Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2008-08-08T02:28:15Z

MCrowe:

Conservative movies exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list (in no particular order):

#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]]
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of evil with sympathy to Christianity. At its time it became the top-grossing film ever.
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)
#The first ''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at assumed [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'', which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]]
#''[[Ben-Hur]]'', celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'', solid family entertainment
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]''
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]''
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil
#''[[King of Kings]]''
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' - a simple but hardworking longshoreman takes on his Mafia-controlled union
#''[[Sergeant York]]''
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]''
#''[[Ninotchka]]''
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]''
#''[[Rudy]]''
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]''
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]''. Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]''. Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
#''[[Red Dawn]]''
#''[[Harry's War]]''
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)
#''[[Ladder 49]]''
#''[[Rocky]]'' (perseverance and talent can overcome all odds)
#''[[October Sky]]''
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]''
#[[World Trade Center]] (highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])
#''[[Flight 93]]''
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]''
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]''
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]''
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (dangers of alcohol)
#''[[Little Miss Sunshine]]'' (importance of family)
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
#''[[True Lies]]'', starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.
#''[[Star Trek: First Contact]]'' (1996) a film from the [[Star Trek]] franchise in which the crew of the Enterprise battle the Borg, an alien race that symbolizes [[communism]].
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
#''[[The Day After Tomorrow]]'' (2004) Anti Global Warming movie, the earth freezes over after humans try to reduce green house gas effect.
#''[[Forrest Gump]]''1994 Shows that people who choose morality and abstinence have success over those who choose immorality and excesses
== References ==
<references/>

Please add your best conservative picks.

[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies

2008-08-08T02:27:10Z

MCrowe:

Conservative movies exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list (in no particular order):

#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]]
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of evil with sympathy to Christianity. At its time it became the top-grossing film ever.
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)
#The first ''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at assumed [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses [[abstinence]]. This was one of the most profitable films ever made.
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'', which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]]
#''[[Ben-Hur]]'', celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'', solid family entertainment
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]''
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]''
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]''
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]''
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil
#''[[King of Kings]]''
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' - a simple but hardworking longshoreman takes on his Mafia-controlled union
#''[[Sergeant York]]''
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]''
#''[[Ninotchka]]''
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]''
#''[[Rudy]]''
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]''
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]''. Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]''. Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.
#''[[Red Dawn]]''
#''[[Harry's War]]''
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)
#''[[Ladder 49]]''
#''[[Rocky]]'' (perseverance and talent can overcome all odds)
#''[[October Sky]]''
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]''
#[[World Trade Center]] (highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])
#''[[Flight 93]]''
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]''
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]''
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]''
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (dangers of alcohol)
#''[[Little Miss Sunshine]]'' (importance of family)
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.
#''[[True Lies]]'', starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.
#''[[Star Trek: First Contact]]'' (1996) a film from the [[Star Trek]] franchise in which the crew of the Enterprise battle the Borg, an alien race that symbolizes [[communism]].
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]
#''[[The Day After Tomorrow]]'' (2004) Anti Global Warming movie, the earth freezes over after humans try to reduce green house gas effect.
#''[[Forest Gump]]''1994 Shows that people who choose morality and abstinence have success over those who choose immorality and excesses
== References ==
<references/>

Please add your best conservative picks.

[[Category:Essays]]

User talk:MCrowe

2008-08-06T03:00:27Z

MCrowe:

You can point out the spelling errors, but you're not going to revert them, and certainly not in retaliation for the recent chat on Jinx's talk page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:37, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:I am trying to make the point that everybody makes spelling mistakes and that Jinx pointing them out and trying to gain political capital out of them is particularly silly. No doubt I could find spelling mistakes of you, Andy and everybody else. --[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 22:39, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
::No doubt you could find plenty of those mistakes by me, and I have made plenty. But if there is a troll who made those mistakes while engaged in attacking someone here, the last thing I expect from anyone is an instant defense of that troll. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:48, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:::Well I had no idea that he was a troll until you told me. I was not defending the troll so much as pointing out the fallacy in reverting someone's spelling mistakes that they themselves recognized. I considered it misleading and still do, regardless of who the other person is.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 22:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::I agree with K and I'm going to go one step further and call those edits mild vandalism. However, since your emotions are running high right now, I'm not going to block you. I've made errors of judgment of my own in the heat of the moment and stupidly done similar things. Just consider this a friendly warning. Don't make disruptive edits to try to prove a point. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:::The point is well made I believe. I really must get back to work now anyway.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 22:51, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

::::MCrowe, I am also going to point out the fact that the site appreciates what you are doing regarding any kind of spelling corrections. I'm sorry if I bit your head off for it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:57, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
:::::OK lets let bygones be bygones! Now I really must get back to work, considering the firm is charging a ridiculuous amount of money for my time--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 23:00, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

User talk:MCrowe

2008-08-06T02:51:41Z

MCrowe:

User talk:MCrowe

2008-08-06T02:39:36Z

MCrowe:

Wikiproject:Religion

2008-08-06T01:30:34Z

MCrowe: /* Members */

Hello, and welcome to Wikiproject Religion, we are a project trying to improve the quality of religion related articles, if you sufficient knowledge in a particular [[religion]] please specify under the members section

==Members==
To sign up simply put <nowiki>*~~~~</nowiki> followed by the religions you have adequate knowledge of

* [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] [[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 18:01, 28 July 2008 (EDT) [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], [[Islam]] (founder)
*[[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|שועל]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:03, 28 July 2008 (EDT) [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]], [[Messianic Judaism]]
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:24, 28 July 2008 (EDT) [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]]
*--[[User:Phillip|Phillip]] 20:38, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
*'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 21:20, 5 August 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 21:30, 5 August 2008 (EDT) Catholicism

