Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Debate:Define torture

2007-07-04T05:10:56Z

PF Fox: /* Other */

Torture needs defining because liberals have blurred the true meaning. Is torture to stand on one foot with a black hood over your head? Maybe it is when you cut a persons fingers off. Is torture a degrading naked pyramid of men? Or maybe it is hammering nails into someones skull. Is torture having a scary dog bark at your face? Maybe it is beating your face silly with brass knuckles. Is torture three square meals a day, tropical skies, a free Koran? Or maybe it is locked in a cold dungeon, no light, starving to death. Help, the issue is so distorted. [[User talk:Jpatt|Jpatt]]

Torture is any cruel or unusual punishment, forbidden by the 8th Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the highest law of our Republic, assuming we still have a Republic. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 03:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: So to call you a bad name, that is torture?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 03:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Thee square meals a day, tropical skies and a free Koran? You make prison sound like club med. Answer honestly, who was treated worse: enemy combatants and terrorists held by US forces in Abu Graib, or innocent British sailors captured by the Iranians?

There is no real line where you can say 'interregation stops here, then torture begins.' Horrible things go on in American prisons, but no one raises holy hell. The fact of the matter is that the US is supposed to be a moral nation, based on individual rights and liberty. When the world hears we stick people in jail without trial and use techniques like water boarding...well, how are we any better than those we are trying to fight in their eyes? [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 08:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: I am not comparing prison to club med. I am comparing torture situations. Another America basher comments, way to Golz.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.''[http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/cat.htm#part1]
:Well its a start...
:[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

How do '''''you''''' suggest that we get information, Ask nicely?

::That might not work ... on the other hand there are aparrently people trained in non-torturous interrogation who do know how to get information out of people. Their success rate is quite high and the information is usually of good quality. Under torture people are likely to admit to anything. One never knows if the information acquired is any good or not. Then again ... if you just like being cruel to people...
::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::like what? truth serum?[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind. Just carry on recruiting terrorists.
::::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 09:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::Never mind, leave alone the terrorists so they can kill the innocent. Was there recruitment prior to 9/11?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

I think that only American citizens should be protected by the constitution (even the 8th ammendment). We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and because we are the ones who will eventually win. I don't think that we should use anything that I personally would define as torture (sticking splinters up their fingernails, skining and salting them, etc.) but we could definately be doing alot better to persuade them to confess. I suggest that we:

# Regularly starve them for a week or so; nothing life threatening but we don't want them to get comfortable.
# when we ''do'' feed them it should be nothing very good.
# Put them in solitary confinment; we might do this already but I wouldn't know.
# We can certainly ''pretend'' that we're going to do something cruel. I suggest we have somebody realy good at special effects make a video to show them of some horrible torture method. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 09:25, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I am all for that benjamin, but to the left, everything you mention is cruel and unusual punishment, a.k.a torture. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

*my definition of torture: techniques that cause irreversible physical or psychological damage. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:You know torure is not an effective means of getting accurate information, right? And you do know that the best way to get accurate information is, in fact, to be nice to them. It's like good cop bad cop, but they're already in prison so you don't even need a bad cop. Just the good cop.

:And Benjamin, while your ethnocentrism is to be applauded on this site, our various governmental documents don't make any allowance for all men to be created equal and certain unalienable rights... except then not so much for people that are different. And you say that "we are better than the terrorists because they attacked us." Well... how exactly do you know that the man you have in custody is a terrorist or was responsible for attacking us? So you're going to detain a man, deprive him of food on ''suspicion'' of being a terrorist? Well guess what: you can never let this man out because when you do, he's going to be a terrorist. And regardless of whether you let him out, his friends and brothers will be terrorists. And "they will be better than us because they wrongfully imprisoned my brother."

I thought we were discussing the ones that we ''know'' are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Maybe we should abide by the laws we write and the treaties we sign, hm? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 09:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't know that we signed any treaties with radical islam. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 11:00, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::that'll probably require one-on-one therapy session with a psychologist over a 2 year treatment, ha ha ha. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 10:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:: maybe the terrorists will abide by international law, hmmm--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Torture is also defined in the Geneva Convention. The fuzzy area is who the Convention covers, that's the real line that's been blurred.
And to Jpatt's original comment, the liberals didn't blur the line of what's torture, that's totally up to interpertation. Same as hazing laws in the US, they're vaguely worded to allow the legal system greater leeway in prosecuting and protecting rights. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 10:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

When liberals accuse the USA of torture, it is defintely been blurred because a slow painful death to me is torture, not inprisonment by America.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: If countries like the UK and US practise torture, then haven't we given up a bit of what makes us better than terrorists? JPatt's comment is a perfect example of the childish view of international affairs that has caused this problem - 'cause they're breaking international law, we can too! Cheney, get me those thumbscrews now!' You can't fight fire with fire. Torture just recruits terrorists - as was shown when Aussaresses justified torture in Algeria. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

: To fight fire with fire or torture with torture, is just fubar. My point which is too complicated for Wiki, I was not asking for vague law interpretation, which one side doesn't adhere to and the other side blames it's leaders for breaking. It is a matter of treatment, suffering, unspeakable human behavior. Defining torture to seperate what is and what is not political fodder to accuse and point fingers. Calling you the name FAT, if overweight is cruel. Does it fit as torture? Black hooded standing on one foot, does it fit as torture? If you hate America, yes it does mean torture. I say hell no as I outlined what torture really is above.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

: One other point I forgot to respond to. Torture recruits terrorists? Who was the US torturing when the WTC was attacked? I guess they were recruited before 9/11, when we were so comfy safe at home. It's the same method of operation liberals use to discredit why we are in Iraq, just recruits terrorists. Except, they were attacking us well before we occupied Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe they were attacking us because no response after the USS Cole was bombed embolden them to do more harm. 2000 plus days after taking the fight to them, the homeland hasn't suffered.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Masochistic Omnipotence Syndrome? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Wuh? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/self-criticism/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::: 'Wow! Because we're us, anything we do must be right!' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/moral-equivalence/ [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:22, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::: 'They're worse than us; they've got to be, because they're not us!' Kerching, next. We should really get closer to the topic, though this is fun. :) [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]
::::::::'They are not us, so they have no moral' Sorry, doesn't cut it. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:41, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

My litmus test: if The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we
call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 14:28, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:1a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion. b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain. 2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense. 3. Something causing severe pain or anguish.[http://www.bartleby.com/61/33/T0283300.html American Heritage]

:1 a : anguish of body or mind : AGONY b : something that causes agony or pain
:2 : the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure
:3 : distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument : STRAINING[http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/torture Merriam-Webster]

:I'm waiting with considerable interest to see just what language Bush and Blair come up with to describe the treatment of the captured British sailors by the Iranians. I nominate [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10020629/site/newsweek/ "torture lite"] as the ugliest phrase to emerge in the last ten years. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:39, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::If you include "anguish of body or mind" in your definition of torture, then every criminal locked in jail in America is being tortured.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 17:45, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
::::'''My''' definition of torture? No, please, ''the dictionary's'' definition of torture. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::doesn't matter, do you support freeing all criminals in jail? [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:45, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Do you support distortion of overrefinement of a meaning or an argument? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:46, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Even if I don't, lawyers will.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 20:48, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
"We are better than the terrorists because they attacked us, and '''because we are the ones who will eventually win.'''"
Benjamin, did you not criticize another user in the discussion on morality for allegedly saying that might makes right?--[[User:Άθεος|Άθεος]] 20:23, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, now that we've settled that, how about [[Debate:Define terrorism]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

''I thought we were discussing the ones that we know are terrorists. We obviously don't want to deprive them of food for information that they don't have or we will get a pack of lies. --BenjaminS 10:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)''
Ah, "Innocent 'til Proven Guilty" is for wusses, eh?
You _are_ aware that some of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have had to be released after several '''years''' of imprisonment, right? [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3501910.stm] Since the US Government generally (I hope) isn't in the habit of locking people up just for the fun of it, I think it's safe to assume that someone THOUGHT they 'knew' these guys were Terrorists, and turned out to be wrong.
It's hilarious to see members of the Small Government Party arguing for the infallability and unwavering righteousness of a bunch of bureaucrats. Bureaucrats with GUNS, but bureaucrats nonetheless. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:26, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

And for the 'definition of torture', why not break out the ol' Ouija board and ask some of the Suspected Terrorists who died under the tender care of Lynndie England, She-Wolf of the US? I suspect they'd have a few choice words on the subject. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:34, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::Lynndie England wasn't so bad, she just mocked some guy's genital.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 22:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I guess that one guy whose corpse she was photographed grinning over just died of embarrassment? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 22:44, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::Like you've never grinned during a funneral.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 00:41, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I can say without hesitation that I've never stood over the coffin at a funeral, grinned at the camera, and given a thumbs up. And I can say with even more certainty that I've never stood over the dead body of murder victim and done it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:55, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I don't believe any US Soldier has been convicted of murder of an inmate at Abu Griab. There has been an instance in Afganistan. No such thing as torture in Abu Griab, unless you are an American hater and site the black hood, naked pyramid and barkin dog as torture. What they did was wrong and hurt the credibility of our troops.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:46, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

"If The Enemy did the given disputed action to an American, would we call it torture? If yes, then it's torture, if no, not."
Wise words WJThomas, wise words.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Multiple definitions:
*Torture is painful or humilating treatment used to punish or coerce.
*Torture (as defined in law or treaty): such treatment which the goverment agrees to refrain from doing

Shining bright lights in a suspect's eyes to make him talk can be considered "torture", but most people have in mind things like cutting a man's ears or nuts off. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:42, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

As a family member of a survivor of torture at the hands of the government of Argentina, I am saddened that Americans would even suggest some of the things you have been speaking of. Untill you have looked first-hand at the results of prolonged torture sessions, do not be so hasty to condem another human being to it.

::What's sad is that at one time, "most people" understood that torture involves far more sophisticated methods than simply maiming someone. Bright lights, sleep deprivation, stress positions, sexual humiliation, all were methods of torture widely understood to be torture back in the 60s and 70s, when both living memories of the Second World War and the publication of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO were there to remind us. Ever read Solzhenitsyn's chapter on torture?

::Today there seems to be a concerted movement online to redefine the word "torture" to the point where it's meaningless. Apparently, if you want to countenance torture, but just can't get around that visceral reaction most decent people have to the word "torture," the next step is to just change common usage of the word -- right Ed? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==What is Torture==
I think when considering this discussion, one should acept that there are different threshholds, and different responses to pain.If any of you take the time to look at the Al Qaeda handbook, part of the evidence used in a trial in NY in 2003, I believe, you'll see they train their people to spill the beans at the first threat of physical abuse. The first fingernail you pull out, they are expected to scream bloody murder. In this way, we are led to believe we are getting true information. Sadly, this will almost always not be the case.

Further, remember that when you condemn these people to be tortured, you also condemn our soldiers to be tortured by them. So, at the risk of sounding like Bill O'Reilly, why do you hate the troops? [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:::most information from confession can be verified for authenticity, and Al Qaeda usually just cut off soldiers' head without bothring to torture them.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 03:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Not resorting to torture is one of the things that separate free countries from dictatorships.
Torture is also very inefficient: untrained prisoners will confess to anything to make the pain go away while trained prisoners will simply lie, or not talk at all.

Also consider what this was originally about: a war on terror.
If one side wants to claim moral superiority it has to stick with the Geneva conventions, no matter how cruel their enemies are.
If both sides practice the same ethics, neither side can claim to be morally superior: the war would be nothing more than a struggle for territory and resources.

If the United States were one of these two sides, its government would have a hard time explaining why the war is necessary and why it's not imperialism, to its own citizens as well as potential allies.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Depends on your definition of torture. All free countries put some people in jail, which some people would consider torture.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:27, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

putting underwear on someones head is not torture. cutting someones head off w/ a dull, rusty blade is torture. So is slapping them with a wet codfish. or a wet cod PIECE. now THAT is torture. duh.
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:33, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::Putting underwear on someone's head while making them stand nude, taking their picture, and/or putting them in a stress position for several hours and not allowing to sleep for long periods of time can definitely be a part of torture. People who trivialize what happened at Abu Ghraib by concentrating on the "underwear on the head" thing as if that were all that happened keep leaving out those bits. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: It cannot be definetly defined as torture. Could be described as a means of gathering intelligence.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::::In college, I knew some people who wear underwear on their head on purpose.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

So if captured US soldiers were piled up naked you'd say their treatment would be acceptable?

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:::Sounds like a frat party.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:24, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

I am not excusing their actions MadMiddleMan. I am also not claiming it was torture.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:55, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::::: Tell me, jpatt -- was sticking underwear on someone's head all that happened at Abu Ghraib? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:36, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

This just hit the wires, torture now described as unscented soap, under inflated soccer balls and a noisy fan.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:48, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

::Cite please, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:26, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::Note, folks, that Jpatt hasn't answered my question about whether or not sticking underwear on someone's head is all that happened at Abu Ghraib. JPatt doesn't answer because Jpatt knows that going into detail about what actually happened there reveals the moral bankruptcy behind Jpatt's attempts to trivialize torture. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:29, 17 May 2007 (EDT)
:::He's just being a [[moral relativity|moral relativist]]. [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 16:25, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

== Other ==
I am for the following:

<pre>
waterboarding
sleep deprevation
light or darkness deprevation
reduction in food and water
solitary confinement no visitors
hot and cold environments
deception(making them believe something is happening when its REALLY not)
deprive them of clothes
make them sleep on a cement floor
hoods and handcuffs are good
no reading material of any kind

UNTIL the first nuke/bio weapon goes off on american soil...then the gloves come off...
</pre>

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 12:56, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

So you're an admirer of the manner in which the inmates of Soviet gulags were treated. Interesting. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 09:24, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

yeah right...i noticed you forgot to mention that in the gulags they were beaten, raped, killed
given electric shock and had body parts cutoff, burned, medically experimented on and were forced
to do hard labor. one might note 50 million died in gulags VS what 2-3 in US custody? nothing like i described aboved. typical liberal response of more fantasy than fact.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, Wally, Solzhenitsyn's famous chapter on torture in the gulags doesn't really describe much maiming, burning, medical experiements, etc. What he describes are all those things you think WE should be doing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

I believe this debate to be inflated far beyond the proportions it should be. The Ammendment pertaining to cruel and unusual punishment was not protecting against bad food and sleep depravation. If it was, college would be unconstitutional. The laws were passed to protect United States citizens from being maimed and mutilated in ways reminisce of the medieval inquistions. In England in colonial times you could be inprisoned for multiple years with horrible conditions on a cold stone floor with no medical treatment and minimal food for not paying taxes. Tortures such as ripping out teeth / nails, beating, blinding, boiling, bone breaking, branding and burning, castration, choking, cutting, disfigurement, dislocation, drowning, flagellation, whipping and beating, flaying, roasting, genital mutilation, limb/finger removal, starvation, and tongue removal, and quatering were used. Horrible devices like the catherine wheel, the rack, the iron maiden, thumbscrews, the heretic's fork, and many, many more were used to implement terror among political prisoners, heretics, and anyone who so much as stepped out of line. Christ himself was nailed to a tree and left to die because he spoke out against Rome. We are not treating the terrorists as enemy combatants, we are treating them to a resort hotel. I respect human life and dignity, but obviously anyone who would blow themselves up to kill as many "infidels" as possible doesn't. previous unsigned comment added by [[User:CRD]] 10:39, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you figure soviet dissident Solzhenitysn was just a big ol' crybaby? And nobody who "respects human life and dignity" would mistake places like Abu Ghraib or Gitmo for a "resort hotel." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:10, 4 July 2007 (EDT)

African Americans

2007-07-04T05:08:46Z

PF Fox: /* Intelligence */ Removed racist garbage

"African American" is the term used to describe the ethnic background of Americans with African ancestry. Because many African Americans are descended from Africans brought to America as slaves beginning four centuries ago, the vast majority of African Americans today have [[European]] and [[American Indian]] ancestry as well as African{{fact}}.

==History==

Black people were originally brought to America to serve as slaves in southeastern states where large-scale agriculture was predominant. During the [[Civil War]], the slaves in states in "open rebellion" were freed by the [[Emancipation Proclamation]], which was signed by President [[Abraham Lincoln]]. Freedom, however, did not necessarily bring an improvement in conditions, as the system of [[sharecropping]] instituted after the end of the war left many ex-slaves in a continuing cycle of poverty. In large part as a result, many African Americans migrated in the early twentieth century to the northeastern and midwestern states, where they could find wage-paying jobs.

==Religion==

The majority of African Americans are members of Christian congregations, with [[Baptist]], [[Pentecostal]], and [[Methodist]] affiliations being among the most common. Some also belong to [[Islamic]] organizations, including the [[Nation of Islam]] founded by [[Elijah Muhammed]], to which group [[Malcolm X]] belonged to until the last years of his life.

==References==
* [http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI]
[[category:United States]]

Talk:Terrorism

2007-07-01T17:28:58Z

PF Fox: /* Spectrum theory */

{{Protect|Hojimachong}}

==A definition==
Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRA ==

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Government==
'' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

::Please sign your posts with four tildes "[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

:An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and
guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,
materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is
that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other
destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will
continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citations needed==

We need citations for each one of these:
* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Contra]]
* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]
* [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]
* [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]
* [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]

[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this
claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
===al Qaede===
''reverted material:''
* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

===Contras===
Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

===SAVAK===
The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==img==
Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==source for edit==
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link for edit ==

At "See also"

[[Yasser Arafat]]

::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Spectrum theory==
Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,

*''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''

*''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo.''

And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under "Leftist." Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.

So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset Andy with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. If you've read the [[political spectrum theory]] article, you'd probably see how difficult it is to label persons, groups, and even ideologies as "left" or "right", and never was this more true than in the post-Cold War era. The simple fact is, not all poltical action is ideologically driven. Take the [[NRA]] for example, widely regarded as the most powerful special interest group in the US, yet nonetheless, it's broadbased grassroots come from a huge cross section. A woman who carries a gun in self defence to protect herself against rape, can hardly be pigeon-holed into an ideological mold.

:::Being that the question is so unsettled, and "left/right" spectrum theory really is little more than journalistic shorthand to argue prejudices without having to discuss issues, I suggest we just drop it from the article. We can come up with better subheads. I'll be a little busy in the early part of this week, but by mid week should be able to focus a little closer and help you out. Thanks again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

AL QAIDA is not leftist.

Anyone care to explain exacly how al Qaida qualifies as a LEFTIST terrorist group?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:Good observation PF, and we are discussing it. The idea here is to eliminate the ideological groupings, and fund some other system of classification. Perhaps reviewing some of the source websites would be helpful. Care to assist? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you consider imposing a system of classification so important? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Terrorism, as of the last decade or so, has undergone a radical shift in how it operates. We're starting to see a breakdown of the old system that RobS was pointing out. For example, it is getter hard to classify terrorists within a political spectrum, as the world is no longer really divided between communism and capitalism anymore. Also, terrorist are changing their goals and strategies. Where once, a terrorist would choose a target that would be symbolic and surgical, now terrorist are concerned with indiscriminate destruction. Also, now rather than operating in clandestine groups, they choose to operate in this small cell network. Like I said, I was planning on retooling it, but at the moment, I was more concerned with getting the most information in as possible.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:29, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Here's some ideas, we could use these classifications:

*Communist/Socialist
*Environmental
*Nationalist/Separatist
*Racist
*Religious

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

And in the meantime, you've still got Al Qaeda incorrectly listed as a "leftist" terrorist group. Why is that grossly inaccurate "information" allowed to remain? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:00, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Terrorism

2007-07-01T15:00:30Z

PF Fox:

{{Protect|Hojimachong}}

==A definition==
Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRA ==

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Government==
'' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

::Please sign your posts with four tildes "[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

:An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and
guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,
materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is
that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other
destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will
continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citations needed==

We need citations for each one of these:
* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Contra]]
* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]
* [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]
* [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]
* [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]

[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this
claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
===al Qaede===
''reverted material:''
* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

===Contras===
Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

===SAVAK===
The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==img==
Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==source for edit==
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link for edit ==

At "See also"

[[Yasser Arafat]]

::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Spectrum theory==
Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,

*''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''

*''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo.''

And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under "Leftist." Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.

So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset Andy with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. If you've read the [[political spectrum theory]] article, you'd probably see how difficult it is to label persons, groups, and even ideologies as "left" or "right", and never was this more true than in the post-Cold War era. The simple fact is, not all poltical action is ideologically driven. Take the [[NRA]] for example, widely regarded as the most powerful special interest group in the US, yet nonetheless, it's broadbased grassroots come from a huge cross section. A woman who carries a gun in self defence to protect herself against rape, can hardly be pigeon-holed into an ideological mold.

:::Being that the question is so unsettled, and "left/right" spectrum theory really is little more than journalistic shorthand to argue prejudices without having to discuss issues, I suggest we just drop it from the article. We can come up with better subheads. I'll be a little busy in the early part of this week, but by mid week should be able to focus a little closer and help you out. Thanks again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

AL QAIDA is not leftist.

