had the unusual experience of seeing a Confederate army disintegrate into precipitate retreat, throwing their blankets, knapsacks, and even weapons away as they ran. The surprised bluecoats beckoned to their comrades: "My God! Come and see them run!" Bragg personally mounted his horse and tried to stem the rout, but to no avail. Grant pursued Bragg’s army the next day, but one Confederate division skillfully halted the pursuit while Bragg retired into Georgia to regroup.

The battles around Chattanooga and the subsequent campaign in eastern Tennessee ended in one of the most complete Union victories of the war. Bragg’s army was defeated, men and materiel captured, and the Confederates driven south. The mountainous defense line that the Confederates had hoped to hold had been pierced; the rail center of Chattanooga was permanently in Union hands; and the rich, food- producing eastern Tennessee section was lost to the Confederacy. Relief had come at last for the Union sympathizers in eastern Tennessee. With Chattanooga secured as a base, the way was open for an invasion of the lower South.

==Russian Involvement==

With [[United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland|Britain]] and [[France]] officially declaring "neutrality" to continue negotiating with the Confederates, the Union seemed to alone in it's Civil War. But in the autumn of 1863, the Imperial Russian Navy arrived in the harbors of New York and San Francisco to support the Union from interference from the "Crimean Coalition" comprising of Britain, France, and [[Austria]] it was at odds with.

The support from the Russian fleet was a big morale booster for Union forces, and relations with [[Russian Empire|Imperial Russia]] strengthened with toasts being made, and Thomas Bailey saying:
:''In sending them [the fleet] to this country there is something significant. What will be its effect on France and the French policy we shall learn in due time. It may be moderate; it may exasperate. God bless the Russians.:''<ref>http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1983-4/delehaye.htm</ref>

This intervention by the Russians frustrated the British and French who looked forward to taking advantage of the Union when it was vulnerable. A London satirical cartoon blasted the intervention by trying to paint Abraham Lincoln and [[Tsar]] [[Alexander II]] as bloody oppressors instead of liberators for preventing them from taking over the United States. <ref>http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html</ref>

==Articles in the series==
*[[American Civil War|Prelude]]
*[[American Civil War: 1861|1861]]
*[[American Civil War: 1862|1862]]
*1863
*[[American Civil War: 1864|1864]]
*[[American Civil War: 1865|1865]]
*[[American Civil War: Aftermath|Aftermath]]

==Links==
====The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion====
*[http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html Official Records, from Cornell University]
*[http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/default.cfm?CFID=2953054&CFTOKEN=64723065&jsessionid=de3014246f1a3c587075TR Official Records, from eHistory.com]
====General====
*[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]
*[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]
*[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]
*[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]
*[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]
*[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]
*[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]
*[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]
*[http://www.bartleby.com/1011/ Memoirs of U.S. Grant, from Bartleby.com]
*[http://www.loyno.edu/~history/journal/1983-4/delehaye.htm]
*[http://www.voltairenet.org/article169488.html]
*[https://www.c-span.org/video/?315198-1/russias-participation-us-civil-war]
[[Category:American Civil War]]

Talk:Donald Trump

2017-01-04T19:20:19Z

KommissarReb: /* Added discussion */ new section

Trump was nominated for a Nobel prize.[http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/donald-trump-nobel-peace-prize-nomination-218695]

==Fear of giving offense==

Trump shows no more fear of giving offense than early American patriot [[Patrick Henry]], who said of the momentous questions facing the nation in his time:

:For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings. [http://www.earlyamerica.com/ebooks/books/GiveMeLiberty/GiveMeLiberty.html]

Should we add this to the media section? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:20, 14 February 2016 (EST)

=="Unlike most other candidates,"==
There is nothing before this sentence that indicates that Mr. Trump is a candidate for anything. The article is locked (...at least for me), but the intro needs a few words about the fact that he is running for something, or the passage lacks context and does not make sense. [[User:GerryV|GerryV]] ([[User talk:GerryV|talk]]) 14:49, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

== Trump & Jehu ==

I see by doing a little internet search that I am not the only one who has seen a possible parallel between Donald Trump as president and King Jehu of N. Israel (2 Kings 9-10) IMHO very entertaining stories (black humor). Jehu methinks exterminated the Baal priesthood & gave Baal worship in N Israel a fatal blow, tho Jehu was quite ungodly & continued the idolatry at Dan & Bethel (perhaps done in the name of YHWH). http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2016/05/14/trump-is-gods-choice-for-president/. You may compare other internet postings and the series on ChristianChat http://christianchat.com/christian-news-forum/132268-cruz-trump-josiah-jehu.html. Imagine Trump with a repub congress impeaching in mass all the federal judges who have legislating abominations from the bench, like Jehu got rid of Baal priests. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 00:40, 22 August 2016 (EDT))

== religious affiliation? ==

Do we have any information on what church or denomination he is in.
:Presbyterian.[http://religionnews.com/2016/01/31/donald-trump-religion-bible-evangelicals/] [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] ([[User talk:PeterKa|talk]]) 06:58, 6 September 2016 (EDT)

== New image ==

Which of these three images of Trump does anyone think should be uploaded to this article?[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_13.jpg][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_(29273256122)_-_Cropped.jpg][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_10.jpg] All three of these images have a much higher quality, give a much more lifelike image of Trump, and are all more recent that the current one, so we should definitely replace the current one. I am just having trouble deciding which one, of the three, is the best. I personally like Trump's facial expression in the middle image, but I also like the American flag backgrounds in the other two. In addition, it might be worth noting that the third image is currently being discussed on Wikipedia for becoming the new article image, but it will take several days, at least, for it to be changed (however, the current image at the top of this article is also at the top of the Wikipedia article). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:20, 13 September 2016 (EDT)
:Nobody's responded, so I will request for the middle one to be uploaded. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:29, 16 September 2016 (EDT)

::Alright, I've uploaded it. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 00:35, 17 September 2016 (EDT)