==Articles==
===Featured Articles===
*[[Jesus Christ]]
*[[C.S. Lewis]]
*[[Genesis]]
*[[Scopes Trial]]
*[[Bible]]
*[[Saint Nicholas]]
*[[Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[Starlight problem]]
*[[Passover]]
===Potential featured religion articles===
*[[Holy Days]]
*[[Great Flood]]
*[[Kosher]]

See [[Conservapedia:Featured articles]] to try to keep this always up to date and to vote and discuss if you would like these articles to be featured or not

===Requested articles===
====Requested Christianity articles====
====Requested Hinduism articles====
====Requested Islam articles====
====Requested Judaism articles====
====Other requested articles====
*[[Book of Abraham]] (Mormonism)

===Articles which need help on===
*[[Halal]] I know about Islamic legends, but not about their law, I expanded this just a little bit, the best I could, I would appreciate it if other members could help expand the article -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 18:23, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

I was hoping that maybe the [[Kosher]] and [[Halal]] article could be featured around the same time -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 18:33, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

==Potential Work groups/ and or WikiProjects==
[[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] maybe [[Hinduism]] and [[Islam]]

User:MCrowe

2008-08-03T03:12:06Z

MCrowe:

I am a Catholic.

[[Category:Catholic Conservapedians]]

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-07-31T18:47:30Z

MCrowe: /* Stan's wife is dead! Hooray! */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Suggestion... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wow ==

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

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

== Really! ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==GlenW==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Questions==

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

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

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

== Less STD's? ==

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

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

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

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

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

Learn, think, pray.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Example six ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Stan's wife is dead! Hooray! ==

Your average liberal is a law abiding, spouse-loving citizen. Blaming Hollywood values? Right. I don't think Paris Hilton is really a tick on the political spectrum. Blaming infertility on the woman? Surely it can't be his fault! This is the biggest load of medieval-minded garbage I've ever read. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:38, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're providing a good caricature of a closed-minded [[liberal]]. Don't stop.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
::I admit freely that I am a liberal, and I make a constant effort to be open-minded. My point is that this is a load of scare tactics based on anecdotal evidence. I can name one very prominent example where marrying a conservative joins you to a patron of male prostitutes and a meth abuser. Does this make marrying a conservative likely to saddle you with such a situation? Certainly not, no more than marrying a liberal makes you unlikely to have children. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::: If you're claiming that there is absolutely no correlation between one's beliefs and one's conduct, then you're plainly wrong. People who oppose promiscuity are less likely to have sexually transmitted diseases than people who favor promiscuity. If you deny that, then you'll lose all credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree that there is a correlation between one's beliefs, consisting of their religious perspective and system of values, and their actions. I also agree that risk of contracting an STD rises with the number of sexual partners one has. What I disagree with is the idea that being a liberal is synonymous with promiscuity, infidelity, infecting your spouse with HIV, etc. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:18, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: No one claims that "being a liberal is synonymous with promiscuity ...." But it's absurd and wrong to deny the correlation, which is what you first did above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::That claim is clearly made in the essay. The essay explicitly claims that by marrying a conservative you are able to avoid promiscuity, personal debt, etc. The clear implication is that by marrying a liberal you are in danger of being left, getting HIV, and getting your house burglarized until thankfully your horrible liberal spouse dies. This is a fine example of setting up liberals as some kind of boogeymen. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Each posting by you contradicts the one before. First you insist there is no correlation, then you imply there is a correlation, and now you're back to denying it again.

::::::: Having sex with someone who believes in promiscuity does increase one's chance of contracting a STD and becoming infertile. Ditto for marrying one. Liberals are more likely to believe in promiscuity than conservatives. I'll let you apply basic logic to those indisputable statements, or you can revert to [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::On the contrary- if there is sound statistical evidence showing an association between liberal political views and having more sexual partners or a higher incidence of STDs, then I will concede that particular point. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Now you try an entirely new approach by introducing the implausible condition of "if there is sound statistical evidence showing ...." Of course no one is likely to pay for such a study, for several reasons. First, it's politically incorrect and second, it's obvious.

::::::::: You have free will to reject logic. Belief/acceptance of promiscuity is undeniably correlated to more promiscuity, and hence more STDs and infertility. We don't need a study to prove logic, and it's [[liberal denial]] to claim that one is necessary. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:33, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::"Liberals are more likely to believe in promiscuity than conservatives." That's not a statement of logic, that's a statement born of your opinion. How is it [[liberal denial]] to ask if there is evidence regarding your statement? I am offering, in a civil discussion, to admit that you are right about a point of contention, but not just because you say so. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:43, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Challenging that statement is like denying that liberals are less likely to support the Second Amendment than conservatives.

::::::::::: Liberals are more likely to deny that promiscuity is sinful; liberals are more likely to oppose and even ridicule abstinence; liberals are more likely to support abortion, a product of promiscuity; and liberals are more likely to defend the highly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle. Show me liberal institutions that emphatically declare that promiscuity is wrong, sinful and harmful as many conservative institutions, organizations, and leaders do. Good luck.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::Liberal churches teach that when you marry somebody you should devote yourself to them and them only. They just might not seem to make their point as "emphatically" because they generally don't try to get their own cable channel. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::On a conciliatory note, the webpage is running much more smoothly today. Whatever was wrong seems to be fixed. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:08, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Here is a breakdown of the rates of Chlamydia by states in the US. The liberal ones should have higher rates than the conservative ones but there does not seem to be a correlation in this manner. Hope this helps Andy and Corry. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tables/table2.htm --[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 14:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:I'll say, Massachusetts is certainly much lower than Mississippi and South Carolina. I don't know what's happening in Alaska, but they're winning by a landslide! Seriously, though, it would be interesting to compare these data with prevalence of abstinence-only sex education. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:26, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::I'd say STDs and abortions probably correlate more with income and education than political affiliation.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 14:39, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:::That's fair and entirely possible. Surely there's a multitude of causes for these differences. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:45, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
::::I suspect (and its only a suspicion) that Andy may be correct about the rate of liberal promiscuity being higher than that of conservatives. However I think that liberals are better at teaching their children about safe sex and the use of condoms than conservatives are.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 14:47, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