Anyone care to explain exacly how al Qaida qualifies as a LEFTIST terrorist group?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:Good observation PF, and we are discussing it. The idea here is to eliminate the ideological groupings, and fund some other system of classification. Perhaps reviewing some of the source websites would be helpful. Care to assist? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

::Why do you consider imposing a system of classification so important? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::Terrorism, as of the last decade or so, has undergone a radical shift in how it operates. We're starting to see a breakdown of the old system that RobS was pointing out. For example, it is getter hard to classify terrorists within a political spectrum, as the world is no longer really divided between communism and capitalism anymore. Also, terrorist are changing their goals and strategies. Where once, a terrorist would choose a target that would be symbolic and surgical, now terrorist are concerned with indiscriminate destruction. Also, now rather than operating in clandestine groups, they choose to operate in this small cell network. Like I said, I was planning on retooling it, but at the moment, I was more concerned with getting the most information in as possible.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 16:29, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

Here's some ideas, we could use these classifications:

*Communist/Socialist
*Environmental
*Nationalist/Separatist
*Racist
*Religious

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:38, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

And in the meantime, you've still got Al Qaeda incorrectly listed as a "leftist" terrorist group. Why is that grossy inaccurate "information" allowed to remain? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:00, 1 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Terrorism

2007-06-30T20:02:49Z

PF Fox: /* Spectrum theory */

Talk:Rachel Carson

2007-06-30T16:59:26Z

PF Fox:

I would like to write more about her - and other environmentalist nitwits, but they disgust me so much it's actually physically painful to write. They've killed more people with the [[DDT ban]] alone than Hitler's [[Holocaust]]. No wonder Ann Coulter calls them [[druids]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Baloney. That's an offensive and an outrageous claim.

::I find it fascinating that you find it "physically painful" to write about Rachel Carson but are eager to lap up the work of Ann "Let's-tell-another-joke-about-a-liberal's-dead-relative" Coulter.--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:59, 30 June 2007 (EDT)

John Edwards

2007-06-29T13:28:52Z

PF Fox: /* Trivia */ Context added

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

'''John Edwards''', is a prominet [[leftist]] and [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Socialism|socialist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury trial lawyer in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. Critics ascribe Edwards personal fortune as having been amasssed preying on malpractice victims and using [[junk science]] to win large settlements. <ref>Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. </ref> [[Michael Medved]] said "Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators...There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation....lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy ...building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?" <ref>[http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog/issue9 For Presidents Day: Our Most Under-rated Chief Executive], Michael Medved, February 20, 2007.</ref> The deal Edwards pocketed the most from was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one year, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for president. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref>
In the spring of 2007, Edwards reimbursed his campaign $800 for two $400 haircuts.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans. Critics cite the hypocricy of Edwards call for "affordable health care," when it is [[malpractice]] attorneys that use junk science to win big awards such as himself that have made the cost of health care beyond the reach of the poor.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

Critics also cite Edwards lack of government experience. The most often heard criticism is that, other than the fact he has a full head of hair, there is little else to qualify him as a candidate.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

Recently, Elizabeth Edwards called Ann Coulter by phone on Chris Matthews HARDBALL to express her concern about some comments made by Coulter, which Edwards felt were offensive. These include Ann Coulter saying recently on Good Morning America, ""Oh, yeah, I wouldn't -- I wouldn't insult gays by comparing them to John Edwards. That would be mean. But about the same time, you know, Bill Maher was not joking and saying he wished Dick Cheney had been killed in a terrorist attack. So I've learned my lesson. If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot," referring to Edwards as a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference last March, ("Oh, and I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards. But it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot,' so I'm -- so I'm kind of at an impasse, can't really talk about Edwards.") and telling a "joke" about the death of Elizabeth and John Edwards' teenage son Wade in a 2003 column. ("If you want points for not using your son's death politically, don't you have to take down all those "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" bumper stickers?") <ref>[http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20031119]</ref>

The Edwards campaign has used these personal attacks from Coulter in fundraising. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/13791 ABC Links Edwards/Coulter Call to '08 Fundraising Deadline, NBC Distorts Coulter], Brad Wilmouth, Newsbusters, June 28, 2007.</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/
{{DEFAULTSORT: Edwards, John}}

[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:John Edwards

2007-06-29T05:13:36Z

PF Fox: /* Have to agree with PF Fox */

I don't know how notable opposing the surge is, since every Democratic candidate I'm aware of opposes it. It would be more notable if he *weren't* opposed to the troop surge. :) [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 13:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't think most were at the beginning though, and considering it is still a very hot and immediate topic, I think it's relevent. TheisonMarsh

Actually, now that I think about it, the fighting global warming is probably in the same nature. The most significant thing about his campaign is the "Two Americas" theme, and fighting poverty. At least, from what I get of him. Still, I wouldn't oppose including it again, since I think he's the one who has pressured Hillary the most to apologize for her vote. And I think he has apologized for his vote, too. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 21:30, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Well thank you for reconsidering, and I appreciate finding a sane person to debate something with on here. That is actually why I think it should be included (what you said about him apologizing for his vote), that, and what I said earlier about it still being a hotly debated topic. Furthermore, I wish there was more info here on his topics besides same-sex marriage. Those sentences are longer than the ones about any other topic and I feel that is disproportionate to its importance as a topic.
TheisonMarsh

I only meant to remove the image and not the "Further reading," but a search inside on amazon.com did not reveal any mention of John Edwards in the book. Rather than just throw a link up, maybe explain what its significance is?

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:26, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Changed to match the style. Feel free to add/edit. Need to source some of the statements, too. Oh, and link other to articles, like John Kerry. [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 00:54, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Have to agree with PF Fox ==

RobS, sorry to disagree with you, and I am normally a Coulter fan, but I believe that she has crossed the line in calling Edwards gay and making remarks about his dead son. His son died in service to our country; in an extremely unpopular war, he stood up and made the sacrifice. That should be honored by giving his father some peace. Also, his wife's dying... I cannot imagine how much that hurts. Like I said, I'm a Coulter fan, but enough is enough here. What she did is truly un-Christian.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:52, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Cites have been added with transcript of the exchange. and no, Coulter did not say she like to see Edwards killed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:57, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Citation is used to stand for facts; not opinions. The value-word "attacked" is not supported in the cites. I honestly don't think we should cover this issue at all if it's that divisive. I don't want to break with you, but seriously, what she did was wrong. We should either handle it neutrally - "E. Edwards called in to express concern," with value-neutral adjectives & adverbs - or not cover it at all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:58, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:Well, I'm not an Edwards fan, and in this episode what Coulter had said just was not said first. If Edwards had said something that despicable about Cheney, if he had looked the other way or agreed with what Bill Maher said about Cheney, then this article is not going to look as though Coulter and only Coulter was the bad girl here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:59, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Karajou, I see that concern. Therefore, I address it by making a neutral fact-statement. Is my solution acceptable? Notice it passes judgment on no-one.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:00, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:To me, the exact quotation by Coulter would have been fine; it is what she said, and obviously Mrs. Edwards did not like it. But the fact remains that Coulter repeated what Bill Maher said on GMA, and the attack on her subsequent to that is what caused it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:02, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
So is the edited version by me - my attempt at mediation - better? Feel free to edit it by inserting the exact quote. However, I like my language because it ignores emotions.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:04, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
:it's OK. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)
Great. I try, sometimes, haha. Goodnight all.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 01:07, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the offensive quotes by Coulter that prompted the phone call? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 01:13, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

John Edwards

2007-06-29T05:08:00Z

PF Fox: You'll defend anything, won't you?

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

'''John Edwards''', is a prominet [[leftist]] and [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Socialism|socialist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury trial lawyer in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. Critics ascribe Edwards personal fortune as having been amasssed preying on malpractice victims and using [[junk science]] to win large settlements. <ref>Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. </ref> [[Michael Medved]] said "Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators...There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation....lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy ...building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?" <ref>[http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog/issue9 For Presidents Day: Our Most Under-rated Chief Executive], Michael Medved, February 20, 2007.</ref> The deal Edwards pocketed the most from was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one year, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for president. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref>
In the spring of 2007, Edwards reimbursed his campaign $800 for two $400 haircuts.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans. Critics cite the hypocricy of Edwards call for "affordable health care," when it is [[malpractice]] attorneys that use junk science to win big awards such as himself that have made the cost of health care beyond the reach of the poor.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

Critics also cite Edwards lack of government experience. The most often heard criticism is that, other than the fact he has a full head of hair, there is little else to qualify him as a candidate.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

Recently, Elizabeth Edwards called Ann Coulter by phone on Chris Matthews HARDBALL to express her concern about some comments made by Coulter, which Edwards felt were offensive. <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6BBDcZqSF0]</ref> These included Coulter calling John Edwards a "faggot" at a C-PAC gathering <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCeqZLrhkvQ]</ref>, using a tasteless comment by Bill Maher to make a tasteless comment about Edwards in which she expressed the hope he would be killed in a terrorist attack, <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ws_bXU6Rjk]</ref>, and telling a "joke" about Elizabeth and John Edwards' dead son in which she pictured Edwards driving a car with a bumpersticker that read " "Ask me about my son's death in a horrific car accident" <ref>[http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/index.html?uc_full_date=20031119</ref>

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/
{{DEFAULTSORT: Edwards, John}}

[[Category:Political people]]

John Edwards

2007-06-29T04:50:07Z

PF Fox: And how does this qualify as "quote mining?" Is there some context that would make it appropriate for Coulter to voice the wish that Edwards would be killed by terrorists?

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

'''John Edwards''', is a prominet [[leftist]] and [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Socialism|socialist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury trial lawyer in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. Critics ascribe Edwards personal fortune as having been amasssed preying on malpractice victims and using [[junk science]] to win large settlements. <ref>Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. </ref> [[Michael Medved]] said "Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators...There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation....lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy ...building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?" <ref>[http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog/issue9 For Presidents Day: Our Most Under-rated Chief Executive], Michael Medved, February 20, 2007.</ref> The deal Edwards pocketed the most from was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one year, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for president. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref>
In the spring of 2007, Edwards reimbursed his campaign $800 for two $400 haircuts.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans. Critics cite the hypocricy of Edwards call for "affordable health care," when it is [[malpractice]] attorneys that use junk science to win big awards such as himself that have made the cost of health care beyond the reach of the poor.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

Critics also cite Edwards lack of government experience. The most often heard criticism is that, other than the fact he has a full head of hair, there is little else to qualify him as a candidate.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

Recently, Elizabeth Edwards confronted Ann Coulter by phone on Chris Matthews HARDBALL after Coulter had announced on Good Morning America (6/25/07) that “if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." Edwards politely requested that Coulter stop the personal attacks.

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/
{{DEFAULTSORT: Edwards, John}}

[[Category:Political people]]

John Edwards

2007-06-29T04:24:46Z

PF Fox: /* Trivia */ E. Edwards asking Ann Coulter to stop calling her husband a fag and making crass "jokes" about her dead son qualifies as an ATTACK?

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

'''John Edwards''', is a prominet [[leftist]] and [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Socialism|socialist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury trial lawyer in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. Critics ascribe Edwards personal fortune as having been amasssed preying on malpractice victims and using [[junk science]] to win large settlements. <ref>Peter W. Huber, ''Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom'', 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9. </ref> [[Michael Medved]] said "Ambulance chasers like Edwards don’t create wealth; they seize wealth from its creators...There are also serious questions about his misuse of his own S-type corporation to dodge taxes, and the shady sale of his previous mansion in Georgetown in a sweetheart deal with a supporter who’s currently under government investigation....lawsuits on which Edwards built his career damaged the economy ...building nothing at all and benefiting only the lawyer and his clients. On what basis can Democrats argue that government should cap or actively discourage big salaries for successful corporate heads, but never consider such a limitation for a court-room conniver like Edwards?" <ref>[http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Blog/issue9 For Presidents Day: Our Most Under-rated Chief Executive], Michael Medved, February 20, 2007.</ref> The deal Edwards pocketed the most from was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one year, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for president. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref>
In the spring of 2007, Edwards reimbursed his campaign $800 for two $400 haircuts.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans. Critics cite the hypocricy of Edwards call for "affordable health care," when it is [[malpractice]] attorneys that use junk science to win big awards such as himself that have made the cost of health care beyond the reach of the poor.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

Critics also cite Edwards lack of government experience. The most often heard criticism is that, other than the fact he has a full head of hair, there is little else to qualify him as a candidate.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

Recently, Elizabeth Edwards confronted Ann Coulter by phone on Chris Matthews HARDBALL after Coulter had announced on Good Morning America (6/25/07) that “if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." Edwards politely requested that Coulter stop the personal attacks.

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/
{{DEFAULTSORT: Edwards, John}}

[[Category:Political people]]

John Edwards

2007-06-28T20:44:27Z

PF Fox:

[[Image:SenatorJohnEdwards.jpg|right|thumb|200px]]
''For the 18th century preacher, see [[Jonathan Edwards]]''.

'''John Edwards''', [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] candidate for Vice President and running mate of [[John Kerry]] for the 2004 presidential elections. He is known for his advocacy of [[Socialism|socialist]] policies.

===Early Life and Education===

John Edwards was born in Seneca, [[South Carolina]] on June 10, 1953. He grew up in Robbins, [[North Carolina]], and graduated from North Carolina State University in 1974, and received a law degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1977.

In 1977, he married Elizabeth Anania. Their son Wade was born in 1979 and daughter Cate in 1982. Following Wade's death in a car accident in 1996, the couple chose to have more children. Emma Claire was born 1998, and Jack was born in 2000.

===Private Sector===
Edwards served as a personal injury trial lawyer in [[Tennessee]] and in North Carolina for 20 years, specializing in negligence and medical malpractice suits. His most notable case was a $25 million suit for a girl who was disemboweled by a swimming pool drain.

===Political Career===
In 1998, Edwards ran as the Democratic candidate for a seat in the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]]. He beat incumbent Senator Lauch Faircloth to win the seat.

Edwards served in the Senate for one year, declining to stand for re-election so that he could run for the 2004 Democratic party nomination for president. He withdrew from the presidential race on March 2, 2004 after failing to win any state of the 10 contested states in the Super Tuesday elections. Democratic nominee John Kerry named Edwards as his vice-presidential candidate for the Democratic ticket.

The Kerry-Edwards ticket lost to incumbent president George W. Bush and Dick Cheney with 48% of the vote to the Republicans' 51%.

===2008 Presidential Candidacy===

On December 28, 2005, John Edwards officially announced that he would again seek the Democratic nomination for president for the 2008 election.

Edwards is reported to be miffed over having been branded "the Breck Girl" <ref>[http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-edwardsbreckgirl.htm John Edwards the Breck Girl] ''"Sometimes another pretty face is just another pretty face."''</ref> in the 2004 Vice Presidential contest. Columnist Joan Vennochi characterized Edwards problem, "Usually, women are forced to ward off stereotypical thinking that equates beauty with brainlessness. But Edwards is not the first male politician to feel the double-edged sword that comes with being too pretty to be taken seriously." <ref>[http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/vote/5289.php Edwards' obstacle: 'Breck girl' good looks], Joan Vennochi, ''The Boston Globe'', 01.10.2004. </ref>
In the spring of 2007, Edwards reimbursed his campaign $800 for two $400 haircuts.<ref>CBS News, [http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/04/24/publiceye/entry2722181.shtml ''John Edwards And The Case Of The "Breck Girl" Comment''], April 24, 2007.</ref>

On [[Memorial Day]] 2007 Edwards was accused of using the National Holiday to "trash the sacrifice, honor and glory of American soldiers."
<ref>[http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/05/john_edwards_criticized_for_en.php John Edwards criticized for 'trashing' troops on Memorial Day], Jim Brown, ''OneNewsNow.com'', May 30, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007May26/0,4670,EdwardsInterview,00.html Edwards Defends Stepped-Up War Opposition], By Mike Glover, Associated Press, May 26, 2007. </ref>

===Political views===
During his Senate career and the 2004 presidential campaign, one of Edwards' main themes was "Two Americas," contrasting the poorer working-class Americans with wealthier Americans.

===Criticism===
Edwards came under fire for not firing two of his campaign workers who made bigoted and hateful statements on their blogs. Statements included calling Christian supporters of President Bush his "wingnut Christofascist base", asking what would have happened if the Virgin Mary had taken an emergency contraceptive<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/13/politics/p171426S05.DTL&type=politics</ref>, and asking religious conservatives "What don't you lousy motherf——ers understand about keeping your noses out of our britches, our beds and our families?".<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251620,00.html</ref><ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251009,00.html</ref> These incidents were largely ignored by the mainstream media.<ref>http://www.mediaresearch.org/realitycheck/2007/fax20070222.asp</ref> Edwards was criticized for not firing the employees, but they later resigned themselves.

===Post Political Career===
After losing the bid for vice president in the 2004 election, he became the director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at UNC-Chapel Hill.

==Miscellania==
===Books===
''The Four Trials'' (with John Auchard), about his career as a lawyer

===Trivia===
The $25 million settlement was the largest in NC history.

Recently, Elizabeth Edwards confronted Ann Coulter by phone on Chris Matthews HARDBALL after Coulter had announced on Good Morning America (6/25/07) that “if I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." Edwards politely requested that Coulter stop the personal attacks.

== References ==
<references/>

==Sources==
http://johnedwards.com/
{{DEFAULTSORT: Edwards, John}}

[[Category:Political people]]

Talk:Terrorism

2007-06-28T20:11:51Z

PF Fox:

Talk:Terrorism

2007-06-28T20:11:36Z

PF Fox:

{{Protect|Hojimachong}}

==A definition==
Here's the definition as of March 13, 2007: "Terrorism is a term used to refer to violence (usually against civilians) instigated to further a certain political or ideological goal."

That's obviously not a good definition, unless you want to include ''all'' armed action. By saying ''usually'' against civilians, violent action against armies is not ruled out as a form of terrorism. For example, by that definition George Washington's fight at Valley Forge would be considered terrorism (because it was violent and it sought to further a political goal). I assume that's not what the person who wrote that definition intended.

It's also not a good definition because it seems some terrorist violence is not intended to further political or ideological goals. For instance, were the Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway a form of terrorism, and if so, what political or ideological goal did they support? --[[User:Rotifer|Rotifer]] 05:22, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I OBJECT to the inclusion of the IRA as a terrorist group. Some splinter groups of the IRA have committed terrorist attacks, but for most of its history the IRA was a group of freedom fighters. The British government occupied Ireland against the Irish people's will, and Irish people (regular folks and leaders) banded together to fight (yes, with weapons, violence, etc.) against the occupying troops and police forces of the British. Attacking civilians is a different issue. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's simply untrue. An argument could be made that the IRA of 1916-1921 weren't terrorists. But at least since 1956 they have been. Indiscriminate killing of civilians who were in the wrong store or the wrong bar or restaurant at the wrong time certainly fits the definition. Yes they targeted soldiers and policemen, but most of those they killed were civilians. La Mon, Bloody Friday, Enniskillen, Baltic St, Canary Wharf.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:16, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Like Rotifer said, could someone please try to come up with a correct definition of terrorist? The definition so far seems to include freedom fighters as if they are terrorists. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 04:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Freedom Fighters are Terrorists our government likes. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:36, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I removed the sentence about freedom fighters since it is misleading - terrorism and freedom-fighting are not mutually exclusive. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 05:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait a minute!!! You seem to be implying that conservatives are sometimes in favor of terrorism!!! That's not what you meant to imply, is it? I'm putting the statement about the difference between terrorism and freedom-fighting back in. You are very, very, welcome to clarify it... I think the whole page needs clarification... But we can't allow confusion between terrorism and freedom fighting in this page. --[[User:Madonna|Madonna]] 06:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Terrorism and freedom fighting are not "opposites", Terrorism is a tactic, or method. So "Terrorists" might be freedom fighters, or might not be, and "Freedom fighters" might employ terrorism, or might not. You can say that the IRA were freedom fighters, but you can't deny that they committed terrorist acts. [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 06:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::The "freedom fighter" definition needs work. I've commented on its talk page, but it's also relevant to this discussion.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 04:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

New to this site so not sure as to the talk protocol but I'd like to point out the truism that one man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom fighter" and that a objective analysis based on political affiliation is incredibly biased. And, as a UK resident, I'd object to anyone wishing to remove the IRA from the list of terrorist organisations. From personal experiance, the Manchester bombing carried out by the IRA purely targeted civillians which would label them firmly as terrorists.--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:47, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:To agree with what has been said above on the '''Terrorist/Freedom Fighter''' debate, these are subjective labels depending on your opinion of the groups under discussion, whereas "terrorism" is a defined military/paramilitary tactic, regardless of '''who''' uses it, whether for freedom, national self-determination, religious hatred or anything. [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 23:50, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Terrorist vs. Freedom Fighters==

I think what needs to be pointed out is what somebody did say before: terrorism is a tactic; freedom fighters are people. Freedom fighter can be a terrorist, but a terrorist does not have to be a freedom fighter. There is an enthymeme there, but I don't have time to go into it just now. I will come back to discuss this later on. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 09:46, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

== IRA ==

I have added Continuity IRA and Real IRA as they are both considered to be terrorist organizations by the British and American governments.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

==Government==
'' A government can support a terrorist, or the terrorist's goals, but cannot itself be terroristic. ''

The Nazi regime was not terroristic? Saddam putting people in woodchippers is not terrorism? The Soviet, Chinese, Korean & Cuban gulag systems are not employing terrorism to intimidate the populace and keep them in check? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yknow, I didn't like the way that was originally written, but I disagree more with the re-edit. Governments can engage in terroristic activities. Thats why we have the term "State Sponsored Terrorism."--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 18:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::The term is not accurate. "State sponsored terrorism" is an [[oxymoron]]. States, by definition, cannot be terroristic (including the Nazis, or whomever else you want to name) because their forces are ALWAYS military. Calling state actions terrorism is the equivalent of saying the US Navy Seals are state sponsored terrorists-- does that make it more clear? The term SST entered the lexicon probably in the same way "irregardless" did, as a useless modifier. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:38, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

It is possible for states to harbour, fund or support terrorists due to the fact that, although not being part of the state, they are considered to have the same aims as the controlling party of said state. Hence whilst not strictly "state sponsored terrorism" this could be construed as "state sanctioned terrorism".--[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 17:54, 10 April 2007 (EDT) offtopic, I need to remember to sign my contribs ; )

::Please sign your posts with four tildes "[[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)" I understand that states can harbor terrorists, but they cannot be terroristic. Terrorism, by definition (which is admittedly difficult) is not a state act. Look at a country like Somalia, they essentially have no government, but are they a nation of terrorists? They can't be a '''nation''' is the problem. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:57, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Flippin, So is it just my imagination this document exists ([http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65462.pdf pgs. 171 - 178 pdf]), or are denying the legitimcay of US State Dept. authority to publish it?