==Undermining his legitimacy==

In addition to claiming that Russia influenced the election, some are pointing out that Trump didn't get the popular vote - as if this implies
*he's not really the president;
*he shouldn't be; or,
*he simply has no mandate

Should we include this (implied) argument in the lede? Or create a section on detractors? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:38, 18 December 2016 (EST)

:The flawed arguments of naysayers would be better placed near the end of this entry, wouldn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 14:23, 18 December 2016 (EST)

::It probably would be a good idea to mention and refute it, but I agree with Mr. Schlafly--let's not give it prominence. It's funny how they had no problem getting Obama without popular vote, but now that it isn't working in their favor, they get all mad. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 17:16, 18 December 2016 (EST)

:::We wait for investigation to see who actually got the popular vote after counting & excluding the votes of non-citizens illegally cast in this election. ([[User:Thunkful2|Thunkful2]] ([[User talk:Thunkful2|talk]]) 11:42, 23 December 2016 (EST))

::::And when that's done, it'll show that, when the votes from illegal immigrants, those who illegally voted multiple times, votes from those in prison (who forfeit their right to vote when they go to prison for their crimes) and votes from "the dead" - all of which would have voted Democrat - are removed from the equation, Hillary will have far less votes than first claimed, which will give Trump both the electoral college ''and'' the popular vote, thereby pulling the Democrats' and other detractors' last flimsy argument out from under them. [[User:Northwest|Northwest]] ([[User talk:Northwest|talk]]) 13:46, 23 December 2016 (EST)

== Added discussion ==

After reading [http://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/andy-schlafly-pro-life-groups-misleading-trump-on-supreme-court-picks this] I wonder if anyone may question Trump's judgement. I never did trust Trump, and I still hold that he said all the conservative things he needed to say just to get in office and not because he really cared. Now that he's going to be our president in two weeks, I am both curious and apprehensive what he'll do. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 2:20, 4 January 2017 (EDT)

User:KommissarReb

2017-01-04T19:17:09Z

KommissarReb: Removed stuph

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

As a [[New Jersey]] resident, I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me.

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

{{userboxtop}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User Republican}}
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{Userbox|Green|White|<s>Homosexual Marriage</s>|This User does NOT believe in Homosexual Marriage.}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Talk:Westboro Baptist Church

2016-12-10T15:50:54Z

KommissarReb: My debate with Steve Drain of the WBC

{{Wikiproject Religion}}

I don't think that the Westboro Baptist Church qualifies as a liberal activist group especially since they oppose evolution, abortion, and the homosexual agenda, three things that liberals push for heavily. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:37, 28 October 2007 (EDT)

Phelps wouldn't be that bad if he only protesting homosexuality, its his disrespect of American troops that makes me mad. --[[User:Konservativekanadian|Konservativekanadian]] 12:38, 28 October 2007 (EDT)
:Of course the WBC isn't a liberal group. They are living proof that anything, even religious conservatism, can be taken to the most extreme, and out of its original context. [[User:Bruce1|Bruce1]] 21:19, 31 October 2007 (EDT)
::So why are they still called liberal activists and why is the page locked? [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 11:56, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Of course they're liberal. They hate America. They say "God Hates America". Who cares if they also say that God hates fags? Who cares if they're also doing God's work by picketing fag churches? Hatred of America is liberal, period. The admins were right to lock the page. You seem to forget that children are reading this site, and they might be confused if we give then too much conflicting information. MissAmerica 11:00, 24 November 2007 (EST)

Osama bin Laden also hates America. Does that make him liberal? Do you even know what liberal means?
:This is an encylopedia, remember? [[liberal]] [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 14:58, 12 November 2008 (EST)
--[[User:Incide|Incide]] 19:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Possibly; [[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:12, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Are you a parodist? This is a second prime example of it at any rate. I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir - no other conclusion can be brought out of this article other than that you are writing parody articles. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 16:52, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:*''I've studied Fred Phelps in great detail sir ...''
::*I see. Hmmm. I do not doubt you, sir, for an instant. Now, why are you directing personal comments at me, then, and not discussing the issue? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 14 December 2007 (EST)
You may have studied his inflammatory comments or read an anti-Christian slanted expose or three, but you haven't pointed out a single specific inaccuracy in the article. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:48, 14 December 2007 (EST)
:'''[[bin Laden]] leads a national liberation movement against [[West]]ern oppression, [[imperialism]], and the [[Church]].'''

:I was responding to that (He is implying that Phelps is a Liberal there, and in the Phelps article he is called a 'Leftist Liberal Democrat'. Doesn't take a genius to work out that that is plain false. [[User:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic]] 20:07, 14 December 2007 (EST)
::It's not false, how could it be? I mean it says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" and it has an AMERICAN flag right there at the top-left hand side of the page. Are you anti-America or something?! (Just kidding, by the way. I know that sometimes you can't tell if these type of people are kidding or not so I thought I should note that.) [[User:Alexjohnc3|Alexjohnc3]] 18:29, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I'm conservative but even I can admit that this group is neither liberal nor conservative. It is just simply a hate group --[[User:StephenHarper|StephenHarper]] 20:33, 16 December 2007 (EST)

Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church are not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. --[[User:Richardhead|Richardhead]] 17:40, 20 December 2007 (EST)

:I took out the part that it is a liberal group because there is absolutly no basis for that argument at all. Please tell me if there is. Thanks. [[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:PS. I also added in some parody groups of this hate group. [[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

::Folks,
::I know there are likely going to be some who will immediately want to revert Rocky's changes, but I respectfully suggest that there might be some merit here. If Conservapedia wants to grow and become generally accepted, it needs to build a solid foundation. Lumping someone like Phelps in with tree-huggers and misguided college students serves no real useful purpose, and provides ammunition for those who claim that conservatives use "liberal" to mean "Anyone we dislike."

::That being said, facts are facts. Phelps is/was a Democrat; that is a matter of record, as is his support for Gore; those things cannot be disputed or spun, and certainly merit coverage.