==Quick question==
Honestly, I didn't read the whole thing because I'm afraid of a repeat like [[Writing Homework One]]. So, this "works" as long as one person is conservative? I'm still -0.35 (Left) according to that political compass test... this "method" works as long as I marry a conservative girl, right? -.- [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because I care?]] 11:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: I suggest you try to understand the concept of "correlation" first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-07-31T18:17:49Z

MCrowe: /* Stan's wife is dead! Hooray! */

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Suggestion... ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Wow ==

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

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

== Really! ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==GlenW==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Questions==

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

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

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

== Less STD's? ==

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

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

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

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

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

Learn, think, pray.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Example six ==

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

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

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

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

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

== Stan's wife is dead! Hooray! ==

Your average liberal is a law abiding, spouse-loving citizen. Blaming Hollywood values? Right. I don't think Paris Hilton is really a tick on the political spectrum. Blaming infertility on the woman? Surely it can't be his fault! This is the biggest load of medieval-minded garbage I've ever read. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 23:38, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

: You're providing a good caricature of a closed-minded [[liberal]]. Don't stop.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
::I admit freely that I am a liberal, and I make a constant effort to be open-minded. My point is that this is a load of scare tactics based on anecdotal evidence. I can name one very prominent example where marrying a conservative joins you to a patron of male prostitutes and a meth abuser. Does this make marrying a conservative likely to saddle you with such a situation? Certainly not, no more than marrying a liberal makes you unlikely to have children. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 00:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::: If you're claiming that there is absolutely no correlation between one's beliefs and one's conduct, then you're plainly wrong. People who oppose promiscuity are less likely to have sexually transmitted diseases than people who favor promiscuity. If you deny that, then you'll lose all credibility.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::I agree that there is a correlation between one's beliefs, consisting of their religious perspective and system of values, and their actions. I also agree that risk of contracting an STD rises with the number of sexual partners one has. What I disagree with is the idea that being a liberal is synonymous with promiscuity, infidelity, infecting your spouse with HIV, etc. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:18, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::: No one claims that "being a liberal is synonymous with promiscuity ...." But it's absurd and wrong to deny the correlation, which is what you first did above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::That claim is clearly made in the essay. The essay explicitly claims that by marrying a conservative you are able to avoid promiscuity, personal debt, etc. The clear implication is that by marrying a liberal you are in danger of being left, getting HIV, and getting your house burglarized until thankfully your horrible liberal spouse dies. This is a fine example of setting up liberals as some kind of boogeymen. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:34, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Each posting by you contradicts the one before. First you insist there is no correlation, then you imply there is a correlation, and now you're back to denying it again.

::::::: Having sex with someone who believes in promiscuity does increase one's chance of contracting a STD and becoming infertile. Ditto for marrying one. Liberals are more likely to believe in promiscuity than conservatives. I'll let you apply basic logic to those indisputable statements, or you can revert to [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:41, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::On the contrary- if there is sound statistical evidence showing an association between liberal political views and having more sexual partners or a higher incidence of STDs, then I will concede that particular point. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Now you try an entirely new approach by introducing the implausible condition of "if there is sound statistical evidence showing ...." Of course no one is likely to pay for such a study, for several reasons. First, it's politically incorrect and second, it's obvious.

::::::::: You have free will to reject logic. Belief/acceptance of promiscuity is undeniably correlated to more promiscuity, and hence more STDs and infertility. We don't need a study to prove logic, and it's [[liberal denial]] to claim that one is necessary. Suit yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:33, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::"Liberals are more likely to believe in promiscuity than conservatives." That's not a statement of logic, that's a statement born of your opinion. How is it [[liberal denial]] to ask if there is evidence regarding your statement? I am offering, in a civil discussion, to admit that you are right about a point of contention, but not just because you say so. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:43, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Challenging that statement is like denying that liberals are less likely to support the Second Amendment than conservatives.

::::::::::: Liberals are more likely to deny that promiscuity is sinful; liberals are more likely to oppose and even ridicule abstinence; liberals are more likely to support abortion, a product of promiscuity; and liberals are more likely to defend the highly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle. Show me liberal institutions that emphatically declare that promiscuity is wrong, sinful and harmful as many conservative institutions, organizations, and leaders do. Good luck.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::Liberal churches teach that when you marry somebody you should devote yourself to them and them only. They just might not seem to make their point as "emphatically" because they generally don't try to get their own cable channel. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:01, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::::On a conciliatory note, the webpage is running much more smoothly today. Whatever was wrong seems to be fixed. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 14:08, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Here is a breakdown of the rates of Chlamydia by states in the US. The liberal ones should have higher rates than the conservative ones but there does not seem to be a correlation in this manner. Hope this helps Andy and Corry. http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats/tables/table2.htm --[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 14:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

==Quick question==
Honestly, I didn't read the whole thing because I'm afraid of a repeat like [[Writing Homework One]]. So, this "works" as long as one person is conservative? I'm still -0.35 (Left) according to that political compass test... this "method" works as long as I marry a conservative girl, right? -.- [[User:NathanG|Nate]][[User_talk:NathanG|because I care?]] 11:57, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: I suggest you try to understand the concept of "correlation" first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Economics

2008-07-31T03:36:32Z

MCrowe:

The last sentence of the first paragraph is neither a sentence nor easily repaired.
[[User:Canuck|Canuck]] 22:44, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

: What's wrong with it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:31, 30 July 2008 (EDT)
::"The United States economic policy, set down in the Constitution and inspired by enlightenment thinkers." There is no verb related to the subject. I don't understand what the string of words means. However I don't see an easy way of fixing it either--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 23:36, 30 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-07-30T03:03:19Z

MCrowe: /* "Interesting to note" */

Here's my take, and I haven't even read the book, so I'm insulated from all bias by my sheer ignorance. ;-)

The author thinks he can pull a fast one on us. He has created a satire of God and Christianity with the world's best "[[deniability]]" clause; see [[plausible denial]].