:An excerpt:

Chapter 6

STATE SPONSORS OF TERROR OVERVIEW

Iran and Syria routinely provide unique safe haven, substantial resources and
guidance to terrorist organizations.

State sponsors of terrorism provide critical support to non-state terrorist groups. Without state sponsors, terrorist groups would have much more difficulty obtaining the funds, weapons,
materials, and secure areas they require to plan and conduct operations. Most worrisome is
that some of these countries also have the capability to manufacture WMD and other
destabilizing technologies that can get into the hands of terrorists. The United States will
continue to insist that these countries end the support they give to terrorist groups. --[[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:56, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::I am saying the distinction is rhetorical, not ideological. In 2008, the terms will probably change. Look at the recent episode with the "global war on terror" language. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:59, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

This is still an issue of semantics. Whether a state is complicit in acts that would be viewed as terrorism (therefore rendering it not an act of terrorism) or whether it "merely" supports their aims and provides a haven, it makes little difference in the end. --[[User:Fingermouse|Fingermouse]] 18:09, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::It makes a great deal of difference. The problem is this: when a state acts it is not terrorism. Simply put, that is like saying putting one foot in front of the other and moving your body is walking. So, every time I put one foot in front of the other I am walking. So, cross country skiing becomes a form of walking. OR every time I move forward, I am walking. If I am in a car, moving forward, we don't call that walking. Semantics are important in this case. When a state acts, the resulting action is from their military force-always. If a state is complicit in acts of terrorism, they are declaring war because that is a military action. This distinction is key to why our country is divided on what to do about Iraq right now. Terrorists act outside the state--they may have the same goals, but if they act within the state they are not terrorists, they are troops. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:35, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So Saddam gassing the Kurds (including infants) was not an act of terrorism? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:38, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::::No, neither was Hitler gassing the Jews. They were acts of genocide, they were atrocious and vulgar, but definitely not terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:41, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==Citations needed==

We need citations for each one of these:
* [[Al-Qaeda]]
* [[Contra]]
* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]
* [[SAVAK]] (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)
* [[FRAPH]] (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)

[[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:32, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

I tried to give the following references, but someone else was working on the article (someone who actually knows how to use the 'reference' tags!) and there was an edit conflict, so ill put them here for now:

* [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm Al-Qaeda]
* [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html Contra]
* [http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html Mujahadeen el-Khalq ]
* [http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/world/iran/savak.htm SAVAK (Iranian Organization for Intelligence and National Security)]
* [http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) ]
* [http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html FRAPH (Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti)]

[[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 01:50, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
:Now added to the article [[User:Orgone|Orgone]] 02:27, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

Orgone, Thank you, and good job. Now two problems exist; (1) the al Qeade reference is unacceptable in the regard, the source state unequivocally "Al-Qaeda....was created in 1989 ....
The organisation grew out of the network of Arab volunteers who had gone to Afghanistan in the 1980s to fight under the banner of Islam against Soviet Communism". It was [[Mujahideen]] that recieved support, not al Qeade. (2) Subhead reads, "Groups Considered to be Terrorist Organizations Funded by the United States"; '''''considered by whom?''''' we need a source for this claim.

Finally, as a word of caution, whatever the cause of the error of represnting al Qeade with this
claim false claim, I highly recommend having the proper research in place before posting such a controversial inclusion. There is nothing wrong with bringing valid, highly controversial material to light like this; however, when something is as easily disprovable as a claim like this one, it does reflect upon the credibility of the editor who placed it. So as to avoid being accused of wreckless partisanship or other things that can undermine true scholarship and research, please have the material properly orgainized and cited, and faulty inclusion of this nature then can be regarded as good faith errors as opposed to naked propagandizing. Thank you for your attention to this. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:14, 11 April 2007 (EDT)
===al Qaede===
''reverted material:''
* [[Al-Qaeda]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1670089.stm ''Al-Qaeda's origins and links''], BBC News, July 20, 2004.</ref>

===Contras===
Here's another one; the Reagan State Dept. did not have ''Contra's'' on the terrorist watch list. This is now example two of bad use of sources and sloppy research methodology. I think we have to revert the subhead now due to its controversial and unsourced claim.

* [[Contra]]<ref>National Security Archive, [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/publications/irancontra/irancon.html ''The Iran-Contra Affair: The Making of a Scandal, 1983-1988''] 1990.</ref>

===SAVAK===
The claim SAVAK "received US funding" is highly questionable, being that (a) it was a bureau of the Iranian government. (b) Iran's oil wealth hardly necessitates US subsidies to run an internal bureau. ''Prima facia'' this claim appears bogus, but it will be researched. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:41, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

==img==
Good img. Why don't we move it up to the top? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:23, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Good idea. Done. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:36, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry, bad image. I really think this ought to be deleted. Terrorism is not just a political strategy, but a rhetorical one. This image '''is''' the reason many Americans died, but the image itself was what the terrorists wanted us to see. THIS image is their achievement and by putting it on this page, font and center, you endorse their message (which is: we can do this to even the most powerful nation on earth.) Ask yourself this one question: Had you, or your neighbors ever heard of Al Qaeda before 9/11? Most likely not. THIS image made them a household name. It really must be removed. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:::So if the 9/11 picture 'endorses' the terrorists' message, do pictures of starving Jewish prisoners from the Holocaust endorse Hitler's message? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:53, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, the message with Hitler was military and political. With 9/11 the point was for everyone to see the terrorists strength--their ability to bring us to our knees, and all that. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 13:54, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I disagree... but what sort of image would you recommend if this one is not good enough? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 13:58, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

A picture of something that does not connote the terrorists' values. So, no images of them with Nick Berg, that sort of thing. Honestly, the best approach might be something like the picture of the guy on the balcony in Munich, 1972. Gives the image, without the current debate. That would be a good example. The other is simply too much, too soon. I appreciate your consideration on this. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:00, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg]] This the image you're referring to? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 14:16, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I think it gives the impression of the what the page will discuss without the rhetorical issue I mentioned before. Thanks. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:20, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==IMG X2==
Wow, looks great. Thanks! [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:26, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

==source for edit==
http://www.amazon.com/Terrorist-Myths-Illusion-Rhetoric-Reality/dp/0139068015/ref=sr_1_1/104-9898859-8430311?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178134302&sr=1-1 Peter Sederberg's book is the first I found to directly address the issue of defining terrorism. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:33, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

== Link for edit ==

At "See also"

[[Yasser Arafat]]

::Only problem is, he wasn't a terrorist. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 19:07, 9 May 2007 (EDT)

==Spectrum theory==
Elmadri, while the recent inclusion are ambitious, some of it warrants discussion. This appears to be an effort to re-establish the old [[political spectrum theory]] and apply it to terrorist thinking, motives, and ideology. Let's examine this for example,

*''[Leftist] radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, idealogy or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government.''

*''[Rightist} Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo.''

And we see [[al-Qaeda]] placed under "Leftist." Leftist then proceeds to propound Marxist-Leninist motivations. Now, it can be argued Al-Qaeda can fit under either of these definitions, but debating which is more appropriate may not be helpful. The fundamental problem is the spectrum theory itself. And this simply appears, once again, of trying to pigeon-hole a square peg into a round hole.

So, while some, if not most of the material is good, it probably needs reorganization. That is, we should probably remove the subheads and not try to assign some or all extreme terrorist groups to an ideological class defined by the spectrum theory. While discussion of tradition Marxist-Leftist terrorism is valuable, nonetheless, the spectrum theory is not definitive of all politcal motivations. Some groups come together simply out of the practical necessity of the moment, irregardless and irrespective of an underlying ideology of its members, that is to say, not all political activity (in this case, I'm referring to extremist political activity) is ideologically driven. This is the fundamental flaw of the spectrum theory. Therefore, we should not perpetuate a flawed theory by assigning questionable motives to groups on other pages outside the [[Political spectrum]] article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be quite frank, I'm working from some of my textbooks here. Now the thing is, that they do address the changes in though about terrorism, and I want to rewrite some of it to take into account what you are talking about. Obviously, there has been changes in how terrorist operate and how we view terrorism, and what I've put in doesn't reflect that, but rather more the post Cold War view. I was going to go in and put that stuff in, but I think I upset Andy with the article on the Patriot Movement, which was my bad. I wasn't thinking at the time. Therefore, I'm trying to kinda stay away from the more politically charged stuff for the time being. Feel free to go in and change stuff of course, but I would like it if you left the the stuff in and perhaps simply categorized it as spectrum theory and added that its a little outdated.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 17:34, 24 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Thank you. If you've read the [[political spectrum theory]] article, you'd probably see how difficult it is to label persons, groups, and even ideologies as "left" or "right", and never was this more true than in the post-Cold War era. The simple fact is, not all poltical action is ideologically driven. Take the [[NRA]] for example, widely regarded as the most powerful special interest group in the US, yet nonetheless, it's broadbased grassroots come from a huge cross section. A woman who carries a gun in self defence to protect herself against rape, can hardly be pigeon-holed into an ideological mold.

:::Being that the question is so unsettled, and "left/right" spectrum theory really is little more than journalistic shorthand to argue prejudices without having to discuss issues, I suggest we just drop it from the article. We can come up with better subheads. I'll be a little busy in the early part of this week, but by mid week should be able to focus a little closer and help you out. Thanks again. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:18, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

AL QAIDA is not leftist.

Anyone care to explain exacly how al Quaida qualifies as a LEFTIST terrorist group?

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:11, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Nazi Party

2007-06-28T20:06:11Z

PF Fox: /* Right Wing */

== NAZI ==

NAZI NAME- IMPORTANT
Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei is in fact National Socialist's broad German Labor Party, and not as it is said in the article.
Accurate information is a must on a credible pedia.

== Homosexuality of the Nazis ==

Which top Nazis were openly gay? That's the first time I've ever heard people claiming this, save for the Hitler-was-gay claims that always come up. But then again, so do Lincoln-was-gay claims. The point is is that none of this is verifiable despite one book claiming it is. I say remove it.

:Wow. Let's use Wikipedia as a source for this one; note [[Adolf Hitler]]'s [[tolerance]] for [[gay]]s:
::''Having been outed in 1925, however, [Ernst] Röhm made little attempt to hide his sexuality. Despite Hitler's pretense of shock upon discovering his deputy's sexual orientation, he had in fact long known that Röhm was homosexual....During Röhm's tenure at the head of the SA, it has been suggested that a number of homosexual men (notably Karl Ernst, a former bouncer at a gay nightclub, and Edmund Heines) were appointed to and promoted within the SA as a result of high-level liaisons with powerful SA figures.''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm#R.C3.B6hm.27s_sexual_orientation]
:Amazing. Wikipedia almost got it half right on this one. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::That's one top Nazi that was openly gay, but the article claims "though many top Nazis were openly gay..." This statement implies a plurality of homosexuals and not just the leader of the SA, who was killed when the SA was purged. So does one equal many? Yes, in the citation above there are two more men who were in the SA reported to be homosexuals, but they were not "top Nazis." This distinction implies people like Hess, Himmler, Goebbles, Hitler, etc., people who commanded Germany. The introduction to ''The Pink Triangle'' addresses homosexuality in the top echelons, of which there was little. Also, just because Hitler tolerated one homosexual does not mean he tolerated them all. His tolerance for Röhm could have just been convenient, until say, he killed him.

::::There was Edmund Heines as well, and Karl Ernst. But even adding these two wouldn't substantiate the claim of "many top Nazis." The fact is that most of the leadership that leaned that way was in the SA and was eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::And a further aside; we have already pointed out how in electing Hitler, a Catholic, Germany showed itself more socially progressive than the United States by several decades. Likewise we shall demonstrate the Nazi's were more socially enlighten regarding the issue of gays in the military.
:::::Coming soon: Affirmative Action and the Wehrmacht. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::That post doesn't address the issue at hand. The article states that they were not tolerant for gays, but were gay themselves. I still reject the "top leadership" claim (other than Rohm). The fact that there were gays in the ranks (which there would be in any population if we assume gays live in any population) does not mean that "top Nazis" were practitioners of homosexual behavior.
::::::PS Where in the book is the youth groups claim cited, or could you provide the quote?

::::::Se also, ''The Damned'', starring Dirk Bogard [http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/cinema/features/damned.shtml], has a lengthy scene of a typical Nazi gay orgy with the Stormtroopers walking around wearing women's underwear, etc.

Given that the whole homosexual-nazi's theme has been started by Scott Lively, I doubt it is at all credible. Lively is a hardly a respectable historian - he is, in fact, an anti-homosexual campaigner and nothing more than this. I see someone has gone to the trouble of preparing a page on him that makes it very clear - with quotes, even - that he cannot be considered a reliable source because he is a fanatical conspiricy-theorist who appears to believe that homosexuals are planning to take over the world (While at the same time denying that homosexuality even exists). Citing fake histories invented by political power-gamers desperate to rewrite the past to make it appear the nazi's were homosexual is very detrimental to the credability of this site. I thus suggest that all reference to Scott Lively's pet theory are removed. Once his nonsense is dismissed, we have credible-looking support for a ''single'' homosexual high-up in the Nazi party (Rohm). Just the one. Who kept it in the closet. Hardly the openly party-supported gay-orgies that some people are claiming, or Scott's ungrounded belief in a mostly-homosexual leadership. There are two potentials too, but no proof - working as a bouncer at a gay nightclub does not make someone gay - BornAgainBrit

:Oh, I deleted a coupe of comments to calm things down - but only comments that are fairly old, unsourced (Or use Scott as a source) and make highly unlikely claims.

== Right Wing ==

The Nazis were neither atheists nor socialists and the question of whether or not they or their earlier incarnations qualify as "right wing" was resolved decades ago. I'm sorry, but I see no reason to accept Robs' idiosyncratic definitions as if they were accepted fact. They are most definitely not. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:Right. So as to whether a Socialist is a Socialist all depends on what the meaning of is is "is is" is. I understand fully. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:15, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

"We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest." - Paragraph 24, Programme for the German Workers' Party (Pre-nazi). This is what happens when people blindly assume anyone who ''claims'' to be Christian is worth supporting. Hitler spoke publicly of his Christian faith constantly - that makes him a good politician, but not a real christian.

:''It [the party] combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us, and is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within only on the principle: '''the common interest before self-interest.'''" ''
::'''the common interest before self-interest''', I would say this statement (a) lays to rest the idea the NSDAP is "conservative", and/or right-wing defined as a belief in rugged individualism; (b) pretty much clarifies the Social and Communal roots of Nazism. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, whether a Socialist is a Socialist depends on whether or not the person or political party advocates collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of producton. The Nazis advocated some measure of government control in that realm, but not to the point where they qualified as "socialist," any more than 19th Century Prussia -- which advocated a similar kind of control -- qualified as "socialist."

:::Your claim that the Nazi party doesn't qualify as "right wing" is nothing more than blatant historical revisionism, an attempt to alter the definition of the term decades after the fact. The Nazis by and large considered themselves right wing, were referred to as right wing by contemporary opponents and sympathizers and by neutral observers (like travel guides to Germany at the time,) have been acknowledged as right wing by historians covering that era. What exactly do you expect to accomplish by altering common usage in this manner?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:18, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Meaning no disrespect, but it appears you too often speak first before looking at some of the issues. And while I can appreciate your once popular political prejudices, in retrospect we see denying facts and carrying on myths really serves no purpose anymore.

:Now, as to whether or not Socialists are indeed Socialists, lets begin with examing the "means of production", i.e. Volkswagen. [http://mondediplo.com/1998/01/11volkswag] So, we will be afforded the opportunity to examine the history of this Socialist enterprise to whatever extent they've made thier Archives available to the public.

:And finally the left/right spectrum theory is just that--only a theory. For weeks now I've been waiting to hear a definition from advocates of this theory what a "leftist" is. All I've seen so far is something like this:

*''a leftist is a liberal'' --->click here ''a liberal is a leftist'' --->click here ''leftists oppose oppression, hence Communists are leftists''

:that's the left side of this nonsense. Then we hear about how Socialists like Hitler actually were devout Christians like Rev. Falwell, who wants to exterminate gays, too.

:My appoligies, but this garbage is going absolutly nowhere. And if your serious in persuing this dead end thinking, my advice is to define "leftist", cause none, absolutley none of your so-called "leftist allies" have been able to do so up til now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Garbage is definitely the operative term for this blatant revisionism of claiming that the Nazis were not "right wing" and were in fact "socialist." Using your definition of the term "socialist", Prussia and indeed much of 19th century Europe were "socialist." That is not how these countries were defined nor how they saw themselves, nor how they are defined today.

::A "leftist" is defined in the dictionary as "Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the establishe order esp. in poltics and usus. advocating chage in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A "right winger" is defined as "individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices." The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::ok, let's take that dictionary definition, "advocating chage in the name of the greater ... well-being of the common man", and "opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices". So which one of us is left and which one of us is right? I want change to stop these nonsensical definitions of left & right, you are resisting it and bring in more of this nonsense that does absolutly nothing to answer the question. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:12, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Which of us is "left" and which of us is "right" depends on how traditional our attitudes are towards issues like women, labor, minorities, etc. The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic, wanted to do so in order to turn the clock back to the era before women were active in public life, before Jews had been emancipated, before the advent of the avant garde in art and film, etc. It was essentially a revulsion against much of the modern world and a wildly romanticized view of the past.

::::If the fact that terms like "right" and "left" can be imprecise and part of a "spectrum" renders them "nonsensical," then much of language is "nonsensical." Terms like "religion," "politics," "freedom," "morality," even "red," "blue," "wet," "dry," "hot," or "cold" are "nonsensical." You want to give up using those terms too? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:26, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''"The Nazis, while they wished to overthrow the current order of the Weimar Republic...''
:::::hmmm...let's see....which country, the US or Germany, displayed it's social progressivity by electing a Catholic to it's highest office? Was it the US & JFK, or Wiemar Republic and Hitler? Then, which country introduced affirmative action into the military after the Treaty of Versailles which allowed poor common scum, like Rommel, to rise to the position of General based upon merit rather than Social class? Which country displayed its social progressivity by allowing gays in the military first, the US or Nazi Germany? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::: First of all, the Weimar Republic is not synonymous with Hitler. Quite the contrary, it was the liberalism of the Weimar Republic that that Hitler and the Nazis opposed, so trying to cram the term "affirmative action" into the context of the Weimar republic just bolsters my argument that the Nazis who reviled it were traditionalists and ergo "Right Wing." And the Nazis did not openly allow gays in the military, though I have no doubt that there were powerful gay men there who barely bothered to hide their homosexuality -- as has been true in many homophobic societies from time immemorial. The illusion of impunity many powerful gay Nazis felt coupled with official Nazi stance against homosexuality were frequently exploited by Himmler. One of his methods of controlling the people around him was by threatening to publicize an individuals homosexuality and thus exposing that individual to public disgrace and legal penalties.

::::::It was under Weimar, by the way, that German women gained the right to vote and began to appear more frequently in public life, that the avant garde arts flourished, that the last shreds of the legal restrictions on German Jews were dropped -- all of these were trends that the Nazis hated, and worked to elminate once they came into power. You don't do your case any good, Rob, by using Weimar policies to argue for the Nazis NOT being Right Wing. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:23, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::There is a large divergence between American historians and Germans in discussing Wiemar Germany. Germans regard what is called "Wiemar Germany", or "the Wiemar period" as extending from 1919 to 1939. Americans assume Wiemar Germany ended in 1933 with the rise of Hitler & Nazism. This is what I call "the Hollywood view" while popular and prevelent, nonetheless over fictionalized.

:::::::Talking about women gaining sufferage in Wiemar Germany almost brings tears to my eyes; I'm almost convinced to become a so-called "leftist", one who "advocates change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man". But then all my fellow leftists today say Iraqi women can rot in hell as far as thier concerned. So what would you beleive if you were in my shoes? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::RobS, if I were in your shoes I would certainly take an English class. [[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 15:31, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Just call me another victim of the Public Schools; we honestly have considered a class action suit for the lifelong damge they did to us innocent children. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Rob, if you can successfully show that public school teachers are responsible for your idiotic claim that the Weimar republic didn't end until 1939 you MIGHT have a case. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:06, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

Kindly provide a cite for this presumed "divergence." I have yet to see or hear ANY historian, American or German, claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and I have spent many years not only reading about this subject, but listening to first-hand accounts from Germans who lived through that era. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:14, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:Here's one, Speer, Albert (1970). ''Inside the Third Reich''. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-82949-5. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:58, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::And exactly where does Speer claim that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939? What chapter? What section? How does the passage read? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:53, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

The entry here on Conservapedia for the Weimar Republic has it ending in 1933. Are you planning to "correct" this article? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:34, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Here is what Speer has to say about the Weimar Republic:

"...Hitler did not want to alter the proportion of sixty thousand voters for each deputy THAT HAD BEEN SET BY THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC (emphasis addded. Note past tense.) He never explained his reasons; but he was as firm on this matter as he was about nominal retention of the traditional electoral system with its fixed dates for elections, rule of franchise, ballot boxes, and secret ballot. On this matter he evidently wanted to preserve a tradition which had brought him to power, eventhough his introduction of the one-party system had made the whole thing pointless."