::On the other hand, the parody groups don't seem significant, and I don't see why they should be covered. I'll let veteran editors have first crack before I make any changes.
::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:03, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

I just added in the parody groups simply to show people that these people are not that tough. If you don't make fun of someone, they will allways find a way to justify their hate. However, if you make fun of them, they will have no defense because they will look like idiots. However, I apprechiate the fact that you stuck up for my edits. Thank you. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

== Fred Phelps ==

Why was the tie-in to Fred Phelps removed? [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 05:01, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

It was removed because I could not find any sources. If you can find some, you can put it back in. --[[User:Rocky|Rocky]]

:Rocky please use any search engine with 'Fred Phelps, Westboro Baptist Church'. It's not exactly hidden. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:11, 18 May 2008 (EDT)

==Motto==

I don't restore the motto because I like it, but rather because we conservatives need to show that it is homosexual practices we hate, not homosexual people. God loves the sinner, but hates the sin. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 12 November 2008 (EST)
: I don't know how the offending word is understood by Americans, but personally I don't have a problem with quoting it. But I can't see your point that having it there shows how God loves the sinner and hates the sin. And you haven't addressed NewCrusader's reason for deleting it. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:18, 13 November 2008 (EST)

Please help me explain how WBC's hatred of homosexuals contrasts with the standard Christian ethic which directs us to love all people (even if they sin) while at the same time condemning the sins those same people commit. You might express it in terms of justice and injustice. Is it the Bible or Shakespeare who said God sends rain and sunshine on both the just and the unjust? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:40, 13 November 2008 (EST)

That's the Bible.

The real difference Between WBC's view and Christianity as defined in the Bible is that God hate all sin, not just Homosexuality. They have taken this one issue and made a doctrine out of it. The Bible says that you will go to hell for any sin if you don't repent, not just the "really bad ones" like homosexuality. --[[User:ChrisS|Chris]]

==Photo==

Why does this page have a photo of Fred Phelps with Al Gore? In all likelihood, the photo was taken during Phelps' earlier career as a civil-rights attorney. It's incredibly unlikely that Gore would willingly align with a group such as this one- after all, doing so would be an act of career-suicide. --[[User:KaseyF|KaseyF]]

==Discussion Moved==
Just wanted to say I think this is a really good discussion but it's getting a bit lengthy for this page and probably is better moved to the debate section since it deals more with discussion than page improvements. I moved the conversation and will be replying here: [[Debate:_Should_Westboro_Baptist_Church_be_allowed_to_protest_funerals_as_free_speech%3F]]

--[[User:Jzyehoshua|Jzyehoshua]] 20:08, 22 July 2012 (EDT)

== Why do we link to his website? ==

We aren't supposed to give hate groups the privilege of linking to them here. [[User:Jm920|Jm920]] 14:12, 4 January 2013 (EST)

== Picketed over 45,300 times ==

This statement seems pretty extreme, is there a citation for it? I'm not trying to say anybody is a liar but it doesn't even have a source. [[User:Atrueamericanpatriot|Atrueamericanpatriot]] ([[User talk:Atrueamericanpatriot|talk]]) 17:39, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

:Good point. Thanks for removing that unsupported claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 19:09, 18 August 2015 (EDT)

==My debate with the WBC==

This is one of those groups that I don't feel one can put on a political spectrum and say is far left or far right, because their beliefs don't really align with either side all the way. They oppose the LGBT agenda, oppose abortion, support the death penalty, oppose neoconservatism, believe that the Bible must be taken literally in a certain way, oppose the Catholic Church (and most Protestant churches that aren't them), and oppose patriotism and are staunchly anti-American.

I remember having this conversation with one of the elders of the WBC back in 2014 that is now gone
[https://www.dropbox.com/s/61172yxjvnyatxg/Steve%20Drain%20calls%20Fred%20Phelps%20a%20fool.JPG?dl=0 on YouTube]. This conversation took place on [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hLUiVlppzE this video] before someone hacked his YouTube account and used it to delete his comments and start posting things that were, according to Steve Drain himself when he responded on his now deleted Google+ account, 'disgusting'. I think I may have aught him since the WBC tends to take the Bible literally, but apparently its okay not to sometimes which seems to be [[Cafeteria Christianity|cafeteria Christianity]] if you don't accept ''everything'' in the Bible as the literal Word of God, but just some things.

I recall on a Q&A they claimed the 1611 King James Version is the only version that has any truth, and suggesting using Bible apocrypha to learn more things they wouldn't otherwise know. I can't seem to find that web page that was posted on right now, so it's possible it got deleted. On a video I posted about the conversation, Steve Drain commented saying that the use the KJV but that he was also familiar with other versions (such as Weymouth New Testement). That also was before his account got hacked and deleted. On a video where Shirley Phelps-Roper visited a college for debating practice, her rationale for opposition to the Military is "Thou Shalt Not Kill; there are ''no'' exceptions to that!" I asked Steve Drain that if that was so, why did God demand the for the stoning of Achan after telling them to raze Jericho and kill everyone there? He never answered that question. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 10:50, 10 December 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Don't ask, don't tell

2016-12-07T15:22:16Z

KommissarReb: /* Is Bill Clinton as liberal as you say? */

If nobody has any objections, I am going to remove the phrase "Openly' from the article. Don't ask don't tell allows homosexuals in the military, but they may not be open about it (That would be the "'''Don't Tell''' clause). If anybody objects, please change it back.

== Attacks on Clergy ==

Line removed about attacks on clergy. The claim is sourced by one link and further research on the name of the chaplain allegedly involved in the incident does not reveal anything about him being attacked by anyone. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:27, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== sentence mostly opinion. ==

'The repeal of the law will likely decrease our military effectiveness, as openly gay soldiers are a risk to lower morale and unit cohesiveness' Tell that to the Theban Sacred Band! [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:51, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

== Is Bill Clinton as liberal as you say? ==

As many liberal positions as he may take, I find it ironic that he isn't at least credited by Republicans with making a piece of legislation that Republicans actively fight to protect against Democrat opposition (and Log Cabin Republicans). Give the man some credit here, is this executive order illegible to be called conservative because a Democrat introduced it? Come on, people. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 09:53, 5 December 2016 (EDT)

:When Don't ask, don't tell is defended by republicans, they are going against their party. Those folks are often called RINOs (Republicans in name only) because they act as though they were democrats. Just because some people who call themselves republicans defend this, doesn't mean they are true republicans--perhaps they are just caving to the pressure of "political correctness" or perhaps they are complete traitors. Either way, they do not represent the party as a whole. This in general is probably why Trump won--people were fed up with "the establishment" republicans, a.k.a. RINOs. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (EST)

::It's confusing what is and isn't considered to be conservative nowadays, with the term being bent and twisted to the point where I couldn't care less about labels anymore.