He portrays God and Christians as viciously cruel. Any criticism that he has portrayed God in a bad light can be dismissed simply by denying that he was talking about God at all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:29, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:Interesting point, and it's one that the Archbishop of Canterbury raised when he was interviewed alongside Pullman - that this otherworldly church has no element of redemption, that it is purely a matter of control. Pullman's response was interesting, too - he said that Jesus' core teachings are antithetical to the organisation itself:
<blockquote>
"I think he's mentioned once, in the context of this notion of wisdom that works secretly and quietly, not in the great courts and palaces of the earth, but among ordinary people and so on. And there are some teachers who have embodied this quality, but whose teaching has perhaps been perverted or twisted or turned, and been used in a fashion that they themselves didn't either desire or expect or could see happening."
</blockquote>

It's definitely worth a read, if you haven't gotten around to it yet. :-D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 22:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

=="Interesting to note"==
"It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make the decisions. It is similar to Al Gore writing about global warming, and somehow being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." - this is ''supremely'' unencyclopedic. I see no reason not to remove this - it's clearly editorial content. Unless someone can come up with a reasonable defense of including it, I'm going to remove it within a few days. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 20:27, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:We are allowed to point out odd choices that would be of interest to conservative thought. That such a thing is even possible would be of interest to our demographics. To not put it in would be more of an oversite than its inclusion. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:42, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
::So personal insight (in the form of editorial commentary like "odd choice") in articles is a special feature of Conservapedia? Well, I suppose that's the choice of the people who run the site, but I hope you'll agree that it creates an uncomfortable grey area for an encyclopedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:58, 29 July 2008 (EDT)
:::I fear I may have started this thing by removing a sentence that was much worse than that Wandering is now complaining of. Perhaps if Learn Together explained exactly what the resemblance between this award and Al Gore's award we might be in a better position to evaluate the situation.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 23:03, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

User:MCrowe

2008-07-29T23:36:36Z

MCrowe: New page: I am a Catholic.

I am a Catholic.

Talk:Moral relativism

2008-07-29T23:32:36Z

MCrowe: /* Hitler quote */ new section

No sources were found to support the last point made, so I deleted it. Additionally, moral relativism has been used for far more than just Atheists, Communists, and Nazis (although I do find it humorous that atheists are lumped in there).

Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does. harmlesstree

== It has been linked... ==

{{cquote|It has been linked to atheism and to Communist and Nazi ideology.}}
Erm... yeeeees? How has it been linked to it? Who linked it? Is the link valid? This is a horrible way to end the article, and I wouldn't even know where to begin to look for sources. Could either Miss Cleo or whoever put these claims into the article help me out here? I'll try to look for material myself, of course, but I guess that those who made the claims would more readily know where to look (and what to look for).
--[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

How are sexual relations between relatives closely linked to homosexuality? That may not be what is said, but the link goes to homosexuality, implying the connection. Is not heterosexuality just as linked to sexual relations between relatives as homosexuality is? Tell me if I'm wrong. [[User:Rockthecasbah|Rockthecasbah]] 21:41, 19 May 2008 (EDT)

Neither Nazis nor slave owners were moral relativists. They both, or at
least most members of both, were moral absolutists; they believed that their morals were right and everyone else's were wrong. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 22:49, 21 May 2008 (EDT)

What about moral relativism in bible and conservative american behaviour? In the ten commandments it is clearly said "Thou shalt not kill" and yet although killing is marked as evil by the bible itself, many conservatives
are in favor of the death penalty and although I'm not an expert on the subject of bible, I recall there being a line about "eye for an eye". This makes no sense to me, so please,
explain these things for me. If killing is wrong in the first place, why should the punishment be death. I mean, shouldn't then the executioner be killed too? That's some moral relativism for ya.

Moral relativism is not a philosophy that suggests morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, it is a philosophy that contends that they DO very from culture to culture. These two positions are very different in nature, despite their ostensible similarity. If one contends that morals SHOULD very from culture to culture, that person is not a moral relativist. On the contrary, this person is a moral absolutist. For this individual is making a normative statement – that is how things OUGHT to be. The ought in this case is predicated on a conviction they have regarding the ABSOLUTE TRUTH of their believe in cultural diversity. The moral relativist, on the other hand, is merely making a descriptive point regarding morality – that is morality does not exist. They may even wish morality did exist; but they just do not believe that it does.

== Hitler quote ==

Umm, the quote from Hitler, despicable though it is tends to show Hitler was a believer in moral absolutism, not relativism.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 19:32, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal myths

2008-07-29T22:24:33Z

MCrowe: /* Unilateral action */ new section

How about the claim that a fetus is not a human? Or is that not quite what we're going for here? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

I normally try to stay away from discussion on these sorts of pages, but I'm very uncomfortable with the "motivation" part of the first few entries. Personally I'd rather have the motivation removed from this entry and discussed on the relevant article page, but a comprimise would be to give each bullet point it's own section with a full discussion. Thoughts? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 00:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==I'm ripping this apart one by one==

'The claim of a population explosion (motivation: promote abortion)'

The population went from 3 billion from around the time of the second Vatican Council to over 6 billion now. Is that not an explosion in your eyes?