"The liberalism of the Weimar Republic seemed to us by comparison lax, dubious, and in no way desirable."

Please explain how this backs up your claim that Germans believe the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:The first reference makes EXACTLY the point; the second reference needs a timeframe, because if it occurs during a discussion of wartime German attitudes, it likewise makes the same point. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::It most certainly does NOT make your point. Speer refers to the Weimar Republic in the past tense, and the fact that this meaningless remnant of the Weimar system remained no more means the Weimar Republic itself remained than the fact that there were still some buildings put up during Weimar means the Weimar Republic itself remained. And are you going to put your money where your mouth is, change the Conservapedia Article on the Weimar Republic, "correct" it so that it no longer says it lasted only until 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:17, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::OK, so when Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter", I guess actually means "did want to alter", much the same way a Socialist is not a Socialist.

::::Once again my friend you assign motives to me when all I did was point out disparties between American schools of historiagraphy and German. Here's another one you can look into,
:::::''"I was reading a wiki article the other day that made reference to "the Nazi seizure of power"; this article obviously was brought over from the German wiki, cause American sources always make light of the fact Hitler was democratically elected."''[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-March/064824.html]
::::And actually I counted some 200 articles in the English Wiki were this subversive poison made its way into the English language. Amazing, Wikipedia actually created the beast its intent upon destroying. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::When Speer says "Hitler did not want to alter" he is specifically referring to the number of voters assigned to each deputy and "nominal retention of the traditional electoral system," trappings that Speer himself observes were "pointless" because of Hitler's imposition of a single-party system. And I'm sorry, but the quotes observing that Hitler was democratically elected do nothing to bolster your bizarre claim that the Weimar Republic did not end until 1939.

:::::If you are that positive that the Weimar Republic did not end in 1933, please explain why the Conservapedia article on the subject states quite clearly: "The Weimar Republic is the republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1933." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:07, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::PF, it's not worth responding to cause you continue to ascribe to me a claim I have specifically stated did not originate with me. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:20, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

LOL! In other words, you are willing to posit this inanity about the Weimar Republic continuing to 1939 here on a talk page in an attempt to bolster a baseless point, but you aren't willing to "correct" an article so that it reads "The Weimar Republic is the Republic which governed Germany from 1919 to 1939." You know as well as I do that such an article posted here would become the subject of widespread and deserved ridicule.

Face it. The Nazis were a reaction AGAINST the LIBERALISM of the Weimar Republic. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:24, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:''Gleichsaltung'' wasn't completed on the day after Hitler took office. And the undoing of Versailles, re-occupation of the Rhineland, Treaty of Munich, Anschluss, etc didn't occur til the 1935-39 period. Then of course we got the whole Molotov-Ribbentrop deal to look into, i.e. '''how the Soviet Union & Nazi's were indeed allies on 1 September 1939'''. So there actually is some basis for the traditional European view that the "Wiemar period" extended from 1919 to 1939. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:33, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sorry Rob, but Conservapedia itself -- along with pretty much every written history of Germany -- puts the end of the Weimar Republic in 1933, and your attempt at twisting a quote from Speer doesn't change that. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 17:42, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Speer ain't the only one that says it, and Speer doesn't just make a quote here and there; it's is an attitude throughout both his books. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:55, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Then who DOES claim that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939? Quotes please. (As someone who has read his books, I know that Speer makes no such claim.) AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU "CORRECTED" THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC ARTICLE HERE SO THAT IT GIVES THE END OF THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC AS 1939 INSTEAD OF 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:00, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::OK, that is a very good question. Now let's divide the response in two. There is domestic German politics, then there is upsetting the International order established at Versailles. Let's limit our discussion of the "Wiemar period" to the internetional borders established at Versailles. When Hitler re-occupied the Rhineland, though illegal, was internationally sanctioned. Then the Treaty of Munich, likewise took on legitimacy in the spirit of Versailles. The Anschluss, no international prohibitions were raised over this issue, not even in defense of the Austrian people, as best I recollect. Finally in 1939, we have joint Soviet-German military operations to dismember Poland. This is were the Peace of Versailles, or "Wiemar period", is regarded by many Europeans as finally, and officially coming to an end, after the governments of France and Great Britain finally ceased selling other people down the river to appease Nazi (and Soviet) aggression. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:09, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

None of this answers my question. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:12, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:Let's work on the [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]] first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:16, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::That has absolutely nothing to do with this question, or with the fact that pretty much every historian puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1933. You know this. Otherwise you would have posted some supporting cites from historians by now. Again. Why haven't you "corrected" the Weimar Republic article here so that it gives the end of the Weimar Republic as 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:18, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Well duh, let me restate for probably the third time now: the first international boundary to change was not unitl 1938, and was agreed to by the powers enforcing the Versailles treaty. Sept 1 1939, as best as I can determine, is when then Wiemar period, established at Versailles, came to end, and some members of the international community took steps to counter upsetting the established international order.

:::You know, for all the effort you put into arguing how Iraqi women were better off under fascism for 30 years, maybe you should reconsider if Chilean women may have been better off under Pinochet--at least to maintain internal logical consistancy of these positions you seem to instinctively commit yourself to before examining facts. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:27, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::So what's preventing you from "correcting" the Conservapedia entry on the Weimar Republic so that it puts the end of the Weimar Republic at 1939 instead of 1933? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

I've done my best to clean up the sporadic nature of articles on "Nazi", "National Socialist German Workers' Party" and "Nazis" etc., combining some content and bolstering it with some additional work to prevent it from becoming a written vendetta against the Nazis (i.e. additional content is based on the principle that they did some terrible things, but what else did they do?). [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:RobS - any reasons for reverting my edits? Not great practice to revert without justification. Calling your revert a "minor edit" is probably inappropriate, as well. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 00:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''I'll transplant part of the discussion from Rob's talk page to this discussion page.'''
::I think I counted one too many "conservatives" in there when there may actually be a question if any belong at all, and you didn't engage in talk or cite any source. This,
:''While not always recognised for it in popular accounts due to the weight of their other actions, the Nazis were responsible for removing the scourge of rational conservatism in the lead-up to World War II ''
::I read six times and concluded the author of it himself probably doesn't understand what it means. Then we have this, a disclaimer,
:''The Nazis are generally seen as fascists''
::Just who or what are you trying to debate here? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Perhaps scourge was the wrong word, but I think it's clear that if you hadn't lopped off the end of the first sentence that I wrote, you would have seen what I was pointing to the "scourge" as being:
::::''- disbanding the German branch of the left-wing communist movement spreading throughout Europe.''
:::It's clear that you've misinterpreted my edit. Either way, instead of reverting the whole thing back to the messy and uncategorised page that existed before, you should have removed only the offending sentences and asked for clarification on this discussion page. Your revert showed little consideration for what my edits were - I made an extensive edit that went far beyond what you cited in your justification, cleaning up the haphazard allocation of content that previously existed on several pages on Conservapedia, categorising it and adding new content: not all of which you appeared to object to. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 05:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It's been summarized already. If you think this article will become a forum to postulate the Left/Right Poltical Specrtrum Theory of Max Weber as being a doctrinal substantiation that the NSDAP of Germany, and the Republican party of the United States, becuase both are characterized as "right-wing" and "conservative", that there are commonalities of views, beliefs, and objectives, I think you may be sorely mistaken in that premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You still haven't justified the reverting of the entire page - as I already mentioned, I pooled together much of the content from '''other''' articles on Conservapedia that had sporadic amounts of information about the Nazis and their beliefs, none of which had been objected to. By reverting this page, you've removed more than just a couple of lines: you've removed content that, for the most part, previously existed uncontested on other pages.

:::::And where did you get the idea that I was delving into the postulation of Weber's spectrum theories? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Nazis are seen as fascists? Do you have an objection to the statement that the Communists were left-wing? The problem is that you've taken facts and claimed that they are incorrect, when in reality, the only problem was in the wording. If Conservapedia is happy enough to have rubbish pages that are reverted at will because administrators can't be bothered picking only the contentious lines and deleting it, then so be it. Your encyclopaedia is a shambles and is not one that can be "trusted", and if you rigidly turn back the clock on any even slightly contentious comments, then even a conservative like me is willing to turn back to Wikipedia. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 01:27, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::You still haven't answered any of the reservations about the material. You still haven't explained a totally nonsensical sentence. Max Weber's Theory is just that, a theory. A theory is by definition, not fact.
::::::So, find me the place where I mention Max Weber. And '''you''' equally haven't explained why Conservapedia endorses the lazy removal of non-contentious content for no reason. Sure, the two sentences that you cited may have been poorly written or worded, but it doesn't justify removing the entire page, and removing content that had previously been on other pages that had never been contested. In any case, no article about a movement as controversial as the National Socialists is even close to some sort of completion without an analysis of what they believed.[[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 22:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==A few mistakes==

The acronym would be NSDAP, Nazi is just part of the first word of the party, "Nazionalsozialistiche".

Also, the swastika shouldn't be called "the Nazis' symbol", it's not ''their'' symbol. The swastika was used by Hindus, Buddhists, Greeks, Romans, and tons more people for thousands of years.

:You're on the right track, but the first word in the party name is really "Nationalsozialistische". The word "Nazi" just comes from how it is pronounced. As such, "acronym" in this case really is wrong. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:35, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yeah, I realised that I had spelt it wrong after reading the article and then editing it again. -[[User:Thjazi|Thjazi]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Marxism and trade unions==

*Through much of its history, the socialist movement has ardently pursued the trade unions. Yet, despite much courting and wooing, this romance has been largely unsuccessful. [http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/unions/unions.htm]

A "Free Trade Union" is a Trade Union separate from an official or a government controlled Trade Union. The Word "free" is moderating the term "Trade Union," not merely the word "trade." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Hitler was NOT A MARXIST OR A COMMUNIST. Say what you want but some of the first prisoners sent to Dachau were communists. Hitler despised communists and marxists more than McCarthy. The only reason to compare Nazism and Hitler to a communist and or marxist is because it would be like calling Hitler a Jew

Yeah, Hitler hated the Communists and longed to crush Russia. Historian Albert Tonbee reported how Hitler, while giving a speech, would scream and gibber when discussing Russia. Of course, none of Hitler's anti-communist leanings are mentioned in the article. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:43, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

== "verifiability" ==

PF, even Wikipedia doesn't have "Verifiability" anymore) (Robs)

Since I don't use Wikipedia and cite William Shirer, what is this referring to?

Apparently the only way you can justify your silly objections to calling the Nazis "right wing" is by falsely claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 -- something you're unwilling to do publicly in an actual article. What is your stand on the Ninth Commandment? Do you feel it can be dispensed with if following it would require you to concede a point? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:16, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:See under WP old WP:Verifiability clause, the rule was "verifiable, not truth", which meant give equal weight to the lie so long as it could be proven somebody said it somewhere sometime, nevermind the oxymoron since the latin root of "veri" means "truth". But in typical and classic Wikipedia fashion the rule was always undertood to mean "truth, not truth". And it was an open invitation to the intellectually dishonest to fill up whatever crap they please within all entries.

:But let's put the pure subject matter aside momentarilly; no one doubts the common jargon gets used, as there are thousands of popular misunderstandings and mispercpetions on countless subjects. But the first thing you must deal with here is literally a philosophical question: a theory is by definition not a fact. Now, is there anyway whatsoever that you can prove terms like "leftist" or "right-wing" are anything other than theoretical? And even the theories you produce I will document to be contradictory with themselves.

:Bottomline, this is a loosing issue. You cannot make a cat into a fish. They simply are two different things, and the spectrum theory is little more than that, a theory to simplify the prejudices of adults to third graders. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:47, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::I think it should make some reference to the fact that the Nazi party was right-wing, because, well, they were (to the point of extremity). But they were definitely extreme-right, and that can't really be argued, unless you want to pull out some never-before-seen documents... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 20:56, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Many books in English have made that claim for many years; and we have yet to seriously broach the subject of National Socialism. The real problem here is nobody can define "left-wing" or "right-wing", at least no editor in Conservapedia has made a serious effort to do so yet. That needs to be done first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::I'm working off [http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2], which shows him on the right side. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 21:01, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::::::Big problem: It is only a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:02, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

I doubt that pretty much every historian, every contemporary observer, every diarist, writer, memorist, and journalist writing about the Nazi era was or is guilty of a "misperception" in calling the Nazis right wing. Not only do English books say, this, but German books say it, French books say it, Italian books say it, books in every language that discusses the Nazis say it, and if Conservapedia has a problem with defining the Nazis as "Right Wing" it's not one shared by most educated and knowledgable people. Who do you think you're kidding? And have you given up on your quixotic effort to convince everyone that the Weimar Republic went on until 1939? Did the other sysops not like the idea of you "correcting" the Weimar Republic entry to reflect that claim of yours? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:09, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Be my guest, please, please, then, and define the term. We are all waiting with baited breath. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::As you know, I already defined both "left wing" and "right wing" on this very page. On April 6th I posted the following:

::"A 'leftist' is defined in the dictionary as 'Those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics. Advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. A 'right winger' is defined as 'individuals sometimes professing opposition to change in the established order and favoring traditional attitudes and practices.' The Nazis attitudes towards women, minorities, the disabled, the arts, homosexuality, foriegn policy and a range of other areas put them squarely on the right side of the political spectrum."

::After that that you tried to invoke one of the more liberal policies of the Weimar Republic in order to claim that the Nazis were somehow "left wing." Faced with the fact (apparently new to you) that the Nazis were ANTAGONISTIC to the liberal Weimar Republic, you offered the truly ridiculous argument that the Weimar Republic lasted until 1939, and compounded the absurdity by misrpresenting a quote from Albert Speer's book. When THAT didn't work, you galloped off on a tangent about Saddam Hussein, without every explaining why, if the Weimar Republic ended in 1939, the Conservapedia article on it has it ending in 1933.

::Again, who do you think you're kidding? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, so "leftists" are for the betterment of humanity, whereas "rightists" oppose the betterment of humanity. Pardon me, I have no personal axe to grind; I may be asked however in the capacity of a [[fiduciary]] to dispute this definition. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The definition in its entirety reads "Advocating change IN THE NAME OF the greater freedom and well-being of the common man." The dictionary is question is saying that that is usually the reason given by leftists for promoting certain policies, just as a respect for tradition is the reason invoked by many right wingers for opposing certain policies. Is it your contention that dictionary writers are all a bunch of leftists out to write biased definitions? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:43, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Whoopie doo! So "leftists", in thier view, got a monopoly on the betterment of humanity. I'm sure other so-called "leftists" agree with this trite reasoning. But this inbred family affair won't work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:52, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Is it your contention that dictionaries --Merriam Webster, the OED, etc -- are part of a dastardly conspiracy of leftists?

Yes, most leftists consider what they are doing to be for the greater freedom and well being of the common man, just as most right-wingers consider their respect for tradition more important and more likely to make a better world. So what? You demanded I repeat these definitions. I did. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 23:54, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

:Yep, and we all seen this old movie a thousand times, how the cake of custom conflicts with progress and the betterment of civilization. Say, you got some loaded dice? I love playing with loaded dice and getting all my money taken. I'm a real fool when it comes to that. Please, cheat me as you see fit. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::I gather from this that you've run out of arguments and are reduced to just typing rants. Sorry, but it's not the fault of liberals, or leftists, or Wikipedia, or Hitler's architect, or Saddam Hussein, or dictionaries or "loaded dice" that you are doomed to lose any argument based on such booming absurdities as "The Nazis weren't right wing," or "The Weimar Republic didn't end until 1939." It's the fault of reality and common usage. Until you acknowledge these things, no honest or educated person is going to even pretend to take your arguments seriously. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 02:10, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::OK, I'll say it one more time: the Political Spectrum Theory of Max Weber has no more weight than the Theory of Evolution of Charles Darwin. Now, if you can prove where either theory has any factual basis, please do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::You can say it as often as you want, Rob. That doesn't make it a valid argument. Comparing English common usage with Darwin's theory, as though assigning the term "right wing" to the Nazis were a theory that created as great a controvery and as much debate as evolution is nonsense. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:30, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Blaming the West==

Controversial cut:

:Most historians agree that the defeat of Germany in the First World War and anger over the [[Treaty of Versailles]], specifically those provisions that restored territory to [[France]], [[Belguim]], [[Denmark]], and [[Poland]], disarmed Germany, and required that it pay reparations for the First World War helped lay the groundwork for the rise of Nazism.

:::Excuse me, but this happens to be true. Whether you agree with it or not, most historians tie the defeat of Germany in WWI and anger over those provisions of the Versailles Treaty to the rise of the Nazi party. How does this qualify as "blaming the West" (especially since Germany is a Western European country?) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:13, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

::::PF Fox sums it up pretty good in these lines of text. I'll endorse reinclusion. Incidentally, welcome back. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:22, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Western European Countries are countries such as England and France, germany is of central europe.
Simply because it is as much on western europe as it is on eastern. Britts and frenchies are to be blamed by germany's humiliation. West is too broad, west european determines the greedy guys that took the spoils of war from germany.

==unlock request==
I'd like to categorize it under European History, thanks. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 17:14, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Define torture

2007-06-28T20:02:39Z

PF Fox: /* Other */

Talk:Godless: The Church of Liberalism

2007-06-28T13:57:34Z

PF Fox: /* Jersey widows */

Hey, that sounds good. Must get that.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
:Wow...just...wow...so that's who Ann Coulter is...she seems...kind of...I can't think of a nice word for it so I'm just not going to say it...a good entry though about the book.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Wait. Adult men don't actually believe what she says... do they?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Many adults are perfectly willing to pretend that they do. She's succeeded in making outright lies, borderline physical threats, and deliberate obtuseness respectable, and I'm afraid there are many people grateful to her for that.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Are you inviting debate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm curious as to who or what takes her seriously.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It did not occur to me that what Coulter has said is debatable, but if you want to debate the issue, I'm up for it.

Did she or did she not say that "“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”

Did she or did she not say of some of the 9/11 widows: "“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.” Did she or did she not also say of them,"How do we know that their husbands, the husbands of the people who died on 9/11, weren't planning to divorce these harpies,"

Did she or did she not say that her only regret about Tim McVeigh was that he didn't go to the NY Times Building?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:I've told you a thousand times, stop exaggerating! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

If what PF Fox says is correct, it doesn't sound like this author is family-friendly at all. I suggest deletion, with a protection in place to prevent re-creation. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 18:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:-) Didn't she say these things? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:: She did say those things, she truly is an awful woman. Should we delete her articles?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Jersey widows==

Among the more controversial sections of the book was Ann Coulter’s attack on several women who had lost their husbands in 9/11 and had voiced criticism of President Bush’s approach to terrorism:

“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”
----
This was not "controversial", let alone "more controversial". Rather, this was a section which liberals '''objected to'''. An objection does not make a controversy. There is only a controversy when there are two sides, and a debate goes on and on about an issue.

The Jersey Girls flap was merely a PR attack on Coulter and does not deserve mention in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::What, Ed, would you define as a "controversy" if not a passage in a book that arouses a high level of heated debate? And yes, it does deserve mention in the article. You'd just like it removed because that passage is embarrassing to Ann Coulter and well nigh impossible to defend. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:53, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

From Ed Poor "Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. "Ad hominem" means "against the man", rather than against what the man is saying (or in Coulter's case, against the woman).

::This is your lucky day Ed! I'd be DELIGHTED to answer her criticism of the Jersey girls, and I have no doubt you'll be just as DELIGHTED to defend those remarks of her's! Let's have at it! My criticism is as follows:

::Ann Coulter is in absolutely no position, and has absolutely no business announcing in a book that some of the women widowed by 9/11 are "enjoying" their husbands deaths. She has even less business referring to them as "harpies" and saying that they had better hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY and speculating that their husbands may have wanted to divorce them anyway. There is absolutely no context in which such remarks would be appropriate.

::Plainly you disagree with this criticism of mine. Let's hear your arguments. Be sure to include any information you might have about how these women truly felt about their husbands being incinerated/buried/crushed in the World Trade Center catastrophe, how their physiques measure up to possibly posing in PLAYBOY (and how much they probably desire to do this)and what the state of their marriages were before their husband's deaths. (If your premise is that the very fact that these women disagree with George Bush on the War on Terror means they are inhuman "harpies" who have no human feelings worth seriously considering, be sure to mention it.)

::Looking forward to seeing your defense of that passage. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:::I fail to see what your personal attack on Coulter has to do with her arguments about liberalism being "like a religion". Perhaps you should bring this matter up at [[talk:Ann Coulter]], where you can protest her tendency to "be mean" to various people. While you're at it, will you also be criticizing Howard Stern for being mean? Or are you applying a [[double standard]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:17, 12 June 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, Ed, for the record, I HAVE criticized Howard Stern. And no, I'm not the one waving a "double-standard" here." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 09:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

The Bell Curve

2007-06-28T13:39:55Z

PF Fox: Why remove facts?

The Handmaid's Tale

2007-06-28T13:35:43Z

PF Fox: Yep. I read it (as I have most of her books) And it wasn't just ANY ol' Theocracy.

'''The Handmaid's Tale''' is a dystopian novel by Margaret Atwood set in the near future in which an oppressive authoritarian government, a combination of Biblical fundamentalism and radical feminism, has achieved ascendancy over the [[United States of America]]. It was made into a movie in 1990.
[[category:book]]

The Bell Curve

2007-06-28T13:29:09Z

PF Fox: Let's be honest about what this book promotes, folks.