::Trump won the election for a reason that still eludes the SJW's who supported Hillary for little reason beyond her gender, and Trumps political positions on social issues (like abortion). Trump appealed to the Rust Belt (something Romney failed to do) and working class whites and middle-aged whites, which the Democratic establishment actively alienated by throwing them under the bus while giving minorities preferential treatment. They rigged the primaries against Jim Webb and even Bernie Sanders, which I bet did anything but sit well with their supporters; possibly to an extent that they would vote for Trump just as protest to a corrupt party establishment. To be honest, I am disgusted by '''both''' the GOP and the Democratic Parties for their sleaziness. The RNC enacted Rule 40(b) regardless of whether or not more delegates said "no" (John Boehner read what he said on a teleprompter), and the DNC allowed Debbie Shultz to remain as the head until AFTER the convention was over. There is so much to cover on how the DNC screwed Bernie and his supporters over, that I find it nothing short of nauseating and depressing.

::But the thing is, Trump had about as much support as Romney did, but Hillary had ''less'' support than Obama did. For this reason, libtards are now saying things like "America is sexist!" and "#NotMyPresident" even though they blasted Trump for merely ''saying'' that he would claim the election was rigged if he didn't win. But the SJW's are rioting and protesting, while some of Trump's fringe supporters are committing hate crimes and attaks on people they suspect didn't vote for him.

::Trump is egotistical, and he lied about prosecuting Hillary Clinton or eliminating Obamacare. Not that I cared about either one of those promises, but now we have a President-elect who we can't trust to say what he truly means. The only thing he seems consident on is his stances on environmental issues, and I am not at all reassured by this. He loves eminent domain, probably wouldn't repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005, appointed climate-change denier Myron Ebell as head of the EPA transition team, even though he has no scientific credentials to make the claims he does beyond support by the natural gas and coal industries. The natural gas industry and coal industry will say what they feel they need to say to protect their immediate best interests for their business, so of course they will have anthropocentric views. Call me a liberal spy for that one stance, I don't really care about liberal/conservative labels being put on me anymore.

::I think party-loyalty is rediculous and I agreed with Trump for not honoring that dumb pledge to not run as a 3rd party candidate, and to endorse the eventual nominee. At least ''he'' admitted that he wouldn't honor the pledge because he may possibly break it. Every other candidate made the pledge, but some (like Ted Cruz) didn't honor it. If I ran for president, I would not have made such a pledge because chances are I'd break it in a heartbeat. On top of all of that, Donald Trump is a serial party-switcher who once said in 2004 he identified more with the Democrats and that "I've been around a long time. And it just seems the economy does better under the Democrats than under Republicans.".

::I felt that we needed an anti-establishment guy (like Ron Paul) to beat the establishment and drain the swamp, but not this guy. Not Donald Trump. He won't drain the swamp I'm afraid. Instead, he'll dump toxic sludge into it and leave a mess for the next president to clean up. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 10:22, 7 December 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Don't ask, don't tell

2016-12-07T15:14:23Z

KommissarReb: /* Is Bill Clinton as liberal as you say? */

If nobody has any objections, I am going to remove the phrase "Openly' from the article. Don't ask don't tell allows homosexuals in the military, but they may not be open about it (That would be the "'''Don't Tell''' clause). If anybody objects, please change it back.

== Attacks on Clergy ==

Line removed about attacks on clergy. The claim is sourced by one link and further research on the name of the chaplain allegedly involved in the incident does not reveal anything about him being attacked by anyone. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:27, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== sentence mostly opinion. ==

'The repeal of the law will likely decrease our military effectiveness, as openly gay soldiers are a risk to lower morale and unit cohesiveness' Tell that to the Theban Sacred Band! [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:51, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

== Is Bill Clinton as liberal as you say? ==

As many liberal positions as he may take, I find it ironic that he isn't at least credited by Republicans with making a piece of legislation that Republicans actively fight to protect against Democrat opposition (and Log Cabin Republicans). Give the man some credit here, is this executive order illegible to be called conservative because a Democrat introduced it? Come on, people. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 09:53, 5 December 2016 (EDT)

:When Don't ask, don't tell is defended by republicans, they are going against their party. Those folks are often called RINOs (Republicans in name only) because they act as though they were democrats. Just because some people who call themselves republicans defend this, doesn't mean they are true republicans--perhaps they are just caving to the pressure of "political correctness" or perhaps they are complete traitors. Either way, they do not represent the party as a whole. This in general is probably why Trump won--people were fed up with "the establishment" republicans, a.k.a. RINOs. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (EST)

::It's confusing what is and isn't considered to be conservative nowadays, with the term being bent and twisted to the point where I couldn't care less about labels anymore.

::Trump won the election for a reason that still eludes the SJW's who supported Hillary for little reason beyond her gender, and Trumps political positions on social issues (like abortion). Trump appealed to the Rust Belt (something Romney failed to do) and working class whites and middle-aged whites, which the Democratic establishment actively alienated by throwing them under the bus while giving minorities preferential treatment. They rigged the primaries against Jim Webb and even Bernie Sanders, which I bet did anything but sit well with their supporters; possibly to an extent that they would vote for Trump just as protest to a corrupt party establishment. To be honest, I am disgusted by '''both''' the GOP and the Democratic Parties for their sleaziness. The RNC enacted Rule 40(b) regardless of whether or not more delegates said "no" (John Boehner read what he said on a teleprompter), and the DNC allowed Debbie Shultz to remain as the head until AFTER the convention was over. There is so much to cover on how the DNC screwed Bernie and his supporters over, that I find it nothing short of nauseating and depressing.