'The claim that people today are smarter than in prior centuries (motivation: to make famous Christians look dumb)'

Not smarter, more educated. The whole sum of knowledge a human being will never know is beyond our comprehension, but at least the amount of knowledge we do not know as a whole is decreasing. In other words, we have so much more knowledge in our hands today than we used to have. It was not a matter of intelligence, it was a matter of education. Without universal education and the abilitity to read and write, the people didn't have the opportunities to be what they are today. Its not a Liberal Myth, its a simple fact. People were less educated in the past than they are now.

'The claim that the Apostles were all illiterate (motivation: to portray them as dumb)'

As far as I am aware most of them were blue collar guys with no need for a formal education. Actually, the overwhelming majority of people back then could not read or write. So yes, it is most likely they were illiterate.

'The claim of extraterrestrial life (motivation: deny that man was created in God's image)'

You are once again politicising science, which is just stupid. The claim of extraterrestrial life is a bold one; we have no evidence other than a mathematically calculated probability that there isn't.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.'

Bush's tax cuts did decrease revenues. Show me a graph or something. Your deficit is exploding man... Get a grip.

'The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.'

I think its more to do with Bush not being able to help the economy.

'Man-made Global Warming.[1]'

There are three steps to conservatism. 1) Denying the science behind passive smoking. 2) Denying the science behind Climate Change. 3) Promoting Creationism in '''Science classes'''. I'll never be able to persuade you about the lunacy of that point above. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 07:13, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Your definition of conservatism is rather poor, indeed. When one is arguing that there is too much rhetoric in another's argument, one should be careful to keep the rhetoric out of one's own argument, no? [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 09:44, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

I was mainly joking about that. Its a caricature of the extreme right. Denying Climate Change is just one step on the ladder of that infamous caricature... [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Okay, I'm ripping you a new one! ==

Here you go, sport!

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit."''

Critics tirelessly contend that America's swing from budget surpluses in 1998–2001 to a $247 billion budget deficit in 2006 resulted chiefly from the "irresponsible" Bush tax cuts. This argument ignores the historic spending increases that pushed federal spending up from 18.5 percent of GDP in 2001 to 20.2 percent in 2006.[4]
[[Image:Chart1 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
The best way to measure the swing from surplus to deficit is by comparing the pre–tax cut budget baseline of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) with what actually happened. While the January 2000 baseline projected a 2006 budget surplus of $325 billion, the final 2006 numbers showed a $247 billion deficit—a net drop of $572 billion. This drop occurred because spending was $514 billion above projected levels, and revenues were $58 billion below (even after $188 billion in tax cuts). In other words, 90 percent of the swing from surplus to deficit resulted from higher-than-projected spending, and only 10 percent resulted from lower-than-projected revenues.[5] (See Chart 1. [http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]

:From an conservative economic standpoint, Bush still deserves mediocre or poor grades. It's true that the budget is Congress' department, but has Bush done anything to curb spending and cut down on pork? Did he ever use his veto as Reagan did? while we can start to shift some of the blame to the Democrats now, we can't escape the fact that for six years republicans controlled both Congress and the White House, and it during that time that these deficits emerged. The sad fact is that politicians love to spend other peoples money. even those who rail against it tend to change their tune when its their turn. Clinton was lucky that he had surpluses during his tenure. Bush doesn't have the tech bubble, and Clinton didn't have a war on terror, even though after the World Trade center and embassy bombings he really should have. Bush is in a more difficult situtation, but the inabaility of ALL partys to curb spending is shameful. as for whether or not the bush tax cuts substantially desreased revenue, I guess it depends on what one considers substantial. is 58 billion substantial? I guess in this context it isnt so much, but considering 58 billion an unsubstantial amount of money is one reason why there is so little fiscal responsibility today. as for the point below, yes the tax cuts did help the economy, as they generally do. The deficits are still troubling, though. does no one remember those hopeful days in 1994 when Republicans talked of not just a balanced budget, but a balanced budget amendment? Why does no one even mention the term balanced budget or fiscal responsibility any more? [[User:AuH2O|AuH2O]]
::Libertarians do ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:07, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

''"The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy..."''

The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
[[Image:Table 3 lg.gif|thumb|right|300px]]
* GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent.
* Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters.
* The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.
* The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16]
Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, '''critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted.''' They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.

The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/bg2001.cfm]
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Although I would readily agree that sometimes tax cuts can be great for an economy - a budget deficit is most certainly not. Bush's irresponsible 'spending without raising' policies have led to the current deficit, something which is helping fuel the economies of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Japan etc. who are buying your government bonds to help make ends meet! Its a nasty little circle. Your charts were lovely though :-) [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*When you are refuted, have the good grace to accept defeat. Don't respond with more ''talking points'' from moveon or daily kos. Most responsible economists would never say all budget deficits are bad. And again, read the Constitution! '''Presidents cannot appropriate money!''' That was, 75% of the time since FDR, a liberal, Democrat-controlled Congress. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

First of all I don't read Move on or Daily Kos. I stick to reading the Irish Times, if anything (The Centre-Right paper in my country) or the Economist when I want a more Liberal perspective on things.

Presidents do not appropriate money - but they can veto. Add to this the fact there was a Republican Congress, the President could have balanced the Budget. The fact that he did not is a testament to his lack of fiscal responsibility. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:41, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P-S Going all Keynesian (deficit spending) on me TK!?? I might have expected that from a crusty old Liberal like myself but you... :-O [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:43, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

P.P.S - I said his tax cuts did decrease revenues... And you continued to show me a chart proving that 10% of the deficit is down to the cuts... What am I supposed to concede!??? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 17:53, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Fetus rights ==

'''The claim that a fetus is not a living being with rights.'''