[[Image:Bellcurve.jpg|right|thumb|Black IQ scores show a 10 or 15 point gap]]
'''''The Bell Curve''''' is a 1994 book by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray exploring the relationship between [[race]] and [[intelligence]] in [[America (USA)|America]]. <ref>"The Bell Curve, published in 1994, was written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray as a work designed to explain, using empirical [[statistical analysis]], the variations in intelligence in American Society, raise some warnings regarding the consequences of this [[intelligence gap]], and propose national social policy with the goal of mitigating the worst of the consequences attributed to this intelligence gap. Many of the assertions put forth and conclusions reached by the authors are very controversial, ranging from the relationships between low measured intelligence and [[anti-social behavior]], to the observed relationship between low [[African-American]] test scores (compared to whites and Asians) and genetic factors in intelligence abilities." [http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml] </ref>The Bell Curve maintains that African Americans as a people suffer from a significant and unchangeable deficit in IQ scores when compared with Americans of European descent.

==Notes==
<references/>

The Bell Curve

2007-06-28T13:28:28Z

PF Fox:

[[Image:Bellcurve.jpg|right|thumb|Black IQ scores show a 10 or 15 point gap]]
'''''The Bell Curve''''' is a 1994 book by Richard J. Herrnstein and Charles Murray exploring the relationship between [[race]] and [[intelligence]] in [[America (USA)|America]]. <ref>"The Bell Curve, published in 1994, was written by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray as a work designed to explain, using empirical [[statistical analysis]], the variations in intelligence in American Society, raise some warnings regarding the consequences of this [[intelligence gap]], and propose national social policy with the goal of mitigating the worst of the consequences attributed to this intelligence gap. Many of the assertions put forth and conclusions reached by the authors are very controversial, ranging from the relationships between low measured intelligence and [[anti-social behavior]], to the observed relationship between low [[African-American]] test scores (compared to whites and Asians) and genetic factors in intelligence abilities." The Bell Curve maintains that African Americans as a people suffer from a significant and unchangeable deficit in IQ scores when compared with Americans of European descent. [http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve.shtml] </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

Debate:Define torture

2007-06-28T13:24:22Z

PF Fox: /* Other */

The Handmaid's Tale

2007-06-28T13:22:59Z

PF Fox: It helps if you've actually read the book

'''The Handmaid's Tale''' is a dystopian novel by Margaret Atwood set in the near future in which an oppressive authoritarian government, a combination of Christian Reconstructionism and radical feminism, has achieved ascendancy over the [[United States of America]]. It was made into a movie in 1990.
[[category:book]]

Third Reich

2007-05-27T23:33:28Z

PF Fox:

The Third Reich was the name given to the German government by the [[Nazis]], an extremist right wing political party formed as a reaction to the Versailles Treaty and the liberal policies of the Weimar Republic. "Reich" in German means "empire". [[Hitler]] believed that he was creating a third German empire, following the [[Holy Roman Empire]] (800-1806) what he called the [[First Reich]], and the one created by [[Otto von Bismarck]] which lasted from 1871 until 1918 or the [[Second Reich]].

The Third Reich lasted from 1933 until 1945. Its birth and the death knell of the Weimar Republic, began on January 30, 1933, when [[Hitler]] was appointed Chancellor. Less than a month later, the Reichstag burned and Hitler seized power, effectively ending the Weimar Republic.

== The Reichstag Fire and Its Aftermath ==

On February 27, 1933, the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]] was destroyed in a fire that had plainly been deliberately set. Exactly who set the fire remains a question never fully resolved. Most contemporary observers both in and outside of Germany blamed and still blame the Nazis themselves, though Shirer admits in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that “The whole truth about the Reichstag Fire will probably never be known.” <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

Hitler and his followers lost no time in blaming the arson on the Communists. “This is the beginning of the Communist revolution,” declared Goering as he watched fire consume the building. Hitler himself told Gestapo Chief Diels that “The German Volk will have no sympathy with lenience. Every communist official will be shot where he is found. The communist deputies must be hanged this night. Everything connected with the communists is be settled – no more indulgence will be shown the social democrats or the Reichsbanner.” <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

A day later a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state” was passed:

<blockquote>
“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
</blockquote> <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

Thus, the first taste of Nazi state terror was rendered “legal,” as over the next week [[Brownshirts]] took into “protective custody” several thousand Communist officials and many Social Democrats and liberals. These prisoners, often snatched from their homes and off the streets, were loaded onto trucks and carried off to SA barracks and hastily set up prisons where many of them were held, tortured and killed without the formality of a hearing or trial. The rationale for these drastic measures, Hitler’s government insisted, was the dire threat posed by the communist menace. The same day as the “defensive measure” was passed, the government declared that documents had been uncovered revealing a Communist plot (these documents were never actually produced):

“”The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war…it was ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.”

[[Goering]] announced just a few days after the fire, “my measures will not be crippled by any judicial thinking…I don’t have to worry about justice! My mission is to destroy and exterminate, nothing more!” <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

On the March 5 election that immediately followed, the Nazi’s support had increased by several million, which, coupled with the fact that many Communist and Social Democrat deputies had been imprisoned and could not take their seats, gave the Nazis enough of an edge in Parliament to pass an “enabling act” entitled the “Law for Removing the Distress of People and the Reich.” This essentially destroyed any check on Hitler’s power by “temporarily” handing over parliamentary functions to the Reich Cabinet and putting Chancellor Hitler in charge of drafting laws enacted by the cabinet. Hitler hastened to assure Germany that he would not abuse his new powers. “”The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures.”

Among those “vitally necessary measures” was apparently the elimination of that “judicial thinking” Goering had mentioned. The trials of those defendants accused of direct involvement in the Reichstag Fire Marinus Van Der Lubbe, a young half-blind Dutch Communist, Ernst Torgler (parliamentary leader of the Communists), and Communists Georgi Dimitroff Blagoi Popov and Vassili Tanev, had resulted in only Van der Lubbe, who confessed to the fire, being convicted and executed. The Supreme Court at Leipzig had retained enough remnants of independence to acquit the other defendants (though they were immediately taken, of course, into “protective custody” after the trial.) The notorious Volksgericht or “People’s Court” was set up specifically to try political crimes.

Another “vitally necessary measure” was the destruction of the age-old autonomy of German States. The general assemblies of all states except Prussia were dissolved and Reich Governors – all of them Nazis -- were appointed.

The Communists had already been eliminated. Next were the Social Democrats, who on June 22 were dissolved as “subversive and inimical to the state” and its leader and a few politicians arrested. The Democrats, perhaps to forestall similar arrests, dissolved their own party on June 29, Followed by the Catholic Bavarian Party and the People’s party on July 4 and the Center Party on July 5. <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

Within a dazzlingly short time Germany had become a one –party state led by a dictatorship.

== Genocide in the Third Reich ==

The violence of Hitler’s anti-Semitism can be measured in a disturbingly prescient quote from Mein Kampf:

<blockquote>
“If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.” <ref>Mein Kampf, http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch15.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Like much of Europe, [[Germany]] had been anti-Semitic for centuries, but in the years immediately preceding Third Reich it had in fact been considered a good place, even a refuge for Jews, who in Germany had been “emancipated,” i.e, granted most of the same rights as gentile citizens, in the 19th century. The formation of the [[Weimar Republic]] in 1918 eliminated any remaining restrictions and German Jews could now act as complete citizens in German Civic life. <ref>Yadvashem Website Mhttp://www1.yadvashem.org/download/education/units/crystal_2.pdf</ref>

As Jewish artists, writers, politicians and civil servants became more visible, however, anti-semitism became more virulent, and the Nazis were able to tap into the resentment that inevitably rises to the surface when members of a minority group begin to make strides in fields that had formerly been closed to them.

Much of the groundwork for selling the mass murder of Jews to average Germans was laid by [[Julius Streicher]], whose newspaper, Der Sturmer, offered a heady cocktail of simple-minded hatred, malice, and slander against Jews and anyone perceived as having sympathy for the Jews. While many educated Germans, even educated Nazis, considered Streicher a joke, the dehumanizing language he popularized helped to inure Germans to the increasingly draconian legal measures against the Jewish population. Streicher’s rhetoric presumed that Jews were inherently and unalterably evil, and flatly rejected the concept of the Jew as a human being like other human beings. “His blood,” Streicher wrote, “carries not honor and honesty, rather criminality, fraud, hypocrisy, lies, the lust for defilement, and the lust for murder…a race that has drives toward the unnatural and toward criminality cannot recognize natural moral laws.”

It’s little wonder that [[Heinrich Himmler]], the man who oversaw the genocidal policies of the Third Reich, said of Streicher, “"In times to come when the story of the reawakening of the German people is written, and when the next generation will be unable to understand how the German people could ever have been friendly with the Jews, it will be said that Julius Streicher and his weekly newspaper were responsible for a good part of the education about the enemy of mankind."

At the same time that Streicher whipped up Hitler’s base of the uneducated and fearful, Hitler’s propaganda Minister, [[Joseph Goebbels]] offered a steady diet of smooth vindictiveness for those Germans too well informed to accept at face value Streicher’s wild tales of Jewish seduction and human sacrifice. Their stance was typically that any suffering the Jews endure at the hands of Germans was the responsibility of the Jews themselves, that the passage of laws restricting Jewish participation in public life was in fact an effort to protect Jews from the righteous indignation of an injured populace:

“One cannot make sense of this situation without understanding the significance of the racial or Jewish Question,” Goebbels declared in his speech at the first Nuremberg rally following Hitler’s takeover, “….The National Socialist government also cannot ignore it. Our laws suffer hard and often unjustified criticism abroad, above all from International Jewry itself. But one should not forget that dealing with the Jewish Question through legal means was the best approach. Or should the government have followed the principles of democracy and majority rule and let the people themselves solve the problem?” <ref>Nuremberg Speech, Joseph Goebbels, http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb41.html.</ref>

Six years later, Hitler declared: ".. if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!" <ref>Adolf Hitler, Reichstag Speech, January 30,1939, http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-threat.htm</ref>

Following the Reichstag fire, Jews were frequently singled out for abuse along with the Communists and Social Democrats who were being rounded up. For the first three months that year, most of the abuse Jewish Germans faced was brutal but still of a relatively informal nature, cases of brownshirted rowdies vandalizing Jewish homes and attacking Jews on the street while the authorities looked away. This changed on April 1, 1933, with the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses. Shop front windows were painted with the word “Jude” and SA men were stationed at the doors to warn people away, or to take note of those who defied the boycott and went in. From then on, Jews within the Reich faced a steady erosion of legal rights.

On April 7, all Jewish Civil servants were forcibly “retired.“ On April 11, Jews were legally deemed a separate class in Germany with a decree defining as a “non Aryan” "anyone descended from non-Aryan, especially Jewish, parents or grandparents. One parent or grandparent classifies the descendant as non-Aryan...especially if one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish faith." By the end of that year, Jews were excluded from the Reich Chamber of culture, could not act as newspaper editors and could not own land. By the end of the following year, Jews could not participate in the German Labor Front or national health insurance, and could not get legal qualifications. By 1938, Jews could not serve in the military, could not teach Germans or work as accountants and dentists, and were denied tax deductions and child allowances. They could not marry “Aryans.” They could not display the German flag. <ref>History Place Holocaust Timeline http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html</ref>

One element of the Third Reich’s policy of genocide was the innuring of Reich populations to the brutality of the Nazis. When Germany annexed Austria in March, 1938, the deliberate harassment and humiliation of individual Austrian Jews by Nazis was a public spectacle. “I was given a bucket of boiling water,” wrote Morris Fleischman, a Jewish survivor of that era, “and I was told to clean the steps. I lay down on my stomach and began to clean the pavement. It turned out that the bucket was half-full of acid and this burned my hands.” Martin Gilbert, author of The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War, observes that “Dozens of passersby also watched these scenes of humiliation, laughing and mocking as Jews, having been forced to put their sacred prayer bands on their arms, were then made to clean unflushed lavatory bowls…The Germans who carried out the atrocities had already become corrupted by their tasks; laughing when inflicting pain and drawing in passersby to laugh with them. Gradually entire populations became immune to feelings of outrage, and learned to shun compassion.” <ref>The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War, martin Gilbert, Chapter 5, “Hunted Like Rats,”</ref>

In November of 1938, a young Jewish man distraught over the deportation of his family, assassinated Ernst Vom Rath, a German diplomat in Paris. The result was November 9th, 1938, a night that would afterwards be known as Kristalnacht, a reference to the amount of broken glass littering the streets afterwards. Jewish homes in Germany were ransacked, Synagogues burned, Jews chased down and beaten to death. More than 30,000 Jews were taken to concentration camps. The German government responded by charging the Jewish community for the damage and a few days later, barring all Jewish children from German Schools. What most people remember as “The Holocaust” had begun in earnest.

Jewish populations within the Reich were separated from the general population into horribly overcrowded ghettos, 365 of which were set up in Poland, the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary. The most famous of these were the Lodz and Warsaw ghettos. <ref>http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/timeline/ghettos.html.</ref> Those ghetto residents who did not die from malnutrition or disease were eventually “deported” to concentration and extermination camps. Extermination camps, which existed primarily for the execution of inmates, included Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, and Sobibór. The primary method of killing in these camps was through poison gas, though beatings, hangings, and lethal injection were also used. In addition, the Nazis used Einsatzgruppen, mobile squads operating in the occupied Soviet Union who would typically round up Jews in Nazi occupied areas, herd them into remote areas, and shoot them en masse. These were discontinued in 1942 in lieu of the death camps. <ref>http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/timeline/camps.htm</ref>

It is currently estimated that roughly 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Third Reich, along with roughly 5 million victims that included homosexuals, Communists, Roma, Sinti, and political opponents of the regime. The methodical murder of Jews did not actually end until 1945, when the camps were liberated by Allied Troops.

== Art and Culture in the Third Reich ==

The Weimar Republic that preceded the Third Reich was a remarkable and exciting time for the arts, with painters like [[Paul Klee]], [[Wassily Kandinsky]], and [[Max Beckman]], writers like [[Berthold Brecht]] and [[Kurt Weil]], filmmakers like [[F.W. Murnau]] working and becoming established in their fields. The rise of such avant-garde artists, especially in the visual arts, was an anathema to the Hitler and therefore to the Nazis, who regarded such art as “degenerate” and a symptom of the “degrading” influence of Jews and Marxists on German culture. When the Nazis came into power, they immediately took steps to ensure that only art and literature they deemed acceptable would be displayed and published in the Third Reich. The two most famous expressions of Nazi anti-intellectualism are the bonfire at Berlin’s Opernplatz across from the University of Berlin <ref>http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005852</ref> on May 10, 1933, when students at the Berlin universities burned some 25,000 books before a large and enthusiastic crowd, and the opening of the “Degenerate” Art Exhibit in Munich four years later.

The book-burning followed a torchlight parade of students who, after amassing a pile of books and setting it aflame, tossed still more volumes onto the pyre. Volumes destroyed included works by Thomas and Heinrich Mann, [[Upton Sinclair]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Helen Keller]], [[Havelock Ellis]], [[Sigmund Freud]], Arnold and Stefan Zweig, and [[Erich Maria Remarque]]. Propaganda Minister [[Joseph Goebbels]] spoke to the enthusiastic crowd, declaring “these flames not only illuminate the final end of an old era; they also light up the new.”

It was certainly a sign of what was to come. The Reich Chamber of Culture was established in that same year, divided into sections overseeing literature, music, films, radio, theater, fine arts, and the press. Only members of this Chamber could exercise their professions. Libraries, both public and private, were systematically purged of “objectionable” writers including Berthold Brecht. [[Maxim Gorki]], [[Ernest Hemingway]], and Erich Maria Remarque, The guidelines for “cleansing libraries” compiled by Berlin Librarian Wolfgang Hermann included weeding out “The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German,” “The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism,” “Pacifist literature,” and “Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic.”

Books “blocked from check-out” were divided into three categories, according to Hermann:

<blockquote>
Group 1 is to be destroyed (Auto da fé), e.g. Remarque

Group 2 goes into the poison cabinet (e.g. Lenin)

Group 3 contains dubious cases requiring future assessment as to whether they belong to group 1 or group 2 (e.g. Traven).<ref>http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

The Third Reich’s infamous “Degenerate Art Exhibit” was opened by the Third Reich in Munich on July 19th, 1937, the day after Hitler spoke at the opening of the new House of German Art. It was intended to provide a contrast to the approved work at the House of German Art nearby, and it included thousands of confiscated works by modern artists, including [[Pablo Picasso]], [[Vincent Van Gogh]], and [[Paul Cezanne]], mixed in with paintings by the insane and displayed carelessly and without frames. Captions were put up that consisted of comments like “Thus did sick minds view Nature.” It is interesting to note that attendance at this exhibition of “degenerate art” was higher than attendance at the House of German art, which contained Nazi-approved art.

Hitler’s own attitude towards the modern artists who’d thrived during the Weimar Republic was expressed quite forcefully in his speech at the opening of the House of German Art, when he said of modern artists:

<blockquote>
“And what do [they] manufacture? Misformed cripples and cretins, women who inspire only disgust, men who are more like wild beasts, children who, were they alive, must be regarded as cursed of God…From the pictures sent in for exhibition it is clear that the eyes of some men shows them things otherwise than as they are – that there really are men who on principle feel meadows to be blue, the heaven green, clouds sulfur-yellow – or as they perhaps prefer to say, “experience” them thus…Here only two possibilities are open; either these “artists” do really see things in this way and believe in that which they represent – then one has but to ask how the defect in vision arose, and if it is hereditary, the Minister of the Interior will have to see to it that so ghastly a defect of vision shall not be allowed to perpetuate itself – or if they do not believe in the reality of such impressions, but seek on other grounds to impose upon the nation by this humbug, then it is a matter for a criminal court…There is no place for such works in this building.” <ref>Nazi Culture, “Hitler Defines Culture in Defining Art,” Page 15 by George L. Mosse.” </ref>
</blockquote>

The press was rigidly controlled. Every morning, news editors and correspondents had to meet at the Propaganda Ministry to get their orders from Dr. Goebbels or a representative of the propaganda chief. Editors had to be Germans “of Aryan descent,” and not married to a Jew. Radio and motion pictures, two media that fascinated Goebbels, were also carefully monitored, with radio becoming one of the Reich’s most powerful and successful mediums for disseminating misinformation, and the Film Chamber of the propaganda ministry striving “to lift the film industry out of the sphere of liberal economic thoughts…”<ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” pg 333-341 </ref>

This press censorship was apparently quite effective. Shirer wrote:

<blockquote>
“Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a café, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was…” <ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” pg 342 </ref>
</blockquote>

This systemic war on modernism and the avant-garde was also effective and described by Shirer as a “sickening decline of the cultural standards of a people who had had such high ones for so long a time.” … <ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer pg 334 </ref> It was, however, a decline that even some Hitler supporters could not entirely stomach. Professor Gerdy Troost, one of the judges for the House of German Art exhibition, resigned in protest the day before it opened over the quality of some of the pieces that had been selected and some that had been rejected. <ref> Adolf Hitler, John Toland, pg 415 </ref> Attendance at Nazi approved films was low, while the few foreign films that made it through the censors became increasingly popular.

It’s therefore not surprising that in 1936 Goebbels himself declared serious criticism and analysis of literature and the arts forbidden. “The reporting of art should not be concerned with values, but should confine itself to description, He announced. “Such reporting would give the public a chance to make its own judgments. <ref>Nazi Culture, “Goebbels Forbids Art Criticism,” Pg 162</ref>

Apparently, however, even the public’s judgment could not be relied upon entirely. “At one period in the mid-Thirties,” Shirer observes, “the hissing of German films became so common that Wilhelm Frick, the Minister of the Interior, issued a stern warning against ‘treasonable behavior on the part of cinema audiences.’” <ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer pg 341 </ref>

== Women in the Third Reich ==

The Weimar Republic had seen the rise of another trend the Nazis hated, the emancipation of women, who were suddenly granted suffrage in 1918 by an interim Socialist cabinet. <ref> Mothers in the Fatherland, Claudia Koonz, pg 24 </ref>The hard times and dearth of male workers that resulted from World War I and its loss had also forced women from their homes and into public life and had given them a taste of independence that not all were eager to relinquish even when the soldiers returned to home and workplace. As a result women, while still a minority, had become increasingly visible not just in the workplace, but in city councils and provincial assemblies.

The Nazi view of this newfound visibility was succinctly expressed by Englebert Huber in Das Ist Nationalsocialsismus “There is no place for the political woman in the ideological world of National Socialism…The postwar phenomenon of the political woman, who rarely cuts a good figure in parliamentary debates, signifies robbing woman of her dignity.” <ref> Nazi Culture, “The Nazi Ideal of Womanhood.” George L. Mosse pg 47 </ref> Hitler declared in a speech to the National Socialist Woman’s Council in 1935, “The so-called granting of equal rights to women, which Marxism demands, in reality does not grant equal rights but constitutes a deprivation of rights, since it draws the woman into an area in which she will necessarily be inferior. It places the woman in situations that cannot strengthen her position. <ref> Nazi Culture, “The Nazi Ideal of Womanhood.” George L. Mosse pg 39 </ref> Alfred Rosenberg, announced that “Emancipation of woman from the women’s emancipation movement is the first demand of a generation of women which would like to save the Volk and the race…” <ref> Nazi Culture, “The Nazi Ideal of Womanhood.” George L. Mosse pg 40 </ref>

Much of this rhetoric was an attempt to soften an attitude that consigned women mainly to the role of child-bearers, and removed the question of whether or not to have children out of an individual woman’s hands and into the hands of the state. The unvarnished Nazi view of women was best expressed by a Nazi delegate who, on the floor of the Reichstag before they took power, shouted at a female Social Democrat delegate mourning her son who had died in the first World War, “That’s what you old nanny-goats are for! <ref>Time Magazine, May 9, 1942 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,885973,00.html</ref>

Immediately after taking power, the Nazis began excluding women from professions, higher education and government. In 1933 the admission of women to universities was restricted to “10 per cent off the annual intake.” <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wipperman, “Women in the Third Reich” pg 258 </ref> By 1935 not only were married women physicians denied the right to practice, but those female doctors who were left “(like Jewish physicians) could no longer receive payments from the state-sponsored health-insurance system.” <ref> Mothers in the Fatherland, Claudia Koonz pg 145 </ref> After 1936, women were barred from serving as judges or public prosecutors or serving on juries.