::But the thing is, Trump had about as much support as Romney did, but Hillary had ''less'' support than Obama did. For this reason, libtards are now saying things like "America is sexist!" and "#NotMyPresident" even though they blasted Trump for merely ''saying'' that he would claim the election was rigged if he didn't win. But the SJW's are rioting and protesting, while some of Trump's fringe supporters are committing hate crimes and attaks on people they suspect didn't vote for him.

::Trump is egotistical, and he lied about prosecuting Hillary Clinton or eliminating Obamacare. Not that I cared about either one of those promises, but now we have a President-elect who we can't trust to say what he truly means. The only thing he seems consident on is his stances on environmental issues, and I am not at all reassured by this. He loves eminent domain, probably wouldn't repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005, appointed climate-change denier Myron Ebell as head of the EPA transition team, even though he has no scientific credentials to make the claims he does beyond support by the natural gas and coal industries. The natural gas industry and coal industry will say what they feel they need to say to protect their immediate best interests for their business, so of course they will have anthropocentric views. Call me a liberal spy for that one stance, I don't really care about liberal/conservative labels being put on me anymore.

::I think party-loyalty is rediculous and I agreed with Trump for not honoring that dumb pledge to not run as a 3rd party candidate, and to endorse the eventual nominee. At least ''he'' admitted that he wouldn't honor the pledge because he may possibly break it. Every other candidate made the pledge, but some (like Ted Cruz) didn't honor it. If I ran for president, I would not have made such a pledge because chances are I'd break it in a heartbeat.

::I felt that we needed an anti-establishment guy (like Ron Paul) to beat the establishment and drain the swamp, but not this guy. Not Donald Trump. He won't drain the swamp I'm afraid. Instead, he'll dump toxic sludge into it and leave a mess for the next president to clean up. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 10:10, 7 December 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Don't ask, don't tell

2016-12-07T15:11:44Z

KommissarReb: /* Is Bill Clinton as liberal as you say? */

If nobody has any objections, I am going to remove the phrase "Openly' from the article. Don't ask don't tell allows homosexuals in the military, but they may not be open about it (That would be the "'''Don't Tell''' clause). If anybody objects, please change it back.

== Attacks on Clergy ==

Line removed about attacks on clergy. The claim is sourced by one link and further research on the name of the chaplain allegedly involved in the incident does not reveal anything about him being attacked by anyone. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:27, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== sentence mostly opinion. ==

'The repeal of the law will likely decrease our military effectiveness, as openly gay soldiers are a risk to lower morale and unit cohesiveness' Tell that to the Theban Sacred Band! [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:51, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

== Is Bill Clinton as liberal as you say? ==

As many liberal positions as he may take, I find it ironic that he isn't at least credited by Republicans with making a piece of legislation that Republicans actively fight to protect against Democrat opposition (and Log Cabin Republicans). Give the man some credit here, is this executive order illegible to be called conservative because a Democrat introduced it? Come on, people. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 09:53, 5 December 2016 (EDT)

:When Don't ask, don't tell is defended by republicans, they are going against their party. Those folks are often called RINOs (Republicans in name only) because they act as though they were democrats. Just because some people who call themselves republicans defend this, doesn't mean they are true republicans--perhaps they are just caving to the pressure of "political correctness" or perhaps they are complete traitors. Either way, they do not represent the party as a whole. This in general is probably why Trump won--people were fed up with "the establishment" republicans, a.k.a. RINOs. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (EST)

::It's confusing what is and isn't considered to be conservative nowadays, with the term being bent and twisted to the point where I couldn't care less about labels anymore.

::Trump won the election for a reason that still eludes the SJW's who supported Hillary for little reason beyond her gender, and Trumps political positions on social issues (like abortion). Trump appealed to the Rust Belt (something Romney failed to do) and working class whites and middle-aged whites, which the Democratic establishment actively alienated by throwing them under the bus while giving minorities preferential treatment. They rigged the primaries against Jim Webb and even Bernie Sanders, which I bet did anything but sit well with their supporters; possibly to an extent that they would vote for Trump just as protest to a corrupt party establishment. To be honest, I am disgusted by '''both''' the GOP and the Democratic Parties for their sleaziness. The RNC enacted Rule 40(b) regardless of whether or not more delegates said "no" (John Boehner read what he said on a teleprompter), and the DNC allowed Debbie Shultz to remain as the head until AFTER the convention was over. There is so much to cover on how the DNC screwed Bernie and his supporters over, that I find it nothing short of nauseating and depressing.

::But the thing is, Trump had about as much support as Romney did, but Hillary had ''less'' support than Obama did. For this reason, libtards are now saying things like "America is sexist!" and "#NotMyPresident" even though they blasted Trump for merely ''saying'' that he would claim the election was rigged if he didn't win. But the SJW's are rioting and protesting, while some of Trump's fringe supporters are committing hate crimes and attaks on people they suspect didn't vote for him.

::Trump is egotistical, and he lied about prosecuting Hillary Clinton or eliminating Obamacare. Not that I cared about either one of those promises, but now we have a President-elect who we can't trust to say what he truly means. The only thing he seems consident on is his stances on environmental issues, and I am not at all reassured by this. He loves eminent domain, probably wouldn't repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005, appointed climate-change denier Myron Ebell as head of the EPA transition team, even though he has no scientific credentials to make the claims he does beyond support by the natural gas and coal industries. The natural gas industry and coal industry will say what they feel they need to say to protect their immediate best interests for their business, so of course they will have anthropocentric views. Call me a liberal spy for that one stance, I don't really care about liberal/conservative labels being put on me anymore.