I've been going over our own rights and I have to say, it's tough to give them to a fetus.

:1st: While a good idea, they don't really talk much. And besides, if they have the right to free speech, their host mothers won't have any rest.
:2nd: While I personally am all for gun rights, over here I'll make an exception. The recoil of a gun can harm fetus', besides, the exit wound on the mother would be awful.
:3rd: There really isn't any room in the womb for soldiers, besides, I doubt they would be stationed there.
:4th: What exactly would they be looking for anyway, the charges would be dismissed for a lack of probable cause.
:5th: Like I said they don't talk much. Due process isn't really applicable
:6th: Might apply, without a speedy trial, after birth it's as if their in a new jurisdiction.
:7th: Jury of his peers would be tough, fetuses are always trying to get out of jury duty by saying they're too young to register.
:8th: Bail them out, huh? How do they get transported to prison in the first place, (I agree that the cruel and unusual punishment part applies though).
:9th: Need a joke for this one.
:10th: Here too.

A belated Aprils fool day gift.

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 11:36, 9 April 2008 (EDT)

== Unilateral action ==

As I understand if Jpatt, you are saying that the US should not be restricted from acting unilaterally should the situation demand it. This is not helped by then pointing out a situation that some people think is unilateral was not unilateral (if anything it tends to show the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.
Also it is a liberal myth that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq.--[[User:MCrowe|MCrowe]] 18:24, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Liberal myths

2008-07-29T21:58:45Z

MCrowe: typo

{{uncited}}

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system.<ref>http://www.twilightslastgleaming.com/myths.htm</ref> They include:

*The claim that the population has increased by a large amount, and human beings are beginning to overpopulate. (This myth is an attempt to justify abortions)
*The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]]. <ref>[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths Some Exasperating Liberal Myths] NowPublic.com, August 27, 2007</ref>
*The claim that a fetus is not a living human being.
*The claim that [[gun control]] reduces crime.
*The claim that [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]] are unrelated.
*The claim that [[gambling]] financially benefits state school systems <REF>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/cbsnews_investigates/main3269456.shtml Is The Lottery Shortchanging Schools?] CBS News, September 17, 2007</ref>
*The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries.
*The claim that the [[media]] is not biased toward the liberal agenda.
*The claim that enabling [[oil]] drilling will not reduce [[energy]] prices.
*The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the [[love]] from a mother and a father.
*The claim that an individuals [[sexual]] preference needs to be a protected civil right.
*That there is a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]
*The claim that opposing the [[homosexual agenda]] is [[bigotry]]. <ref>[http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/detail.aspx?id=102 Boycott McDonald's!] American Family Association</ref>
*The claim the America should not act unilaterally in foreign policy and cite Iraq.
*The claim that the USA led a unilateral force into Iraq (The USA and Britain led a 30-nation coalition in Iraq)<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm558.cfm The Myth of U.S. Isolation] The Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2004 </ref>

==Patriotism==

----

The liberal belief that an individual can claim to support our military, just not the mission and still be considered a 'Patriot'. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. A liberals patriotism, party-specific position, cannot support the troops if they are an a impediment to their political left-wing strategy. The main reason for this has to due with passionate, partisan hatred for our current commander n chief, the [[President of the United States of America]]. Liberals claim to support the military, claim not to support the mission and refuse to support the Commander. The extremist left discounts the counter effect of troop morale. Understanding the true liberal mindset when it comes to supporting our U.S. troops, observe the often tried protest march. Though frustration boils over, actions lead from protest to outright sabotage or anarchism. Liberal credibility fails and lack of concern for the support of America shows. The left-wing cares so much for our military they condone and actually prop up politicians that abuse troops with reckless accusations <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Federal_judge_order_Murtha_to_testify_in_Haditha_defamation_case.html Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case] Politico, September 28, 2007</ref>, negative media coverage and ego trips <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrystuckiniraq.htm Political Humor] About.com</ref>. Liberal protesters look the other way as war memorials are vandalized. Liberals protest our severely injured soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.<ref>[http://www.crosswalk.com/1347570/ Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital] Crosswalk.com</ref> Liberal protesters harass, damage or block military recruitment centers from operating business as-usual. <ref>[http://mfvov.com/blog/?p=505 Recruiting Center Attacks Coast to Coast] Military Families Voice of Victory, March 19, 2008</ref> This leftwing position, the myth is successful in feeding media driven discontent and mediocrity shame. If the news is bad, a liberal is spoon fed. If the news is good, the spoon fed liberal is oblivious. e.g. "a complete suspension of disbelief".

Patriotism, to your brother, who volunteers and risks the ultimate sacrifice out of love, will never be diminished. True patriots will always be in our gratitude and held in the highest light.

==America Perceived==

----

The myth liberals give says we need to restore America's image in the world. Again, this mostly has to do with liberals' negative view of [[President Bush]]. Liberals want the two linked even though the myth is false. They blame Bush and Iraq for the bad USA image but the truth is that the credibility of the American left is a worse image than America's image abroad. The main need for liberals to propagate this myth is the fact that [[socialist]] governments of Europe oppose the policy of [[Iraq]]. This further fuels liberals' political agenda to remove [[Republicans]] from power. Liberals love Europeans and cite their false socialist utopia at every chance. European opposition automatically reinforces their belief that America's image is damaged. As of 2008, most of the [[European]] leaders that opposed Iraq are no longer in positions of power. The result, European [[conservatives]] were elected who publicly aligned themselves with America.

