Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:An Inconvenient Truth

2007-06-20T05:46:16Z

Priestspez: New page: Maybe nothing but I can find the article on climate cycles, so maybe you should put a source there to support your theory otherwise remove it. ~~~ 15:45, 19 June 2007 (EST)

Maybe nothing but I can find the article on climate cycles, so maybe you should put a source there to support your theory otherwise remove it. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 15:45, 19 June 2007 (EST)

Talk:Cindy Sheehan

2007-06-18T16:07:09Z

Priestspez:

==Discussion==
can you at least leave the part about exploitng her sons death for '''Political gain'''? (no doubt she has)[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:That's right she carried this boy to term, birthed him, raised him up all the while looking for some way to "cash in" on his eventual demise. Have you no shame, sir?[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::perhaps a better question would be if she has any shame. she has been heavily criticised for many things. You dont hear about this from the liberal media. Perhaps you should do some research. (I plan to add these later)[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

by the way, did not you hear that her own relatives released a statement saying that she was exloiting her sons death. when she said that her immediate family supported her, her husband divorced her. I am not putting these facts in the article yet because i am looking for a good source. apparently, i have some shame. please dont insult me.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:Get a cite (or cites) and we'll examine the veracity of the claim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
==Duke==
Is it proper to include David Duke's support? The KKK supported Bush for president, but that doesn't mean he supports them. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 00:20, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
::remove it if you really want. But i think she actually would support him, at least regarding Israel. go ahead and take it out.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]
:::Actully most KKK members hate Bush.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 07:20, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

I didn't pay much attention to her when I heard she was standing outside the White House gates. I figured she was some sort of attention-seeker then, because anyone else would have gone through the usual channels instead of attracting a media circus.

But it's possible she decided to cash in on her son's untimely demise for political gain. And I wouldn't put it past the Democrats to put her up to it. Exploitation of emotion is something the media is very good at, and the media is saturated with Democrats. (Oh, and did I mention the [[liberal|L-word]] yet?)

I figured the whole point of Democrats using Sheehan was that she could take some sort of "moral high ground" by virtue of being a bereaved mother. The only thing that smells fake about it is that I heard she was more interested in protesting the US military campaign in Iraq, than about expressing her feelings about her son. In other words, she didn't just want to share her grief, she wanted to blame the president and his policies for (something like) "needless deaths" - blame anyone but the enemies of Iraq, I guess.

Anyway, if one our writers would like to research Sheehan's arguments and positions, I suppose our readers might be interested. But we should also air a few conservative rebuttals for balance. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Wording==

:Many have declared and celebrated her as the face of the anti-war, anti-American movement.

What does "anti-war" or "anti-American" mean? The media likes to use short words, but an encyclopedia should be clear, even if it takes an extra sentence or two. We're not bound by the 9-second soundbite rule.

Is she against the terrorists, against the new Iraqi army, against the US, or what? Maybe she just doesn't want the US to defend Iraq against the terrorists, but otherwise loves America. Let's be clear about her position, if we're going to mention it at all. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:04, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

==Anti-Semetic?==

<blockquote>
She has also made extremely antisemitic remarks
</blockquote>

Nothing in the cited sources show anything anti-semetic. It is possible to not agree with the policies of the state of Israel, or even be against its existence, without being anti-semetic. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 15:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps we should say that her remarks were hostile towards Israel or "anti-Israeli". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

::I think that would be more accurate. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 15:56, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::She didnt disagree with Israel, Cindy sheehan blamed Israel for the war in Iraq, and her sons death. Claims like this are classic anti-Semitism.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 16:00, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
She didn't blame Israel; she blamed neo-con ''support'' for Israel. There is a difference. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:26, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
::::"My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel" pretty clear to me.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 16:28, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::No it isn't clear at all. The fact is that a large part of the reason Islamist terrorists want to attack us is because of US supprot for Israel. This is not a controversial claim, but a well documented fact. Pointing out this fact is in no way anti-Israel or anti-semitic and is not blaming Israel or the US for terrorist attacks. Accepting the realityof what motivates our enemy is not the same thing as validating that motivation.--[[User:Zerba|Zerba]] 13:55, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::She said,
::::::*''Casey was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel.''
::::::In her so-called "resignation letter" (I doubt we've seen or heard the last from her) she reiterated,
::::::*''The most devastating conclusion that I reached ... was that Casey did indeed die for nothing.''
::::::Seems pretty clear, even after removing herself as the "face" of the movement, her allegations of a Neo-Con Jewish conspiracy have not changed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:03, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::: She says nothing about a "Neo-Con Jewish Conspiracy". Do you deny that the US supports Israel? Do you deny that Neo-Cons, and Republicans in general are a major part of that support? Disagreeing with the US's support of Israel may be wrong, it may be shortsighted, or it may even be right, but it is not, by itself, anti-semetic.