::I think party-loyalty is rediculous and I agreed with Trump for not honoring that dumb pledge to not run as a 3rd party candidate, and to endorse the eventual nominee. At least "he" admitted that he wouldn't honor the pledge because he may possibly break it. Every other candidate made the pledge, but some (like Ted Cruz) didn't honor it. If I ran for president, I would not have made such a pledge because chances are I'd break it in a heartbeat.

::I felt that we needed an anti-establishment guy (like Ron Paul) to beat the establishment and drain the swamp, but not this guy. Not Donald Trump. He won't drain the swamp I'm afraid. Instead, he'll dump toxic sludge into it and leave a mess for the next president to clean up. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 10:10, 7 December 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Don't ask, don't tell

2016-12-07T15:10:18Z

KommissarReb: Added response

If nobody has any objections, I am going to remove the phrase "Openly' from the article. Don't ask don't tell allows homosexuals in the military, but they may not be open about it (That would be the "'''Don't Tell''' clause). If anybody objects, please change it back.

== Attacks on Clergy ==

Line removed about attacks on clergy. The claim is sourced by one link and further research on the name of the chaplain allegedly involved in the incident does not reveal anything about him being attacked by anyone. --[[User:HarabecW|HarabecW]] 00:27, 18 May 2011 (EDT)

== sentence mostly opinion. ==

'The repeal of the law will likely decrease our military effectiveness, as openly gay soldiers are a risk to lower morale and unit cohesiveness' Tell that to the Theban Sacred Band! [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:51, 4 October 2012 (EDT)

== Is Bill Clinton as liberal as you say? ==

As many liberal positions as he may take, I find it ironic that he isn't at least credited by Republicans with making a piece of legislation that Republicans actively fight to protect against Democrat opposition (and Log Cabin Republicans). Give the man some credit here, is this executive order illegible to be called conservative because a Democrat introduced it? Come on, people. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 09:53, 5 December 2016 (EDT)

:When Don't ask, don't tell is defended by republicans, they are going against their party. Those folks are often called RINOs (Republicans in name only) because they act as though they were democrats. Just because some people who call themselves republicans defend this, doesn't mean they are true republicans--perhaps they are just caving to the pressure of "political correctness" or perhaps they are complete traitors. Either way, they do not represent the party as a whole. This in general is probably why Trump won--people were fed up with "the establishment" republicans, a.k.a. RINOs. --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (EST)

::It's confusing what is and isn't considered to be conservative nowadays, with the term being bent and twisted to the point where I couldn't care less about labels anymore.

Trump won the election for a reason that still eludes the SJW's who supported Hillary for little reason beyond her gender, and Trumps political positions on social issues (like abortion). Trump appealed to the Rust Belt (something Romney failed to do) and working class whites and middle-aged whites, which the Democratic establishment actively alienated by throwing them under the bus while giving minorities preferential treatment. They rigged the primaries against Jim Webb and even Bernie Sanders, which I bet did anything but sit well with their supporters; possibly to an extent that they would vote for Trump just as protest to a corrupt party establishment. To be honest, I am disgusted by '''both''' the GOP and the Democratic Parties for their sleaziness. The RNC enacted Rule 40(b) regardless of whether or not more delegates said "no" (John Boehner read what he said on a teleprompter), and the DNC allowed Debbie Shultz to remain as the head until AFTER the convention was over. There is so much to cover on how the DNC screwed Bernie and his supporters over, that I find it nothing short of nauseating and depressing.

But the thing is, Trump had about as much support as Romney did, but Hillary had ''less'' support than Obama did. For this reason, libtards are now saying things like "America is sexist!" and "#NotMyPresident" even though they blasted Trump for merely ''saying'' that he would claim the election was rigged if he didn't win. But the SJW's are rioting and protesting, while some of Trump's fringe supporters are committing hate crimes and attaks on people they suspect didn't vote for him.

Trump is egotistical, and he lied about prosecuting Hillary Clinton or eliminating Obamacare. Not that I cared about either one of those promises, but now we have a President-elect who we can't trust to say what he truly means. The only thing he seems consident on is his stances on environmental issues, and I am not at all reassured by this. He loves eminent domain, probably wouldn't repeal the Energy Policy Act of 2005, appointed climate-change denier Myron Ebell as head of the EPA transition team, even though he has no scientific credentials to make the claims he does beyond support by the natural gas and coal industries. The natural gas industry and coal industry will say what they feel they need to say to protect their immediate best interests for their business, so of course they will have anthropocentric views. Call me a liberal spy for that one stance, I don't really care about liberal/conservative labels being put on me anymore.

I think party-loyalty is rediculous and I agreed with Trump for not honoring that dumb pledge to not run as a 3rd party candidate, and to endorse the eventual nominee. At least "he" admitted that he wouldn't honor the pledge because he may possibly break it. Every other candidate made the pledge, but some (like Ted Cruz) didn't honor it. If I ran for president, I would not have made such a pledge because chances are I'd break it in a heartbeat.

I felt that we needed an anti-establishment guy (like Ron Paul) to beat the establishment and drain the swamp, but not this guy. Not Donald Trump. He won't drain the swamp I'm afraid. Instead, he'll dump toxic sludge into it and leave a mess for the next president to clean up. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] 10:10, 7 December 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Don't ask, don't tell

2016-12-05T14:53:31Z

KommissarReb: Added my 2 cents in the talk page

User:KommissarReb

2016-07-08T14:11:54Z

KommissarReb: Changed info

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

As a [[New Jersey]] resident, I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me. I am about as conservative as you get as a red blip in a [[Blue state|sea of blue]].

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

{{userboxtop}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User Republican}}
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{Userbox|Green|White|<s>Homosexual Marriage</s>|This User does NOT believe in Homosexual Marriage.}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Talk:Black Lives Matter

2016-07-08T14:02:13Z

KommissarReb: Added discussion.

== KR's 2 cents in light of recent events ==

Apparently ''all'' lives don't matter to these clowns, just dead black '''criminals''' killed by anyone who isn't black. If you are a black person that was killed by another black person, these people think you deserve to die because black criminals are their heroes. I also think its pathetic how you have these white [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI9MCvK2MGs sympathizing] hippies siding with these fiends even though they have no place speaking for people that aren't of their race.