Some of these restrictions, especially those surrounding university admissions, had to be rescinded once war broke out and the male labor and student population were significantly diminished by conscription, but the emphasis continued to be on child-bearing. “Racially valuable” women were rewarded according to the number of children they’d had—A “valuable” woman with three children under the age of ten received an “Honor Card,” which offered preferential treatment in shops. A woman who’d bourn five children got a bronze medal, six, a silver medal. A gold medal was awarded for the mother of seven, along with a blue ribbon so she could wear it around her neck and be acknowledged by members of the Hitler Youth, who were required to salute her. <ref> Mothers in the Fatherland, Claudia Koonz pg 186 </ref> Birth Control was outlawed for Aryan women, and penalties for abortion were increased. After 1939, performing an abortion on a “racially valuable” woman was a capital offense.

Unwed pregnancies among blonde, blue-eyed gentile girls were supported by the Third Reich through SS “Well of Life” homes, where pre and post natal care were provided and an adoption service set up for the infants. This, at least one historian has noted, seemed to rest less on tolerance than Heinrich Himmler’s sneaking fondness for polygamy. <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann pg 252 </ref> The eagerness for “Aryan” children even extended to the ugly policy of kidnapping “racially valuable” children in occupied countries like Poland and the Soviet Union and shipping them back to Germany to be placed with “acceptable” German families.

Those women deemed “unfit” to have children included Jews, socialists, pacifists, Roma, Poles and Russians. Within about five and half years after taking power, the Third Reich had performed compulsory sterilization on 320,000 people. Some 400 women died in that time frame as a result. <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann pg 253 </ref> “Schizophrenia” or “feeble mindedness” were the frequent rationalizations offered for the forced sterilization of German women, and ironically, given the regime’s eagerness to promote even unwed pregnancies among “acceptable” German women, the reasons cited sometimes included promiscuity. In the case of a factory worker sterilized in 1941, a woman with six children, five of them illegitimate, evidence cited for her “feeblemindedness” included, “During a personal interview she was noticeably indifferent towards her shifting sexual relationships.” <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann pg 258 </ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[category: history]]

Third Reich

2007-05-27T23:32:16Z

PF Fox:

The Third Reich was the name given to the German government by the [[Nazis]]. "Reich" in German means "empire". [[Hitler]] believed that he was creating a third German empire, following the [[Holy Roman Empire]] (800-1806) what he called the [[First Reich]], and the one created by [[Otto von Bismarck]] which lasted from 1871 until 1918 or the [[Second Reich]].

The Third Reich lasted from 1933 until 1945. Its birth and the death knell of the liberal Weimar Republic, began on January 30, 1933, when [[Hitler]] was appointed Chancellor. Less than a month later, the Reichstag burned and Hitler seized power, effectively ending the Weimar Republic.

== The Reichstag Fire and Its Aftermath ==

On February 27, 1933, the [[Reichstag]] in [[Berlin]] was destroyed in a fire that had plainly been deliberately set. Exactly who set the fire remains a question never fully resolved. Most contemporary observers both in and outside of Germany blamed and still blame the Nazis themselves, though Shirer admits in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich that “The whole truth about the Reichstag Fire will probably never be known.” <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

Hitler and his followers lost no time in blaming the arson on the Communists. “This is the beginning of the Communist revolution,” declared Goering as he watched fire consume the building. Hitler himself told Gestapo Chief Diels that “The German Volk will have no sympathy with lenience. Every communist official will be shot where he is found. The communist deputies must be hanged this night. Everything connected with the communists is be settled – no more indulgence will be shown the social democrats or the Reichsbanner.” <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

A day later a “defensive measure against Communist acts of violence endangering the state” was passed:

<blockquote>
“Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications; and warrants for house searchers, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.”
</blockquote> <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

Thus, the first taste of Nazi state terror was rendered “legal,” as over the next week [[Brownshirts]] took into “protective custody” several thousand Communist officials and many Social Democrats and liberals. These prisoners, often snatched from their homes and off the streets, were loaded onto trucks and carried off to SA barracks and hastily set up prisons where many of them were held, tortured and killed without the formality of a hearing or trial. The rationale for these drastic measures, Hitler’s government insisted, was the dire threat posed by the communist menace. The same day as the “defensive measure” was passed, the government declared that documents had been uncovered revealing a Communist plot (these documents were never actually produced):

“”The burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection and civil war…it was ascertained that today was to have seen throughout Germany terrorist acts against individual persons, against private property, and against the life and limb of the peaceful population, and also the beginning of general civil war.”

[[Goering]] announced just a few days after the fire, “my measures will not be crippled by any judicial thinking…I don’t have to worry about justice! My mission is to destroy and exterminate, nothing more!” <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

On the March 5 election that immediately followed, the Nazi’s support had increased by several million, which, coupled with the fact that many Communist and Social Democrat deputies had been imprisoned and could not take their seats, gave the Nazis enough of an edge in Parliament to pass an “enabling act” entitled the “Law for Removing the Distress of People and the Reich.” This essentially destroyed any check on Hitler’s power by “temporarily” handing over parliamentary functions to the Reich Cabinet and putting Chancellor Hitler in charge of drafting laws enacted by the cabinet. Hitler hastened to assure Germany that he would not abuse his new powers. “”The government will make use of these powers only insofar as they are essential for carrying out vitally necessary measures.”

Among those “vitally necessary measures” was apparently the elimination of that “judicial thinking” Goering had mentioned. The trials of those defendants accused of direct involvement in the Reichstag Fire Marinus Van Der Lubbe, a young half-blind Dutch Communist, Ernst Torgler (parliamentary leader of the Communists), and Communists Georgi Dimitroff Blagoi Popov and Vassili Tanev, had resulted in only Van der Lubbe, who confessed to the fire, being convicted and executed. The Supreme Court at Leipzig had retained enough remnants of independence to acquit the other defendants (though they were immediately taken, of course, into “protective custody” after the trial.) The notorious Volksgericht or “People’s Court” was set up specifically to try political crimes.

Another “vitally necessary measure” was the destruction of the age-old autonomy of German States. The general assemblies of all states except Prussia were dissolved and Reich Governors – all of them Nazis -- were appointed.

The Communists had already been eliminated. Next were the Social Democrats, who on June 22 were dissolved as “subversive and inimical to the state” and its leader and a few politicians arrested. The Democrats, perhaps to forestall similar arrests, dissolved their own party on June 29, Followed by the Catholic Bavarian Party and the People’s party on July 4 and the Center Party on July 5. <ref>The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer</ref>

Within a dazzlingly short time Germany had become a one –party state led by a dictatorship.

== Genocide in the Third Reich ==

The violence of Hitler’s anti-Semitism can be measured in a disturbingly prescient quote from Mein Kampf:

<blockquote>
“If at the beginning of the War and during the War twelve or fifteen thousand of these Hebrew corrupters of the people had been held under poison gas, as happened to hundreds of thousands of our very best German workers in the field, the sacrifice of millions at the front would not have been in vain.” <ref>Mein Kampf, http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch15.html</ref>
</blockquote>

Like much of Europe, [[Germany]] had been anti-Semitic for centuries, but in the years immediately preceding Third Reich it had in fact been considered a good place, even a refuge for Jews, who in Germany had been “emancipated,” i.e, granted most of the same rights as gentile citizens, in the 19th century. The formation of the [[Weimar Republic]] in 1918 eliminated any remaining restrictions and German Jews could now act as complete citizens in German Civic life. <ref>Yadvashem Website Mhttp://www1.yadvashem.org/download/education/units/crystal_2.pdf</ref>

As Jewish artists, writers, politicians and civil servants became more visible, however, anti-semitism became more virulent, and the Nazis were able to tap into the resentment that inevitably rises to the surface when members of a minority group begin to make strides in fields that had formerly been closed to them.

Much of the groundwork for selling the mass murder of Jews to average Germans was laid by [[Julius Streicher]], whose newspaper, Der Sturmer, offered a heady cocktail of simple-minded hatred, malice, and slander against Jews and anyone perceived as having sympathy for the Jews. While many educated Germans, even educated Nazis, considered Streicher a joke, the dehumanizing language he popularized helped to inure Germans to the increasingly draconian legal measures against the Jewish population. Streicher’s rhetoric presumed that Jews were inherently and unalterably evil, and flatly rejected the concept of the Jew as a human being like other human beings. “His blood,” Streicher wrote, “carries not honor and honesty, rather criminality, fraud, hypocrisy, lies, the lust for defilement, and the lust for murder…a race that has drives toward the unnatural and toward criminality cannot recognize natural moral laws.”

It’s little wonder that [[Heinrich Himmler]], the man who oversaw the genocidal policies of the Third Reich, said of Streicher, “"In times to come when the story of the reawakening of the German people is written, and when the next generation will be unable to understand how the German people could ever have been friendly with the Jews, it will be said that Julius Streicher and his weekly newspaper were responsible for a good part of the education about the enemy of mankind."

At the same time that Streicher whipped up Hitler’s base of the uneducated and fearful, Hitler’s propaganda Minister, [[Joseph Goebbels]] offered a steady diet of smooth vindictiveness for those Germans too well informed to accept at face value Streicher’s wild tales of Jewish seduction and human sacrifice. Their stance was typically that any suffering the Jews endure at the hands of Germans was the responsibility of the Jews themselves, that the passage of laws restricting Jewish participation in public life was in fact an effort to protect Jews from the righteous indignation of an injured populace:

“One cannot make sense of this situation without understanding the significance of the racial or Jewish Question,” Goebbels declared in his speech at the first Nuremberg rally following Hitler’s takeover, “….The National Socialist government also cannot ignore it. Our laws suffer hard and often unjustified criticism abroad, above all from International Jewry itself. But one should not forget that dealing with the Jewish Question through legal means was the best approach. Or should the government have followed the principles of democracy and majority rule and let the people themselves solve the problem?” <ref>Nuremberg Speech, Joseph Goebbels, http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb41.html.</ref>

Six years later, Hitler declared: ".. if the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevizing of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!" <ref>Adolf Hitler, Reichstag Speech, January 30,1939, http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/h-threat.htm</ref>

Following the Reichstag fire, Jews were frequently singled out for abuse along with the Communists and Social Democrats who were being rounded up. For the first three months that year, most of the abuse Jewish Germans faced was brutal but still of a relatively informal nature, cases of brownshirted rowdies vandalizing Jewish homes and attacking Jews on the street while the authorities looked away. This changed on April 1, 1933, with the Nazi boycott of Jewish businesses. Shop front windows were painted with the word “Jude” and SA men were stationed at the doors to warn people away, or to take note of those who defied the boycott and went in. From then on, Jews within the Reich faced a steady erosion of legal rights.

On April 7, all Jewish Civil servants were forcibly “retired.“ On April 11, Jews were legally deemed a separate class in Germany with a decree defining as a “non Aryan” "anyone descended from non-Aryan, especially Jewish, parents or grandparents. One parent or grandparent classifies the descendant as non-Aryan...especially if one parent or grandparent was of the Jewish faith." By the end of that year, Jews were excluded from the Reich Chamber of culture, could not act as newspaper editors and could not own land. By the end of the following year, Jews could not participate in the German Labor Front or national health insurance, and could not get legal qualifications. By 1938, Jews could not serve in the military, could not teach Germans or work as accountants and dentists, and were denied tax deductions and child allowances. They could not marry “Aryans.” They could not display the German flag. <ref>History Place Holocaust Timeline http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/holocaust/timeline.html</ref>

One element of the Third Reich’s policy of genocide was the innuring of Reich populations to the brutality of the Nazis. When Germany annexed Austria in March, 1938, the deliberate harassment and humiliation of individual Austrian Jews by Nazis was a public spectacle. “I was given a bucket of boiling water,” wrote Morris Fleischman, a Jewish survivor of that era, “and I was told to clean the steps. I lay down on my stomach and began to clean the pavement. It turned out that the bucket was half-full of acid and this burned my hands.” Martin Gilbert, author of The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War, observes that “Dozens of passersby also watched these scenes of humiliation, laughing and mocking as Jews, having been forced to put their sacred prayer bands on their arms, were then made to clean unflushed lavatory bowls…The Germans who carried out the atrocities had already become corrupted by their tasks; laughing when inflicting pain and drawing in passersby to laugh with them. Gradually entire populations became immune to feelings of outrage, and learned to shun compassion.” <ref>The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War, martin Gilbert, Chapter 5, “Hunted Like Rats,”</ref>

In November of 1938, a young Jewish man distraught over the deportation of his family, assassinated Ernst Vom Rath, a German diplomat in Paris. The result was November 9th, 1938, a night that would afterwards be known as Kristalnacht, a reference to the amount of broken glass littering the streets afterwards. Jewish homes in Germany were ransacked, Synagogues burned, Jews chased down and beaten to death. More than 30,000 Jews were taken to concentration camps. The German government responded by charging the Jewish community for the damage and a few days later, barring all Jewish children from German Schools. What most people remember as “The Holocaust” had begun in earnest.

Jewish populations within the Reich were separated from the general population into horribly overcrowded ghettos, 365 of which were set up in Poland, the Soviet Union, the Baltic States, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Hungary. The most famous of these were the Lodz and Warsaw ghettos. <ref>http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/timeline/ghettos.html.</ref> Those ghetto residents who did not die from malnutrition or disease were eventually “deported” to concentration and extermination camps. Extermination camps, which existed primarily for the execution of inmates, included Auschwitz-Birkenau, Treblinka, and Sobibór. The primary method of killing in these camps was through poison gas, though beatings, hangings, and lethal injection were also used. In addition, the Nazis used Einsatzgruppen, mobile squads operating in the occupied Soviet Union who would typically round up Jews in Nazi occupied areas, herd them into remote areas, and shoot them en masse. These were discontinued in 1942 in lieu of the death camps. <ref>http://www.fcit.usf.edu/Holocaust/timeline/camps.htm</ref>

It is currently estimated that roughly 6 million Jews died at the hands of the Third Reich, along with roughly 5 million victims that included homosexuals, Communists, Roma, Sinti, and political opponents of the regime. The methodical murder of Jews did not actually end until 1945, when the camps were liberated by Allied Troops.

== Art and Culture in the Third Reich ==

The Weimar Republic that preceded the Third Reich was a remarkable and exciting time for the arts, with painters like [[Paul Klee]], [[Wassily Kandinsky]], and [[Max Beckman]], writers like [[Berthold Brecht]] and [[Kurt Weil]], filmmakers like [[F.W. Murnau]] working and becoming established in their fields. The rise of such avant-garde artists, especially in the visual arts, was an anathema to the Hitler and therefore to the Nazis, who regarded such art as “degenerate” and a symptom of the “degrading” influence of Jews and Marxists on German culture. When the Nazis came into power, they immediately took steps to ensure that only art and literature they deemed acceptable would be displayed and published in the Third Reich. The two most famous expressions of Nazi anti-intellectualism are the bonfire at Berlin’s Opernplatz across from the University of Berlin <ref>http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005852</ref> on May 10, 1933, when students at the Berlin universities burned some 25,000 books before a large and enthusiastic crowd, and the opening of the “Degenerate” Art Exhibit in Munich four years later.

The book-burning followed a torchlight parade of students who, after amassing a pile of books and setting it aflame, tossed still more volumes onto the pyre. Volumes destroyed included works by Thomas and Heinrich Mann, [[Upton Sinclair]], [[Albert Einstein]], [[Helen Keller]], [[Havelock Ellis]], [[Sigmund Freud]], Arnold and Stefan Zweig, and [[Erich Maria Remarque]]. Propaganda Minister [[Joseph Goebbels]] spoke to the enthusiastic crowd, declaring “these flames not only illuminate the final end of an old era; they also light up the new.”

It was certainly a sign of what was to come. The Reich Chamber of Culture was established in that same year, divided into sections overseeing literature, music, films, radio, theater, fine arts, and the press. Only members of this Chamber could exercise their professions. Libraries, both public and private, were systematically purged of “objectionable” writers including Berthold Brecht. [[Maxim Gorki]], [[Ernest Hemingway]], and Erich Maria Remarque, The guidelines for “cleansing libraries” compiled by Berlin Librarian Wolfgang Hermann included weeding out “The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German,” “The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism,” “Pacifist literature,” and “Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic.”

Books “blocked from check-out” were divided into three categories, according to Hermann:

<blockquote>
Group 1 is to be destroyed (Auto da fé), e.g. Remarque

Group 2 goes into the poison cabinet (e.g. Lenin)

Group 3 contains dubious cases requiring future assessment as to whether they belong to group 1 or group 2 (e.g. Traven).<ref>http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm</ref>
</blockquote>

The Third Reich’s infamous “Degenerate Art Exhibit” was opened by the Third Reich in Munich on July 19th, 1937, the day after Hitler spoke at the opening of the new House of German Art. It was intended to provide a contrast to the approved work at the House of German Art nearby, and it included thousands of confiscated works by modern artists, including [[Pablo Picasso]], [[Vincent Van Gogh]], and [[Paul Cezanne]], mixed in with paintings by the insane and displayed carelessly and without frames. Captions were put up that consisted of comments like “Thus did sick minds view Nature.” It is interesting to note that attendance at this exhibition of “degenerate art” was higher than attendance at the House of German art, which contained Nazi-approved art.

Hitler’s own attitude towards the modern artists who’d thrived during the Weimar Republic was expressed quite forcefully in his speech at the opening of the House of German Art, when he said of modern artists:

<blockquote>
“And what do [they] manufacture? Misformed cripples and cretins, women who inspire only disgust, men who are more like wild beasts, children who, were they alive, must be regarded as cursed of God…From the pictures sent in for exhibition it is clear that the eyes of some men shows them things otherwise than as they are – that there really are men who on principle feel meadows to be blue, the heaven green, clouds sulfur-yellow – or as they perhaps prefer to say, “experience” them thus…Here only two possibilities are open; either these “artists” do really see things in this way and believe in that which they represent – then one has but to ask how the defect in vision arose, and if it is hereditary, the Minister of the Interior will have to see to it that so ghastly a defect of vision shall not be allowed to perpetuate itself – or if they do not believe in the reality of such impressions, but seek on other grounds to impose upon the nation by this humbug, then it is a matter for a criminal court…There is no place for such works in this building.” <ref>Nazi Culture, “Hitler Defines Culture in Defining Art,” Page 15 by George L. Mosse.” </ref>
</blockquote>

The press was rigidly controlled. Every morning, news editors and correspondents had to meet at the Propaganda Ministry to get their orders from Dr. Goebbels or a representative of the propaganda chief. Editors had to be Germans “of Aryan descent,” and not married to a Jew. Radio and motion pictures, two media that fascinated Goebbels, were also carefully monitored, with radio becoming one of the Reich’s most powerful and successful mediums for disseminating misinformation, and the Film Chamber of the propaganda ministry striving “to lift the film industry out of the sphere of liberal economic thoughts…”<ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” pg 333-341 </ref>

This press censorship was apparently quite effective. Shirer wrote:

<blockquote>
“Often in a German home or office or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a café, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasions one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was…” <ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” pg 342 </ref>
</blockquote>

This systemic war on modernism and the avant-garde was also effective and described by Shirer as a “sickening decline of the cultural standards of a people who had had such high ones for so long a time.” … <ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer pg 334 </ref> It was, however, a decline that even some Hitler supporters could not entirely stomach. Professor Gerdy Troost, one of the judges for the House of German Art exhibition, resigned in protest the day before it opened over the quality of some of the pieces that had been selected and some that had been rejected. <ref> Adolf Hitler, John Toland, pg 415 </ref> Attendance at Nazi approved films was low, while the few foreign films that made it through the censors became increasingly popular.

It’s therefore not surprising that in 1936 Goebbels himself declared serious criticism and analysis of literature and the arts forbidden. “The reporting of art should not be concerned with values, but should confine itself to description, He announced. “Such reporting would give the public a chance to make its own judgments. <ref>Nazi Culture, “Goebbels Forbids Art Criticism,” Pg 162</ref>

Apparently, however, even the public’s judgment could not be relied upon entirely. “At one period in the mid-Thirties,” Shirer observes, “the hissing of German films became so common that Wilhelm Frick, the Minister of the Interior, issued a stern warning against ‘treasonable behavior on the part of cinema audiences.’” <ref> The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Book Two, “Triumph and Consolidation.” William Shirer pg 341 </ref>

== Women in the Third Reich ==

The Weimar Republic had seen the rise of another trend the Nazis hated, the emancipation of women, who were suddenly granted suffrage in 1918 by an interim Socialist cabinet. <ref> Mothers in the Fatherland, Claudia Koonz, pg 24 </ref>The hard times and dearth of male workers that resulted from World War I and its loss had also forced women from their homes and into public life and had given them a taste of independence that not all were eager to relinquish even when the soldiers returned to home and workplace. As a result women, while still a minority, had become increasingly visible not just in the workplace, but in city councils and provincial assemblies.