Those [[liberals]] that use the myth and regularly bash the USA are often called the "Blame America First" crowd. Though they never seem to mention that America gives more in donations, in total dollars, than any other country on Earth. <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm Americans give record $295B to charity] USA Today, 6/25/2007</ref> A sure way to change America's image in the world is to show the world we respect life. The repeal of Roe Vs. Wade would be a start.

Reasons why [[America]] was hated prior to 2003 include wealth, women's rights, support for our democratic ally [[Israel]], democratic government, capitalist economy and exporting immorality.

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:liberals]]

His Dark Materials (novel)

2008-07-29T21:56:10Z

MCrowe: /* Awards */ Rm sentence that made litle sense and was unencyclopeaedic

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

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

==Plot==
{{Spoiler}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Despite this, The Authority's traits clearly depart from the God depicted in the Bible. He is mortal and his powers are clearly limited, while the Judeo-Christian God is immortal and omnipotent. In a sense it mocks the belief of Christians and Jews, telling them that the God they worship is a powerless creation and worthy only of pity and disgust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Awards==
The series has won some awards<ref>http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pullman/author/author.html</ref>
<ref>http://www.philip-pullman.com/about_the_author.asp</ref>
*the Astrid Lindgren Award
*the Carnegie Medal
*the Guardian Children's Book Award
*the Whitbread Book of the Year award, the first time it had been given to a children's book

It is interesting to note the change in attitude over time that a work that tries to destroy God is considered to be an exemplary example for children in the minds of those who make decisions.

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

[[Category:Novels]]

Liberal myths

2008-07-29T21:41:34Z

MCrowe: copyedit

{{uncited}}

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system.<ref>http://www.twilightslastgleaming.com/myths.htm</ref> They include:

*The claim that the population has increased by a large amount, and human beings are beginning to overpopulate. (This myth is an attempt to justify abortions)
*The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]]. <ref>[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths Some Exasperating Liberal Myths] NowPublic.com, August 27, 2007</ref>
*The claim that a fetus is not a living human being.
*The claim that [[gun control]] reduces crime.
*The claim that [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]] are unrelated.
*The claim that [[gambling]] financially benefits state school systems <REF>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/cbsnews_investigates/main3269456.shtml Is The Lottery Shortchanging Schools?] CBS News, September 17, 2007</ref>
*The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries.
*The claim that the [[media]] is not biased toward the liberal agenda.
*The claim that enabling [[oil]] drilling will not reduce [[energy]] prices.
*The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the [[love]] from a mother and a father.
*The claim that an individuals [[sexual]] preference needs to be a protected civil right.
*That there is a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]
*The claim that opposing the [[homosexual agenda]] is [[bigotry]]. <ref>[http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/detail.aspx?id=102 Boycott McDonald's!] American Family Association</ref>
*The claim the America should not act unilateraly in foreign policy and cite Iraq.
*The claim that the USA did lead a unilateral force into Iraq (The USA and Britian led a 30-nation coalition in Iraq)<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm558.cfm The Myth of U.S. Isolation] The Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2004 </ref>

==Patriotism==

----

The liberal belief that an individual can claim to support our military, just not the mission and still be considered a 'Patriot'. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. A liberals patriotism, party-specific position, cannot support the troops if they are an a impediment to their political left-wing strategy. The main reason for this has to due with passionate, partisan hatred for our current commander n chief, the [[President of the United States of America]]. Liberals claim to support the military, claim not to support the mission and refuse to support the Commander. The extremist left discounts the counter effect of troop morale. Understanding the true liberal mindset when it comes to supporting our U.S. troops, observe the often tried protest march. Though frustration boils over, actions lead from protest to outright sabotage or anarchism. Liberal credibility fails and lack of concern for the support of America shows. The left-wing cares so much for our military they condone and actually prop up politicians that abuse troops with reckless accusations <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Federal_judge_order_Murtha_to_testify_in_Haditha_defamation_case.html Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case] Politico, September 28, 2007</ref>, negative media coverage and ego trips <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrystuckiniraq.htm Political Humor] About.com</ref>. Liberal protesters look the other way as war memorials are vandalized. Liberals protest our severely injured soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.<ref>[http://www.crosswalk.com/1347570/ Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital] Crosswalk.com</ref> Liberal protesters harass, damage or block military recruitment centers from operating business as-usual. <ref>[http://mfvov.com/blog/?p=505 Recruiting Center Attacks Coast to Coast] Military Families Voice of Victory, March 19, 2008</ref> This leftwing position, the myth is successful in feeding media driven discontent and mediocrity shame. If the news is bad, a liberal is spoon fed. If the news is good, the spoon fed liberal is oblivious. e.g. "a complete suspension of disbelief".

Patriotism, to your brother, who volunteers and risks the ultimate sacrifice out of love, will never be diminished. True patriots will always be in our gratitude and held in the highest light.

==America Perceived==

----

The myth liberals give says we need to restore America's image in the world. Again, this mostly has to do with liberals' negative view of [[President Bush]]. Liberals want the two linked even though the myth is false. They blame Bush and Iraq for the bad USA image but the truth is that the credibility of the American left is a worse image than America's image abroad. The main need for liberals to propagate this myth is the fact that [[socialist]] governments of Europe oppose the policy of [[Iraq]]. This further fuels liberals' political agenda to remove [[Republicans]] from power. Liberals love Europeans and cite their false socialist utopia at every chance. European opposition automatically reinforces their belief that America's image is damaged. As of 2008, most of the [[European]] leaders that opposed Iraq are no longer in positions of power. The result, European [[conservatives]] were elected who publicly aligned themselves with America.

Those [[liberals]] that use the myth and regularly bash the USA are often called the "Blame America First" crowd. Though they never seem to mention that America gives more in donations, in total dollars, than any other country on Earth. <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm Americans give record $295B to charity] USA Today, 6/25/2007</ref> A sure way to change America's image in the world is to show the world we respect life. The repeal of Roe Vs. Wade would be a start.