I'm surprised if anything how much crime BLM gets away with. The killings and looting that happened today should be reason enough to disband this crazy train of devil worship. While there is ''something'' to be said about careful vetting on who you let in law enforcement, BLM has gone too far. Like Jonah, I would wish people like this would just have fire and brimstone rained upon their heads and be done with them. [[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]] ([[User talk:KommissarReb|talk]]) 10:01, 8 July 2016 (EST)

User:KommissarReb

2016-07-08T13:41:33Z

KommissarReb: Removed infobox

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

As a [[New Jersey]] resident, I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me. I am about as conservative as you get as a red blip in a [[Blue state|sea of blue]].

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

{{userboxtop}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{Userbox|Green|White|<s>Homosexual Marriage</s>|This User does NOT believe in Homosexual Marriage.}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Christina Grimmie

2016-06-15T22:01:57Z

KommissarReb: Added page. R.I.P.

'''Christina Victoria Grimmie''' (March 12, 1994 – June 11, 2016) was an [[American]] [[singer]] and songwriter at first known for her covers of songs on [[YouTube]], and later her participation in The Voice.

==YouTube success==

On YouTube, Christina Grimmie was shown to have had interests ranging from singing, playing [[video games]] like Legend of Zelda and League of Legends, and spending time with her family. <ref>https://www.youtube.com/user/zeldaxlove64/about</ref> She was undaunted to openly admit she was a Christian.

After watching videos of people doing covers of songs on YouTube back in 2009, Christina's friend Lauren suggested that Christina try the same. <ref>https://youtu.be/nLtgOTqStkw</ref> Her mother Tina Grimmie initially was uncomfortable to this move for the fear of her daughter being the target of online predators. Ultimately this proved to be prophetic, albeit out of context. When Christina's YouTube channel exploded with views and positive comments, Selena Gomez's parents found out and offered for Christina opportunities to further her career.

==Beyond YouTube==

Christina Grimmie made appearances on The Voice and was signed with various record companies. She was signed with Island Records until they dropped her when she declined to "undress to impress". <ref>voice-usa-pop-sensation-christina-5269151</ref> Seeing how Miley Cyrus turned out, she made a wise decision.

==Death==

On June 10, 2016, Christina Grimmie announced that she was going to be at a meet and greet to meet fans (or "frands" as she prefers to call them)at [[The Live Plaza]] in [[Orlando, Florida]]. Unfortunately, she was murdered by a mentally ill person at [[The Live Plaza]] in [[Orlando, Florida]], not long before the shooting spree at a homosexual nightclub.

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Women Singers]]
[[Category:Singers]]
[[Category:Christians]]
[[Category:Religious People]]

User:KommissarReb

2016-06-15T21:28:26Z

KommissarReb: Minor edit

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

As a [[New Jersey]] resident, I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me. I am about as conservative as you get as a red blip in a [[Blue state|sea of blue]].

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

{{userboxtop}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User legalpot}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{Userbox|Green|White|<s>Homosexual Marriage</s>|This User does NOT believe in Homosexual Marriage.}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Talk:Bernie Sanders

2016-06-10T18:25:51Z

KommissarReb: Added response to comment

A real American hero - God bless you, Bernie. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 23:04, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Ok, I don't really know how this is supposed to go... Bernie grew up in a Jewish household, but he claims to be "not religious". His faith is listed as "Judaism", but that entails all sorts of religious aspects. Should his ethnicity instead be listed as "Jewish", but religion listed as "None", since he's effectively secular? http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religion-news/judaism/jewish-american-bernie-sanders-is-socialist-but-not-religious [[User:Humanperson|Humanperson]] ([[User talk:Humanperson|talk]]) 14:23, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

:Do you have a quote from Sanders about whether he is an atheist? "Not religious" does not necessarily mean "atheist". The phrase "not religious" may refer more to lack of regular attendance at a religious service rather than basic belief.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 15:30, 14 August 2015 (EDT)

To be honest I feel that Bernie gets a little bit of unnecessary heat (no pun intended) from people here, at least when compared to Hillary Clinton. I personally feel that he has the nations best interests at heart, even if his talking points are freakishly leftist most of the time. I'd choose him or Trump just to spite the establishment puppet Hillary Clinton.

I also frown upon anyone who believes that you are a God-hating atheist because you don't regularly attend religious services or perform certain rituals a certain number of times. I may be forgetting a part (or parts) of the Bible that contain verses emphasizing the importance on that, but too many Cultural Catholics I'm familiar with believe they're better Christians than I am for no reason other than the fact they were altar servers, do more prayers on a daily basis, and attend Church daily instead of weekly while ignoring the volunteer work I did with the same church setting up fundraiser events. I tend to find it hilarious or annoying when such people launch accusations like these at me, yet show up to church late, and leave 20 minutes early. --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]]

:I personally can't agree with you regarding Sanders being better than Trump. I'm concerned that Trump has made a lot of promises he can't keep, but he really does want to "make America great again." The problem here is that his definition of great may differ from ours. Sanders, however, offers handouts that the country cannot afford, and which discourage productivity. We are already hopelessly in debt, and he want to push us all the way to complete, unashamed [[socialism]]. All the while, he complains about "the 1%" while living in one of his several mansions, and filthy rich. At least Trump is honest about his wealth, instead of hiding it like Sanders.
:On your second point, I completely agree. The Bible refers to such things as meeting with the church and serving others as "fruits." If the tree is alive (in Christ) is bears much fruit, but it is not the fruits which save them. Christ saves them, and the fruits are a natural result. These "fruits" will not be perfect, and sometimes there may be times of less productivity. However, Christ helps us to produce them to further His will and bring some of the glory to Him which He deserves. I am not a Roman Catholic, but from what I have seen and heard, Catholics do seem to be very works-oriented. Correct me if I'm wrong (since I'm sure you know better than I), but "here goes." The expected attendance of Mass as an obligation which must be fulfilled, the repeating of phrases which you can't understand, and penance are all a sort of thing which must be done to assure salvation and acceptance. Although I think him a bit too liberal of a Christian, [http://caryschmidt.com Cary Schmidt] wrote an interesting book called "done." (with the period) on the topic. He brings out that Protestants (like myself) believe in a salvation which is already "done." Christ has died, and if trust if put in this alone for salvation, there is nothing else that must be done to secure salvation. Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, and many cults believe that they must "do" things so secure their salvation. They probably act hypocritically towards you because they see themselves fulfilling all the requirement (barely) while you are not. That's how I understand this, anyway.