The Nazi view of this newfound visibility was succinctly expressed by Englebert Huber in Das Ist Nationalsocialsismus “There is no place for the political woman in the ideological world of National Socialism…The postwar phenomenon of the political woman, who rarely cuts a good figure in parliamentary debates, signifies robbing woman of her dignity.” <ref> Nazi Culture, “The Nazi Ideal of Womanhood.” George L. Mosse pg 47 </ref> Hitler declared in a speech to the National Socialist Woman’s Council in 1935, “The so-called granting of equal rights to women, which Marxism demands, in reality does not grant equal rights but constitutes a deprivation of rights, since it draws the woman into an area in which she will necessarily be inferior. It places the woman in situations that cannot strengthen her position. <ref> Nazi Culture, “The Nazi Ideal of Womanhood.” George L. Mosse pg 39 </ref> Alfred Rosenberg, announced that “Emancipation of woman from the women’s emancipation movement is the first demand of a generation of women which would like to save the Volk and the race…” <ref> Nazi Culture, “The Nazi Ideal of Womanhood.” George L. Mosse pg 40 </ref>

Much of this rhetoric was an attempt to soften an attitude that consigned women mainly to the role of child-bearers, and removed the question of whether or not to have children out of an individual woman’s hands and into the hands of the state. The unvarnished Nazi view of women was best expressed by a Nazi delegate who, on the floor of the Reichstag before they took power, shouted at a female Social Democrat delegate mourning her son who had died in the first World War, “That’s what you old nanny-goats are for! <ref>Time Magazine, May 9, 1942 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,885973,00.html</ref>

Immediately after taking power, the Nazis began excluding women from professions, higher education and government. In 1933 the admission of women to universities was restricted to “10 per cent off the annual intake.” <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wipperman, “Women in the Third Reich” pg 258 </ref> By 1935 not only were married women physicians denied the right to practice, but those female doctors who were left “(like Jewish physicians) could no longer receive payments from the state-sponsored health-insurance system.” <ref> Mothers in the Fatherland, Claudia Koonz pg 145 </ref> After 1936, women were barred from serving as judges or public prosecutors or serving on juries.

Some of these restrictions, especially those surrounding university admissions, had to be rescinded once war broke out and the male labor and student population were significantly diminished by conscription, but the emphasis continued to be on child-bearing. “Racially valuable” women were rewarded according to the number of children they’d had—A “valuable” woman with three children under the age of ten received an “Honor Card,” which offered preferential treatment in shops. A woman who’d bourn five children got a bronze medal, six, a silver medal. A gold medal was awarded for the mother of seven, along with a blue ribbon so she could wear it around her neck and be acknowledged by members of the Hitler Youth, who were required to salute her. <ref> Mothers in the Fatherland, Claudia Koonz pg 186 </ref> Birth Control was outlawed for Aryan women, and penalties for abortion were increased. After 1939, performing an abortion on a “racially valuable” woman was a capital offense.

Unwed pregnancies among blonde, blue-eyed gentile girls were supported by the Third Reich through SS “Well of Life” homes, where pre and post natal care were provided and an adoption service set up for the infants. This, at least one historian has noted, seemed to rest less on tolerance than Heinrich Himmler’s sneaking fondness for polygamy. <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann pg 252 </ref> The eagerness for “Aryan” children even extended to the ugly policy of kidnapping “racially valuable” children in occupied countries like Poland and the Soviet Union and shipping them back to Germany to be placed with “acceptable” German families.

Those women deemed “unfit” to have children included Jews, socialists, pacifists, Roma, Poles and Russians. Within about five and half years after taking power, the Third Reich had performed compulsory sterilization on 320,000 people. Some 400 women died in that time frame as a result. <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann pg 253 </ref> “Schizophrenia” or “feeble mindedness” were the frequent rationalizations offered for the forced sterilization of German women, and ironically, given the regime’s eagerness to promote even unwed pregnancies among “acceptable” German women, the reasons cited sometimes included promiscuity. In the case of a factory worker sterilized in 1941, a woman with six children, five of them illegitimate, evidence cited for her “feeblemindedness” included, “During a personal interview she was noticeably indifferent towards her shifting sexual relationships.” <ref> The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann pg 258 </ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

[[category: history]]

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-27T20:39:43Z

PF Fox: /* Hi */

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

::No, no it isn't. :) Once you see something like that, you can never unsee it. (But I do admire your taking one for the team like that. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:28, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::How about "all the inhabitants"?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::It bothers me because its redundant. Your insistance on adding this does show little understanding of ancient warfare though. I warn you that this is considered trollong and trolling is a blockable offense.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Warn away. I'll lose no sleep over it. And I understand enough about ancient warfare to know that killing everyone down to the last infant was NOT the norm (see Numbers 33.) As for it being "redundant" I think what bothers you is that observing exactly what "inhabitants" means in this context is uncomfortably close to the point. Those shots of Joshua's men stomping babies to death woudn't look too great in a DeMille Biblical epic, would it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Well, in other parts of the Bible, Moses' army slaughters everyone EXCEPT virgin teenaged girls. (Guess what they did to them.) And this is supposed to be the basis of our country's morality? I think I'll stick to [[Tom Paine]], thanks. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:26, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

== == Olberman == ==

Careful, that was an awfully [[Reality-Based Community|Reality-Based]] thing you said. You'll probably get banned for it. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 19:24, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

*So will Trolling, Ghoti....enjoy your vacation, ok? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 00:42, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

== Hi ==

Hi there -- I've only been on Conservapedia for a couple hours, but it seems like you're frustrated with how things work here, as regards the standards for evidence. I can totally sympathize with your frustration. So I'm curious: Why do you stay? [[User:Dannyhorn|Dannyhorn]] 16:21, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::Because liars, and the manner in which they respond to the truth and attempt to circumvent it, fascinate me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:39, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Should an encyclopedia simply present readers with the factual evidence on issues?

2007-05-27T15:47:59Z

PF Fox: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Since you don't believe in this side, I'll take it from here. I believe it is insulting to the readership of an encyclopedia to tell them what they should think. Of course there are some situations where it is hard to establish the exact facts, in which case the opinions of authorities on both sides of the issue should be quoted. However the author of an article should not be entitled to include their own personal view, since this undermines the credibility of the whole article. --[[User:Kelpan|Kelpan]] 14:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Often most of the problem is finding out what the facts are. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:59, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the problem you guys face is that the facts frequently don't jibe with the bill of goods you hope to sell your students, like "The Puritans rejected slavery" (They did not) "Margaret Chase Smith's 'Declaration of Conscience' was an attack on the Democratic Party" (It was an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism) and "the Democratic Party opposed the Civil Rights Movement" (a blatant attempt to conflate a small wing of the Democratic party with the party itself.) That's why you are answering "no," Ed. Like Stephen Colbert says, you feel that reality has a liberal bias. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::*I agree with the idea that someone would be selling a bill of goods if he said, "The Puritans rejected slavery." I read a short history of early Cambridge and Boston in which the Pilgrim Fathers (your Puritans?) enslaved some local Indians. We also know that the [[Salem Witch Trials]] stemmed in part from some folk tales a Caribbean slave told to a couple of little girls. So that is two historical references to "Puritans" owning slaves.
::*But is this not a straw man? I don't know of any article here making a blanket statement that the Puritans rejected slavery. If there is one, either correct (and then let me know) - or tell me which protected page it's on, and '''let me know''', so I can correct it.
::*Secondly, you are confusing "fact" with "conclusion" in your 'Conscience' example. A ''fact'' would be that Smith made a certain statement. A ''conclusion'' would be that the statement amounted to an attack on Dems or McC. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::On this site, the problem is keeping the facts on the page--the worst enemy of truth is the zealot, and this place seems to have a surplus of zealots with over-active 'delete' keys. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 20:01, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::::"The Puritans rejected slavery" was precisely what Andrew Schlafley told us in his first American History Lecture, which, even after the truth was pointed out, still contrives to give students the impression that the Massachussetts Bay Colony, the primary trader of slaves in the colonies during the 17th Century, opposed slavery. It is not merely a "conclusion" that Chase Smith's "Declaration of Conscience" was an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism. That's exactly what it was, and was recognized as such at the time. Have you even bothered to read it, or the history around it? And claiming, as one person has, that the Democratic Party opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act is an outright lie, a deliberate attempt to conflate one wing of the party, the Southern Democrats with the party itself. Another lie is the claim in another article (now locked to prevent any corrections) that Lenin coined the term "concentration camp."

::::Yes, indeed, the worst enemy of truth is the zealot. Conservapedia, with its claims like "Albert Gore Sr. voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act" and "Early Jamestown operated under a socialistic system" and even the editor who has tried to justify removing any attempt to apply the term "right wing" to the Nazis by claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 proves it. Your conception of truth has very little to do with facts. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Should an encyclopedia simply present readers with the factual evidence on issues?

2007-05-27T15:41:24Z

PF Fox: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Since you don't believe in this side, I'll take it from here. I believe it is insulting to the readership of an encyclopedia to tell them what they should think. Of course there are some situations where it is hard to establish the exact facts, in which case the opinions of authorities on both sides of the issue should be quoted. However the author of an article should not be entitled to include their own personal view, since this undermines the credibility of the whole article. --[[User:Kelpan|Kelpan]] 14:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Often most of the problem is finding out what the facts are. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:59, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the problem you guys face is that the facts frequently don't jibe with the bill of goods you hope to sell your students, like "The Puritans rejected slavery" (They did not) "Margaret Chase Smith's 'Declaration of Conscience' was an attack on the Democratic Party" (It was an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism) and "the Democratic Party opposed the Civil Rights Movement" (a blatant attempt to conflate a small wing of the Democratic party with the party itself.) That's why you are answering "no," Ed. Like Stephen Colbert says, you feel that reality has a liberal bias. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::*I agree with the idea that someone would be selling a bill of goods if he said, "The Puritans rejected slavery." I read a short history of early Cambridge and Boston in which the Pilgrim Fathers (your Puritans?) enslaved some local Indians. We also know that the [[Salem Witch Trials]] stemmed in part from some folk tales a Caribbean slave told to a couple of little girls. So that is two historical references to "Puritans" owning slaves.
::*But is this not a straw man? I don't know of any article here making a blanket statement that the Puritans rejected slavery. If there is one, either correct (and then let me know) - or tell me which protected page it's on, and '''let me know''', so I can correct it.
::*Secondly, you are confusing "fact" with "conclusion" in your 'Conscience' example. A ''fact'' would be that Smith made a certain statement. A ''conclusion'' would be that the statement amounted to an attack on Dems or McC. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::On this site, the problem is keeping the facts on the page--the worst enemy of truth is the zealot, and this place seems to have a surplus of zealots with over-active 'delete' keys. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 20:01, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::::"The Puritans rejected slavery" was precisely what Andrew Schlafley told us in his American History Lecture, which, even after the truth was pointed out, still contrives to give students the impression that the Massachussetts Bay Colony, the primary trader of slaves in the colonies during the 17th Century, opposed slavery. It is not merely a "conclusion" that Chase Smith's "Declaration of Conscience" was an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism. That's exactly what it was, and was recognized as such at the time. Have you even bothered to read it, or the history around it? And claiming, as one person has, that the Democratic Party opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act is an outright lie, a deliberate attempt to conflate one wing of the party, the Southern Democrats with the party itself. Another lie is the claim in another article (now locked to prevent any corrections) that Lenin coined the term "concentration camp."

::::Yes, indeed, the worst enemy of truth is the zealot. Conservapedia, with its claims like "Albert Gore Sr. voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act" and "Early Jamestown operated under a socialistic system" and even the editor who has tried to justify removing any attempt to apply the term "right wing" to the Nazis by claiming that the Weimar Republic ended in 1939 proves it. Your conception of truth has very little to do with facts. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-27T15:35:01Z

PF Fox: /* Keith Olbermann 24 controversy */

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'."

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he accused the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared" asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann asked the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

This was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group. Fox Commentator [[Cal Thomas had]] written an editorial in which he advised, "Watch the TV drama 24 for what could be our prophetic and imminent future, with a nuclear device exploding in major cities."

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''[[Countdown]]'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Conservapedia:Should an encyclopedia simply present readers with the factual evidence on issues?

2007-05-27T15:32:27Z

PF Fox: /* NO */

{{debate}}

==YES==

Since you don't believe in this side, I'll take it from here. I believe it is insulting to the readership of an encyclopedia to tell them what they should think. Of course there are some situations where it is hard to establish the exact facts, in which case the opinions of authorities on both sides of the issue should be quoted. However the author of an article should not be entitled to include their own personal view, since this undermines the credibility of the whole article. --[[User:Kelpan|Kelpan]] 14:07, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

Often most of the problem is finding out what the facts are. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:59, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::Actually, the problem you guys face is that the facts frequently don't jibe with the bill of goods you hope to sell your students, like "The Puritans rejected slavery" (They did not) "Margaret Chase Smith's 'Declaration of Conscience' was an attack on the Democratic Party" (It was an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism) and "the Democratic Party opposed the Civil Rights Movement" (a blatant attempt to conflate a small wing of the Democratic party with the party itself.) That's why you are answering "no," Ed. Like Stephen Colbert says, you feel that reality has a liberal bias. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:56, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::*I agree with the idea that someone would be selling a bill of goods if he said, "The Puritans rejected slavery." I read a short history of early Cambridge and Boston in which the Pilgrim Fathers (your Puritans?) enslaved some local Indians. We also know that the [[Salem Witch Trials]] stemmed in part from some folk tales a Caribbean slave told to a couple of little girls. So that is two historical references to "Puritans" owning slaves.
::*But is this not a straw man? I don't know of any article here making a blanket statement that the Puritans rejected slavery. If there is one, either correct (and then let me know) - or tell me which protected page it's on, and '''let me know''', so I can correct it.
::*Secondly, you are confusing "fact" with "conclusion" in your 'Conscience' example. A ''fact'' would be that Smith made a certain statement. A ''conclusion'' would be that the statement amounted to an attack on Dems or McC. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:57, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

::On this site, the problem is keeping the facts on the page--the worst enemy of truth is the zealot, and this place seems to have a surplus of zealots with over-active 'delete' keys. --[[User:Ghoti|Ghoti]] 20:01, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

::::"The Puritans rejected slavery" was precisely what Andrew Schlafley told us in his American History Lecture, which, even after the truth was pointed out, still contrives to give students the impression that the Massachussetts Bay Colony, the primary trader of slaves in the colonies during the 17th Century, opposed slavery. It is not merely a "conclusion" that Chase Smith's "Declaration of Conscience" was an attack on McCarthy and McCarthyism. That's exactly what it was, and was recognized as such at the time. Have you even bothered to read it, or the history around it? And claiming, as one person has, that the Democratic Party opposed the 1965 Voting Rights Act is an outright lie, a deliberate attempt to conflate one wing of the party, the Southern Democrats, as is the claim in another article (now locked to prevent any corrections) that Lenin coined the term "concentration camp."

::::Yes, indeed, the worst enemy of truth is the zealot, and assertions like the ones I've cited prove it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 27 May 2007 (EDT)

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-27T15:10:40Z

PF Fox:

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'' with rather bizarre claims.

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he accused the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared" asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann asked the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

This was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group. Fox Commentator [[Cal Thomas had]] written an editorial in which he advised, "Watch the TV drama 24 for what could be our prophetic and imminent future, with a nuclear device exploding in major cities."

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''[[Countdown]]'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-27T15:10:15Z

PF Fox: Again: How does FICTION prove anything in the real world?

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'' with rather bizarre claims.

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he accused the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared" asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann asked the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

This was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group. Fox Commentator Cal Thomas had written an editorial in which he advised, "Watch the TV drama 24 for what could be our prophetic and imminent future, with a nuclear device exploding in major cities."

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''[[Countdown]]'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-27T15:04:18Z

PF Fox: Cut back on editorializing. How was Olbermann'

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'' with rather bizarre claims.

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he accused the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared", rhetorically asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann asked the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

All of this was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group.

Interestingly, Olbermann never criticized other apocalyptic scenarios depicted in fiction such as that featured in the [[CBS]] television series ''[[Jericho]]'', nor has he voiced concerns over the neutrality of other politically oriented shows like the liberal ''The [[West Wing]]'' and ''[[Commander in Chief]]''.

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''[[Countdown]]'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-27T07:35:53Z

PF Fox: And exactly how does a work of fiction PROVE anything in the real world? God, you guys love torture. It's revolting.

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'' with rather bizarre claims.

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he launched into a tirade, accusing the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared". He suggested the show actually has a political agenda to aid the [[Republican Party|Republican Party]], rhetorically asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann even suggested in a subtle manner that the show should be taken off the air with the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

All of this was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group.

Interestingly, Olbermann never criticized other apocalyptic scenarios depicted in fiction such as that featured in the [[CBS]] television series ''[[Jericho]]'', nor has he voiced concerns over the neutrality of other politically oriented shows like the liberal ''The [[West Wing]]'' and ''[[Commander in Chief]]''.

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''[[Countdown]]'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Conservapedia:Should an encyclopedia simply present readers with the factual evidence on issues?

2007-05-26T23:56:43Z

PF Fox: /* NO */

Keith Olbermann

2007-05-26T23:15:01Z

PF Fox: /* Keith Olbermann 24 controversy */ Idiotic reference to fiction removed. Fictional characters PROVE nothing in the real world.

[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist, formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]].

In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm</ref>

==Keith Olbermann 24 controversy==
The '''Keith Olbermann 24 controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'' with rather bizarre claims.

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he launched into a tirade, accusing the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared". He suggested the show actually has a political agenda to aid the [[Republican Party|Republican Party]], rhetorically asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann even suggested in a subtle manner that the show should be taken off the air with the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

All of this was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group.

Interestingly, Olbermann never criticized other apocalyptic scenarios depicted in fiction such as that featured in the [[CBS]] television series ''[[Jericho]]'', nor has he voiced concerns over the neutrality of other politically oriented shows like the liberal ''The [[West Wing]]'' and ''[[Commander in Chief]]''.

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''[[Countdown]]'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

===See Also===
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[category:liberal activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Pat Robertson

2007-05-26T18:52:55Z

PF Fox: /* Other quotes */

'''Pat Robertson''' is a [[conservative]] [[American]] [[evangelist]], [[spiritual]] leader and [[politics|political]] leader, also owner and presenter of the [[TV]] show ''[[The 700 Club]]''. Robertson sought the 1988 [[Republican]] Presidential nomination and even managed to carry [[Washington]] State in the primary caucuses by mobilizing his supporters. He also ran in 1992.

Robertson graduated from Washington and Lee university in 1950, served in the [[Marine]]s during the [[Korean War]], then earned a law degree from [[Yale]] (1955) and a masters degree from the New York Theological Seminary (1959).<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/patrobertson.html</ref>

==Quotes on feminism ==

"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref>

"God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."<ref>Pat Robertson, reciting a passage from I Timothy in his book, Bring It On.</ref>

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992</ref>

==Quotes on [[homosexuality]]==

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993</ref>

==Quotes on government==

"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose."<ref>Pat Robertson, Washington Post, June 27,1986</ref>

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992</ref>

==Other quotes==

"Just like what [[Nazi Germany]] did to the Jews, so [[liberal]] America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the [[liberal-based media]], and the [[homosexual]]s who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and [[discrimination]] and the worst [[bigot]]ry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." <ref>Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.</ref>

"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, [[communist]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[Occult|New Age]] worshipers of Satan, [[secular humanist]]s, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, [[adulterer]]s, and homosexuals are on top?" <ref>Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227</ref>

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists adn this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense! I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don't have to be nice to them." <ref>Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 14, 1991.</ref>

To Zambian President Frederick Chiluba, who in 1991 declared Zambia "A Christian Nation:" "Your country is a astandard for not only AFric but the rest of the world...Wouldn't you love to have someone like that as president of the United States of America?...The term 'Christian nation' seems to scare a lot of people in this nation of ours, but what Chiluba said is that it gives us a yardstick tomeasure the performance of the government. Otherwise, we have no yardstick." (One of Chiluba's first acts as President was to make all public schools and state-run radio and television conform to Fundamentalist Christianity. His "anti-pornography" crusade involved fundamentalist ministers and missionaries joining forces with police to burn material they'd deemed obscene.)

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Robertson, Pat}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[category:christianity]]

Pat Robertson

2007-05-26T18:40:10Z

PF Fox: /* Other quotes */

'''Pat Robertson''' is a [[conservative]] [[American]] [[evangelist]], [[spiritual]] leader and [[politics|political]] leader, also owner and presenter of the [[TV]] show ''[[The 700 Club]]''. Robertson sought the 1988 [[Republican]] Presidential nomination and even managed to carry [[Washington]] State in the primary caucuses by mobilizing his supporters. He also ran in 1992.