Reasons why [[America]] was hated prior to 2003 include wealth, women's rights, support for our democratic ally [[Israel]], democratic government, capitalist economy and exporting immorality.

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:liberals]]

Liberal myths

2008-07-29T21:39:06Z

MCrowe: these are really two seperate ones

{{uncited}}

'''Liberal Myths''' are heavily promoted falsehoods motivated by a [[liberal]] belief system.<ref>http://www.twilightslastgleaming.com/myths.htm</ref> They include:

*The claim that the population has increased by a large amount, and human beings are beginning to overpopulate. (This myth is an attempt to justify abortions)
*The claim that people today are more knowledgeable than in prior centuries.
*The claim that the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the [[budget]] deficit.
*The claim that the Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
*Anthropogenic [[Global Warming]]. <ref>[http://www.nowpublic.com/some-exasperating-liberal-myths Some Exasperating Liberal Myths] NowPublic.com, August 27, 2007</ref>
*The claim that a fetus is not a living human being.
*The claim that [[gun control]] reduces crime.
*The claim that [[abortion]] and [[breast cancer]] are unrelated.
*The claim that [[gambling]] financially benefits state school systems <REF>[http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/17/cbsnews_investigates/main3269456.shtml Is The Lottery Shortchanging Schools?] CBS News, September 17, 2007</ref>
*The claim to support the rights of women, never mention the oppressed women in Muslim countries.
*The claim that the [[media]] is not biased toward the liberal agenda.
*The claim that enabling [[oil]] drilling will not reduce [[energy]] prices.
*The claim that same-sex couple adoptions can replace the [[love]] from a mother and a father.
*The claim that an individuals [[sexual]] preference needs to be a protected civil right.
*That there is a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]
*The claim that opposing the [[homosexual agenda]] is [[bigotry]]. <ref>[http://www.boycottmcdonalds.com/detail.aspx?id=102 Boycott McDonald's!] American Family Association</ref>
*The claim the America should not act unilateraly in foreign policy and cite Iraq.
*The claim that the USA did lead a unilateral force into Iraq. USA-Britian led a 30-nation coalition in Iraq)<ref>[http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/wm558.cfm The Myth of U.S. Isolation] The Heritage Foundation, September 7, 2004 </ref>

==Patriotism==

----

The liberal belief that an individual can claim to support our military, just not the mission and still be considered a 'Patriot'. In fact, the exact opposite is the truth. A liberals patriotism, party-specific position, cannot support the troops if they are an a impediment to their political left-wing strategy. The main reason for this has to due with passionate, partisan hatred for our current commander n chief, the [[President of the United States of America]]. Liberals claim to support the military, claim not to support the mission and refuse to support the Commander. The extremist left discounts the counter effect of troop morale. Understanding the true liberal mindset when it comes to supporting our U.S. troops, observe the often tried protest march. Though frustration boils over, actions lead from protest to outright sabotage or anarchism. Liberal credibility fails and lack of concern for the support of America shows. The left-wing cares so much for our military they condone and actually prop up politicians that abuse troops with reckless accusations <ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0907/Federal_judge_order_Murtha_to_testify_in_Haditha_defamation_case.html Federal judge orders Murtha to testify in Haditha defamation case] Politico, September 28, 2007</ref>, negative media coverage and ego trips <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrystuckiniraq.htm Political Humor] About.com</ref>. Liberal protesters look the other way as war memorials are vandalized. Liberals protest our severely injured soldiers at the Walter Reed Medical Center.<ref>[http://www.crosswalk.com/1347570/ Anti-War Protests Target Wounded at Army Hospital] Crosswalk.com</ref> Liberal protesters harass, damage or block military recruitment centers from operating business as-usual. <ref>[http://mfvov.com/blog/?p=505 Recruiting Center Attacks Coast to Coast] Military Families Voice of Victory, March 19, 2008</ref> This leftwing position, the myth is successful in feeding media driven discontent and mediocrity shame. If the news is bad, a liberal is spoon fed. If the news is good, the spoon fed liberal is oblivious. e.g. "a complete suspension of disbelief".

Patriotism, to your brother, who volunteers and risks the ultimate sacrifice out of love, will never be diminished. True patriots will always be in our gratitude and held in the highest light.

==America Perceived==

----

The myth liberals give says we need to restore America's image in the world. Again, this mostly has to do with liberals' negative view of [[President Bush]]. Liberals want the two linked even though the myth is false. They blame Bush and Iraq for the bad USA image but the truth is that the credibility of the American left is a worse image than America's image abroad. The main need for liberals to propagate this myth is the fact that [[socialist]] governments of Europe oppose the policy of [[Iraq]]. This further fuels liberals' political agenda to remove [[Republicans]] from power. Liberals love Europeans and cite their false socialist utopia at every chance. European opposition automatically reinforces their belief that America's image is damaged. As of 2008, most of the [[European]] leaders that opposed Iraq are no longer in positions of power. The result, European [[conservatives]] were elected who publicly aligned themselves with America.

Those [[liberals]] that use the myth and regularly bash the USA are often called the "Blame America First" crowd. Though they never seem to mention that America gives more in donations, in total dollars, than any other country on Earth. <ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-25-charitable_N.htm Americans give record $295B to charity] USA Today, 6/25/2007</ref> A sure way to change America's image in the world is to show the world we respect life. The repeal of Roe Vs. Wade would be a start.

Reasons why [[America]] was hated prior to 2003 include wealth, women's rights, support for our democratic ally [[Israel]], democratic government, capitalist economy and exporting immorality.

<references/>
{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:liberals]]