::About your first paragraph; I never said I'd choose Bernie over Trump, but him ''or'' Trump. I ultimately ended up voting for Trump after switching from Independent to a Republican to vote in the NJ primary that took place a few days ago. There were other people in the GOP ticket for other offices like Bob Patterson that I preferred after vetting the candidates as much as I could, but this was impeded by a lack of information accessible on the internet.

::Originally I didn't support Trump because I was mad at him for the whole ordeal with plopping a golf course in Scotland and letting his staff members bully the people that were already living there. Granted, the Scottish government was being greedy and were the ones partially responsible for the eminent domain usage, but Trump was the spark that lit that fire.

::Its unfortunate that this is my first Presidential election that I am eligible to vote in, and I'm voting for the lesser of the 3 evils. The only thing I see in Trump is the hope that he can be talked out of poor decisions and talked into making good ones. Hillary Clinton I can't trust because she'll tell you whatever you want to hear, then go back on her word and do what she was originally going to do because she's an establishment puppet.

::Bernie Sanders is, like I said, waaay too liberal. He wants to expand the toxic Canadian-European atmosphere in this country where it just doesn't belong. The only things I like him for are his methods of raising money and the fact that he isn't and opposes Hillary Clinton. I want to believe that he has the nation's best interests at heart, but that he simply has no clue what the right thing to do is. Hillary is the bigger threat as her superdelegates assured her winning the election before the nomination process even started. (another reason why I'm a Republican) --[[User:KommissarReb|KommissarReb]]14:25, 10 June 2016 (EDT)

Talk:Bernie Sanders

2016-06-07T18:24:13Z

KommissarReb: Here are my 2 cents

User talk:Stirlatez

2016-06-07T18:05:39Z

KommissarReb: /* Began Talk page. Hi Stirlatez! */ new section

== Began Talk page. Hi Stirlatez! ==

You're pretty ballsy to openly admit that you're an atheist here, and I hope the admins don't ban you for admitting that. I've seen some users [[Intolerance|take away people's "conservative" label and replace it with a "flaming liberal" one for something like that]].

User:KommissarReb

2016-06-07T17:58:35Z

KommissarReb: Added info to my page.

Hello, my username is KommissarReb. Note that my username does ''not'' imply that I am by any means a communist; I simply use this as an internet alias.

As a [[New Jersey]] resident, I am considered by most people I know to be [[center-right]] on the [[political spectrum]]. Now, if I may seem to be [[Centrist|"lacking in my conservatism" or "showing strands of Liberalism"]], I hope you can [[Forgiveness|forgive]] me. I am about as conservative as you get as a red blip in a [[Blue state|sea of blue]].

If you see my username used elsewhere, that probably is me unless it was used before November of 2012 (as that was when I began to use this username).

{{userboxtop}}
{{User BibleStudy}}
{{User Christian1}}
{{User Christian2}}
{{User Christian3}}
{{User Catholic}}
{{User noforcedreligion}}
{{User_Critical}}{{clear}}
{{User Lincoln}}
{{User McCain}}
{{User Palin}}
{{User Romney}}
{{User progun}}
{{User Israel}}
{{User patriot}}
{{User noracists}}
{{User legalpot}}
{{User Geek}}
{{user comp-3}}
{{user American}}
{{user pubschool}}
{{User Interest}}
{{User comp-4}}
{{User windows}}
{{User Galactic Empire}}
{{Userbox|Green|White|<s>Homosexual Marriage</s>|This User does NOT believe in Homosexual Marriage.}}

{{Useful links}}
{{userboxbottom}}

Carl McIntire

2016-06-07T15:28:42Z

KommissarReb: Added page.

'''Carl Curtis McIntire, Jr.''' (May 17, 1906 – March 19, 2002) was an [[American]] [[fundamentalist]] [[Presbyterian]] who founded the [[Bible Presbyterian Church]] in [[Collingswood, New Jersey|Collingswood]] after he felt the Presbyterian church he was already a part of wasn't spewing enough anti-Catholic sentiment. <ref>http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-03-23/news/0203230096_1_radio-stations-fundamentalist-christian-beacon</ref>

McIntire was known as a [[Anti-Communist|anti-communist]] during the [[Cold War]] who actively supported the [[United States Military]].<ref>http://www.wheaton.edu/ISAE/Hall-of-Biography/Carl-McIntire</ref>

Carl McIntire was responsible for having his church members hand out [[Anti-Christian sentiment|anti-Catholic pamphlets]] and [[Lie|blasting the Catholic church, calling it the "Whore of Babylon"]]. He's probably best known by Collingswood residents for sailing in a ship beyond the NJ coast line limit to legally continue [[Hate Speech|his radio talk]], gaining him the nickname "'''Wacky Macky'''".

==References==

<References/>

[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Anti-Communism]]
[[Category:Fundamentalism]]
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]
[[Category:Religious People]]

Collingswood, New Jersey

2016-06-07T15:04:58Z

KommissarReb: Added page.

'''Collingswood''' is a [[Temperance|dry town]] in southern [[New Jersey]]. It is the location of the [[Bible Presbyterian Church]], founded by the virulently [[Anti-Christian sentiment|anti-catholic]] [[Carl McIntire]]. Collingswood is also the setting of [[The Collingswood Story|a indie horror movie]], and the birthplace of [[User:KommissarReb|a inconsequential Conservapedia contributer]].

[[Category: New Jersey Cities and Towns]]
[[Category: Most Conservative American Cities]]