Robertson graduated from Washington and Lee university in 1950, served in the [[Marine]]s during the [[Korean War]], then earned a law degree from [[Yale]] (1955) and a masters degree from the New York Theological Seminary (1959).<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/patrobertson.html</ref>

==Quotes on feminism ==

"The [[Feminism|feminist agenda]] is not about equal rights for women. It is about a [[socialist]], anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, [[abortion|kill their children]], practice [[witchcraft]], destroy capitalism, and become [[Homosexuality|lesbian]]s." <ref>Pat Robertson, fund-raising letter, 1992</ref>

"God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."<ref>Pat Robertson, reciting a passage from I Timothy in his book, Bring It On.</ref>

"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 8, 1992</ref>

==Quotes on [[homosexuality]]==

"Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together."<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 21, 1993</ref>

==Quotes on government==

"I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states...I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party...I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts...They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose."<ref>Pat Robertson, Washington Post, June 27,1986</ref>

"I think 'one man, one vote,' just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights."
<ref>Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, March 18, 1992</ref>

==Other quotes==

"Just like what [[Nazi Germany]] did to the Jews, so [[liberal]] America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the [[liberal-based media]], and the [[homosexual]]s who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and [[discrimination]] and the worst [[bigot]]ry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." <ref>Pat Robertson, interview with Molly Ivins, 1993.</ref>

"How can there be peace when drunkards, drug dealers, [[communist]]s, [[atheist]]s, [[Occult|New Age]] worshipers of Satan, [[secular humanist]]s, oppressive dictators, greedy money changers, revolutionary assassins, [[adulterer]]s, and homosexuals are on top?" <ref>Pat Robertson, The New World Order, p.227</ref>

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists adn this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense! I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions, but I don't have to be nice to them." <ref>Pat Robertson, "The 700 Club," January 14, 1991.</ref>

==References==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Robertson, Pat}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[category:christianity]]

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-05-26T04:16:03Z

PF Fox: /* Military exploits */

'''Joshua''' was an early leader of the [[Exodus]]-era [[Hebrew]]s, and a political successor to [[Moses]]. He was the main military figure of the Hebrews during the conquest on [[Canaan]]. He is accounted one of the first [[Judges of Israel]]. The story of Joshua can be found in the [[Bible]] books of [[Exodus]], [[Numbers]] and [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]], the last of which takes its name from him. While it was Moses who God chose to lead the Hebrews from Egypt, it was Joshua who led them into the promised land.

Joshua is commonly believed to have lived sometime during the late [[Bronze Age]] (roughly 1400 to 1200 BC).

==Military exploits==
The Biblical account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan can be summarized as follows-

He went against [[Jericho]] and defeated the heavily fortified city through divine intervention in the form of the city's walls collapsing after the [[Israelites]] had marched around the walls 7 times. Going against the more simple city of Ai, they were forced to flee due to sin in the midsts of the Hebrews. When it was removed Joshua again attacked and took the city through outsmarting the inhabitants. The inhabitants of both cities, men, women, and children, were put to the sword. Joshua went on to defeat the combined forces of [[Jerusalem]], [[Hebron]], Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. It was during this battle that Joshua was said to "command the sun to stand still in the sky" so that the battle could continue.

==Death==
Before Joshua's death, the land was divided amoung the [[twelve tribes of Israel]], including much of the land that remained to be conquered.

A famous quote by Joshua is ''As for me and my house I will serve the LORD.'' (Joshua 24:15) This quote can often be seen on [[Christian]] memorabilia and merchandise.

Joshua is the [[Hebrew]] name for [[Jesus]].

[[Category:Biblical persons]]
[[Category:Military Commanders]]

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-26T04:15:26Z

PF Fox: /* Al gore sr */

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::How about "all the inhabitants"?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
::::::It bothers me because its redundant. Your insistance on adding this does show little understanding of ancient warfare though. I warn you that this is considered trollong and trolling is a blockable offense.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:10, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

LOL! Warn away. I'll lose no sleep over it. And I understand enough about ancient warfare to know that killing everyone down to the last infant was NOT the norm (see Numbers 33.) As for it being "redundant" I think what bothers you is that observing exactly what "inhabitants" means in this context is uncomfortably close to the point. Those shots of Joshua's men stomping babies to death woudn't look too great in a DeMille Biblical epic, would it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:15, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-05-26T04:08:45Z

PF Fox: Why so squeamish? If God says to toss a baby onto a sword, isn't it okay?

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-26T04:06:07Z

PF Fox: /* Al gore sr */

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::How about "all the inhabitants"?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 00:04, 26 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Nope. Let's be frank about this Bohdan. Joshua's army went in and courageously ran through women, the elderly, children, and babies. Why does saying this bother you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:06, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-05-26T04:03:45Z

PF Fox: /* Military exploits */ Don't you want to RECORD this glorious exploit?

User talk:PF Fox

2007-05-26T04:02:05Z

PF Fox: /* Al gore sr */

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== Knock it off ==

Do you want to be blocked again? I reverted your last edit to the article on [[Ann Coulter]]'s book ''Slander'' because it constituted malicious context-dropping. Your block log is getting rather long, and if I have to block you yet again, it will likely be for significantly longer. Consider yourself warned.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:36, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::Oh Heaven forfend that anyone apply CONTEXT! --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:45, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::I said the ''dropping'' of context. The full context of anything that Ann Coulter said about anybody consists of the words and deeds of the other person, that provoked whatever she said that ''you'' find outrageous.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:54, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Then by all means, let's include the fact that she considered the women disagreeing with her about how to deal with terrorism and voting for Kerry valid reason for nastily implying that they were enjoying their husbands deaths! How about it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 20:01, 4 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::First, that's the wrong book.

Well then, my apologies. How silly of me to forget that the primary objection to Slander was the gross inaccuracies that riddle it. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Second, in ''Godless: The Church of Liberalism'', she gave the real reason for what she said: that they were enjoying the attention they were getting. Have you even read the book that the quote came from? I don't think you have.

Yes, I did read the book. Please explain how claiming that the widows were enjoying the attention they were getting renders her statement about them enjoying their husbands deaths less offensive. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::::Part of being an editor is finding things out for yourself--not quoting secondary sources that, in all likelihood, got it wrong.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:15, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

It's a good thing that I've read Ann Coulter's books, then, isn't it? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:40, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Al gore sr ==
I cannot read your citation because it requires a login password.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 17:32, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

The word "inhabitants" includes men, women, and children.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 23:59, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

::Not always. Some readers might assume it just means grown men.

::And you wouldn't want them MISINTERPRETING the Bible, now, would you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 00:02, 26 May 2007 (EDT)

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-05-26T03:56:28Z

PF Fox: So you ARE ashamed. Why?

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-05-26T03:40:00Z

PF Fox: It's the truth. Ashamed of it?

'''Joshua''' was an early leader of the [[Exodus]]-era [[Hebrew]]s, and a political successor to [[Moses]]. He was the main military figure of the Hebrews during the conquest on [[Canaan]]. He is accounted one of the first [[Judges of Israel]]. The story of Joshua can be found in the [[Bible]] books of [[Exodus]], [[Numbers]] and [[Joshua (Biblical book)|Joshua]], the last of which takes its name from him. While it was Moses who God chose to lead the Hebrews from Egypt, it was Joshua who led them into the promised land.

Joshua is commonly believed to have lived sometime during the late [[Bronze Age]] (roughly 1400 to 1200 BC).

==Military exploits==
The Biblical account of Joshua's conquest of Canaan can be summarized as follows-

He went against [[Jericho]] and defeated the heavily fortified city through divine intervention in the form of the city's walls collapsing after the [[Israelites]] had marched around the walls 7 times. Going against the more simple city of Ai, they were forced to flee due to sin in the midsts of the Hebrews. When it was removed Joshua again attacked and took the city through outsmarting the inhabitants. The inhabitants of both cities, every man, woman and child, were put to the sword. Joshua went on to defeat the combined forces of [[Jerusalem]], [[Hebron]], Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon. It was during this battle that Joshua was said to "command the sun to stand still in the sky" so that the battle could continue.

==Death==
Before Joshua's death, the land was divided amoung the [[twelve tribes of Israel]], including much of the land that remained to be conquered.

A famous quote by Joshua is ''As for me and my house I will serve the LORD.'' (Joshua 24:15) This quote can often be seen on [[Christian]] memorabilia and merchandise.

Joshua is the [[Hebrew]] name for [[Jesus]].

[[Category:Biblical persons]]
[[Category:Military Commanders]]

Talk:Book of Joshua

2007-05-25T23:37:16Z

PF Fox:

Cut from article:

:It is considered one the more troubling books of the [[Bible]] due to its unambiguous exhortations to [[genocide]] - for example, after Joshua has massacred the entire population of [[Jericho]] (Joshua 6:20), God instructs him to 'Do to Ai what you did to Jericho' (Joshua 8:1).

I didn't say anyone "liked" genocide. I asked who called it "troubling". God killed lots of people with the flood; is that genocide?

Not trying to stop you're creative input here, but this is no school bulletin board. Writing must be encyclopedic. (Not that I can always write that well, myself.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The examples I gave were sourced to the book itself - the only unsourced claim was that some people tend to find the mass slaying of civilians a little distasteful. I can find some links for that as well if you like. [[User:MississippiMud|MisMud]] 20:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please. And please distinguish between (1) dislike genocide in general and (2) regard God's command to 'kill them all' as genocide. I've yet to meet a Christian or Jew who holds that view. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::See kids? If God tells you to kill everyone, down to the last toddler and infant, it's not genocide!

::Thanks for clearing that up for us, Ed. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 19:37, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

Joshua (Biblical leader)

2007-05-25T23:33:38Z

PF Fox:

Voting Rights Act of 1965

2007-05-25T21:23:26Z

PF Fox: It is a lie to claim that Albert Gore voted against the 1995 voting rights act. PLEASE NOTE THE CITE I'VE ALREADY INCLUDED.

The National Voting Rights Act of 1965<ref>42 U.S.C. § 1973-1973aa-6</ref> authorized, and in some areas required, federal oversight of elections. Many of these areas were in the South. Frequently amended, it imposes a complex system of regulations that include forcing local governments to print multilingual ballots at their own expense, in many different foreign languages. It requires federal registration of voters in regions where less than 50% of minorities are registered.

==Politics==

The Act was passed by the U.S. Congress over strong opposition from the the southern wing of the Democratic Party; Democratic President [[Lyndon Johnson]] turned to Minority Leader [[Everett Dirksen]] for [[Republican]] support <ref>[http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64_cloturespeech.htm Everett McKinley Dirksen's Finest Hour: June 10, 1964], ''The Peoria Journal Star'', June 10, 2004, retrieved from The Dirksen Congressional center 05/20/07.</ref> to break the Southern Democratic [[filibuster]]. Dirksen spoke on the Senate floor,

{{Cquote|The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!}}

The Senate never had been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a Civil Rights Bill. The final count showed 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voting to close off debate, with 23 Democrats and only 6 Republicans opposed. The formal Senate vote on the bill took place on June 19, 1964. It passed overwhelmingly, 73-27.

In the final house passage of the bill on August 3, 1965, the breakdown was 217 Democrats and 111 Republicans voting in favor versus 54 Southern Democrats and 120 Republicans voting against. The final Senate vote on August 4 was 49 Democrats and 30 Republicans in favor, one Republican and 17 Democrats opposed, Robert Byrd of West Virginia and 16 Southern Democrats. Southern Democrats who voted in favor of the bill on August 4 were Senators Albert A. Gore (who had originally voted against the Voting Rights Act in 1964) and Ross Bass from Tennessee, Mike Monroney and Fred R. Harris from Oklahoma and Ralph W. Yarborough from Texas. <ref>[http://www.2facts.com/Ancillaries/index/h00619.asp</ref>

Sen. [[William. J. Fulbright]] <ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871879,00.html?iid=chix-sphere Picking the Team], ''TIME Magazine'', December 12, 1960.</ref> who was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by [[President Clinton]], voted against it.

Majority Leader Mike Mansfield said of the Republican leader, "The whole country is in debt to the Senator from Illinois."

The Act gives the Department of Justice the power to approve or reject any change in a voting law in certain districts where less than 50% of the population were registered to vote in 1964. In December 1989 a three-judge district federal court held Bill Clinton's state-wide legislative reapportionment plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973. 1990 the [[Supreme Court]] of the United States found in the case of ''[[Clinton vs Jeffers]]'' <ref>Findings of the Supreme Court of the United States in [http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900402.txt Clinton vs Jeffers] No. 90-394 (1990) on appeal 730 F. Supp. 196, 198-201 (ED Ark. 1989) (three-judge court), aff'd, No. 89-2008 (Jan. 7, 1991).</ref> the former Arkansas Governeror and [[Democratic]] president had violated the Voting Rights Act. The Justices findings were,

{{Cquote|[[Bill Clinton]] does not dispute here -- that "violations of the fourteenth or fifteenth amendment justifying equitable relief have occurred in Arkansas."

In May 1990, the district court turned to those claims, holding that "the State of Arkansas has committed a number of constitutional violations of the voting rights of black citizens." J.S. App. A5. In particular, the court determined that the "State has systematically and deliberately enacted new majority-vote requirements for municipal offices, in an effort to frustrate black political success in elections traditionally requiring only a plurality to win." In 1990...Devotion to majority rule for local offices lay dormant as long as the plurality system produced white office-holders. But whenever black candidates used this system successfully -- and victory by a plurality has been virtually their only chance of success in at-large elections in majority-white cities – the response was swift and certain. Laws were passed in an attempt to close off this avenue of black political victory.}}

The court therefore concluded that

{{Cquote|This series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity. Such an attempt is plainly unconstitutional. It replaces a system in which blacks could and did succeed, with one in which they almost certainly cannot. The inference of racial motivation is inescapable.}}

The Act also outlawed literacy tests that once limited the right to vote in some areas to those who could read the ballot, as well as so-called "Grandfather Clauses".

==Renewal==

Although the Act is over 40 years old and addresses issues from the early 1960s and before, in 2006 Congress passed a 25-year extension without meaningful debate. 33 House members opposed the 25-year extension, primarily because of the imposition of multilingual balloting. Not a single senator, however, voted against it, and President [[George W. Bush]] signed it into law.

==See also==
*[[Southern Manifesto]]

== References ==

<references/>

Jimmy Carter

2007-05-25T21:20:04Z

PF Fox: edited out mendacious and malicious editoriaiizing

{| border="1" align="right" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="250" style="margin-left:5px"
|align="center" colspan="2"|[[Image:Carter.jpg|210px]]
|-
!colspan="2" align="center" style="color: black; height: 30px; background: red no-repeat scroll top left;"|Jimmy Carter;
Thirty-ninth President of the United States
|-
|Born
|October 1, 1924
|-
|Term
|1977-1981
|-
|}

'''James Earl Carter, Jr.''' was the 39th [[President of the United States of America]] following [[Gerald Ford]] and preceding [[Ronald Reagan]]. He was a [[Democrat]] who served from 1977-1981, after being the Governor of [[Georgia]].

His difficulty in overcoming the challenges that were presented to the nation during his time in office helped lead to the election of [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980. He has been unusually active as an ex-president, serving as an election monitor in many emerging democracies, and as a self-proclaimed "peace advocate", was recognized with the [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]].

==Presidency==

Carter's presidency was marked by a period of American supremacy being challenged abroad and economic recession and [[stagflation]] striking at home. Carter's presidency was marked by retrenchment, after the disappointing agony that had been the [[Vietnam War]], and economic [[stagflation]] churning at home.

In the midst of the 1980 campaign, a pro-U.S. monarchy was toppled by the 1979 [[Iran|Iranian]] Revolution and dozens of [[Iran Hostage Crisis|American hostages were taken]] inside the American embassy by Islamic fundamentalist revolutionaries after Carter gave sanctuary to exiled dictator Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. With the international outrage at the [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] invasion of [[Afghanistan]] later the same year, Carter was rendered impotent, as America saw its influence declining abroad.

Despite Carter's own Democratic Party controlling both Houses of Congress, and the White House he failed to reform the tax system, and to reduce the size of the government bureaucracy, as promised during the 1976 campaign, or to pass the Martin Luther King holiday.

He has also been criticized for not doing enough to promote his proclaimed human rights foreign policy stance in his administration, such as continuing to support the [[Indonesia]]n government even while it was implicated in the commission of acts of genocide in the occupation of East Timor.

Carter's response to Soviet aggression against Afghanistan was to single out American farmers who suffered terribly when he terminated the Russian Wheat Deal, a keystone Nixon [[Detente]] initiative to establish trade with USSR and lessen [[Cold War]] tensions.

He was defeated in the 1980 presidential election by Ronald Reagan by nearly ten percentage points. [[Republican Party|Republicans]] also gained control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 for Carter (representing 6 states and the District of Columbia).

Carter personally opposed [[abortion]] but only recently, more than a quarter of a century after his presidency, expressed his opposition in public.

===Stagflation===

A major issue President Carter failed to deal with was [[inflation]], caused especially by continued high levels of government spending and the rising price of imported oil, which was the major source of energy for many industries. The Misery Index, Carter's own invention of economic well-being, rose 50% in four years.

Government spending caused interest rates to rise to unprecedented levels (above 12 percent per year). Inflation and interest rates reached their highest levels since [[World War II]]. The rapid change in interest rates led to disintermediation of bank deposits, which sowed the seeds of the [[Savings and Loan crisis]]. Investments in fixed income were becoming less valuable. Holders of both bonds, and pensions being paid to retired people had their life savings wiped out. The stagnant growth of the economy (causing unemployment), in combination with a high rate of inflation, has often been called [[stagflation]], an unprecedented situation in American economics.

[[Bert Lance]], Carter's appointee to head the [[Office of Management and Budget]] which manages the U.S. federal budget, was forced to resign when his past bank overdrafts and "check kiting" schemes in Georgia were exposed.

==Post-presidency==
[[Image:Palestine peace not apartheid.jpg|right|thumb|150px|Cover of Jimmy Carter's book, ''Peace Not Apartheid'', which accuses [[Israel]] of practicing racism.]]
Carter has been active in foreign affairs since his presidency. His continued work mediating international disputes, organizing election observations, and working with organizations on disease and hunger were cited when he was awarded the 2002 [[Nobel Prize|Nobel Peace Prize]]. In his Nobel lecture, Carter declared his support for "international law":

<blockquote>
Our President, [[Woodrow Wilson]], was honored here for promoting the [[League of Nations]], whose two basic concepts were profoundly important: "collective security" and "self-determination." Now they are embedded in international law. Violations of these premises during the last half-century have been tragic failures, as was vividly demonstrated when the Soviet Union attempted to conquer Afghanistan and when Iraq invaded Kuwait. <ref>[http://jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/nobel.phtml Text of Carter's Nobel Lecture] Jimmy Carter Library and Museum, 2002.</ref>
</blockquote>

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Carter was grouped in the "Below Average" group, ranked 30th, with a mean score of 2.47 out of 5.00.<ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

In 2001 as President Clinton exited office and handed out many dubious and questionable pardons, some to [[terrorist]]s and others which appeared bought and paid for, Carter blasted President Clinton's actions and refered to them as "disgraceful". + In Jimmy Carter's latest book, ''Palestine Peace Not Apartheid'', he wrote:

In Jimmy Carter's latest book, "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid", he appeared to endorse Arab terrorism against Israel as a tactic to achieve political ends, he wrote:
<blockquote>
It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.
</blockquote>
The sentiment was widely criticized. He apologized for the wording of that sentence, but not for his larger message.<ref>Washington Post, January 24, 2007 [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/23/AR2007012301668.html?nav=rss_artsandliving/books]</ref>

*His 2006 book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," has attracted charges of plagiarism. It caused Professor Kenneth Stein to resign from the Carter Center because of its depiction of Israel through three decades of diplomatic and military dealings with the Palestinians. Mr. Stein had served as an aide to Mr. Carter during most of those years. He considers the book deceitful and malicious. As the book's title adumbrates, Jimmy compares Israel with the white supremacist regime of old South Africa. Fourteen members of the Carter Center's advisory board have resigned over the book. In March, Jimmy explained these resignations to an audience at George Washington University by saying, "They all happen to be Jewish Americans." [http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20070524-083911-8313r.htm]

== UFO Sighting ==
[[Image:Carter Sighting Report 2.gif|thumb|right|President Carter's report the planet may have been visited by space aliens.]]
Carter claims to have witnessed an unidentified flying object in 1969; he remains the only U.S. President to have formally reported a [[UFO]]. In 1975 Carter told a ''[[Washington Post]]'' reporter, " A light appeared and disappeared in the sky . . . I think the light was beckoning me to run in the California primary." <ref>[http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm Jimmy Carter UFO] </ref> He filed a report with the International UFO Bureau in [[Oklahoma City]] after a request from that organization. <ref>[http://www.presidentialufo.com/carter_ufo_report.htm President Jimmy Carter's Actual UFO Sighting Report]</ref> During his presidential campaign, Carter promised to release the truth about any alleged UFO cover-up.

Through Stanford Research Institute, Mr. Alfred Webre was Principal Investigator for a proposed civilian scientific study of extraterrestrial communication presented to and developed with interested Carter White House staff. This took place during the period from May 1977 until the fall of 1977.

==Voyager Probe==
President Carter placed this official statement on the Voyager space probe <ref>http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=555</ref> for its trip outside the solar system on June 16, 1977: "We cast this message into the cosmos . . . Of the 200 billion stars in the Milky Way galaxy, some - - perhaps many - - may have inhabited planets and space faring civilizations. If one such civilization intercepts Voyager and can understand these recorded contents, here is our message: We are trying to survive our time so we may live into yours. We hope some day, having solved the problems we face, to join a community of Galactic Civilizations. This record represents our hope and our determination and our goodwill in a vast and awesome universe."<ref>http://www.presidentialufo.com/jimmy.htm</ref>

==References==
<references/>

==Further reading==
:[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13265 Carter the worst ex-president -- Steven Hayward]
:[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/19/AR2007011901541.html Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem] by Deborah Lipstadt.

==See also==
* [[Carter Doctrine]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Carter, Jimmy}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]