:::It seems that she feels that the US is spending US lives on the defense of the state of Israel. I don't agree with this sentiment, but there is nothing anti-semetic about it. One can quite easily dislike many things about the state of Israel, and disagree with the support that the US gives it, without having any animosity against Jews. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:04, 30 May 2007 (EDT)
::::So the question is when is an anti-Semite not an anti-Semite; is this like the question of when is a communist not a communist? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 2 June 2007 (EDT)
::::: No, it is simply commenting that anti-Israel does not equate to anti-Semetic, any more than being anti-Iran is anti-Muslim. I realize that it is much handier, when denigrating someone, to label them as some sort of racist, but I thought that conservapedia claims that this is a vile, evil liberal tactic! [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 21:40, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sorry, but we got cites to support everthing claimed in the article. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

I defy you to find a single citation where Sheehan says "I hate Jewish people," as opposed to saying something negative about the political entity that is the state of Israel. The two are by no means synonymous. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:59, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:Find me a single citation where [[Trent Lott]] said "I hate black people". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:12, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't care a whit about Trent Lott. Don't change the subject. Step up. Make your case. Has Sheehan ever clearly said she hates Jews, as opposed to the politics of the Israeli State? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 22:14, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:Case is made. Case closed. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:17, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Where? Are you even READING these posts? She is on the record as criticizing the Israeli state and its policies.Fair enough. That is NOT the same as criticizing - much less expressing hatred for - the Jewish people. Where is the case made. Explain it to me like you would to an eight-year-old, 'cause I don't see it anywhere on this page or any other. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 22:19, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:No, I'm not. And it's too late to rehabilitate her. Her so-called "farwell" did not rescind any of the anti-Semitic venom she's spewed for all these years; and reading her garbage, I do not beleive for an instant she wrote it. It was ghost written for her. The DNC is just going to have to live the historical fact and reality of a woman named Cindy Sheehan who took up their cause. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:22, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Ummm...you haven't even come close to answering any of my questions. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 22:24, 3 June 2007 (EDT)
:Good. Because I do not intend to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:40, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

Good to see you put your intellectual honesty on the line like that. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 22:42, 3 June 2007 (EDT)

::Criticism of Israel is anti-semiticism hiding behind a different mask. See [http://israel.jcca.org/articles.htm?y=620051118152416], [http://www.warrenkinsella.com/words_extremism_nas.htm], [http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=2791] [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

::: Those two cites (the 3rd did not resolve as a page) are both opinion pieces, not anything that defines terms in anything but the author's mind. To criticize a political entity for their actions is not the same as attacking the primary religious/racial group that makes up that nation. Can criticizing Israil be part of an anti-semetic attack? Of course, but that does not equate to all attacks on Israel being motivated by anti-semitism. I was appalled by the Israeli secret police killing an innocent Norwegian, in an attempt at exacting retribution for Munich. That doesn't make me anti-jewish and more than my disgust at the actions of islamic terrorists makes me anti-muslim. To claim otherwise is simply to attempt to deflect any sort of criticism of Israel, the same way that people used racism as an excuse for defending OJ. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 11:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

:::so, Fox - by that logic the state of Israel may never be criticized NO MATTER WHAT it does? Ever? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:15, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

::::When that criticism is based upon holding Israel "to a standard of behaviour demanded of no other country while at the same time singling them out for a campaign of villification based on demonstrable falsehoods" then it is anti-semitic. And comes from "exactly the same kind of useful idiots who once supported Stalin, and waved aside all those who spoke up against the killings and the terror" [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 15:00, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

===Back To Cindy===

I assume the photo of her with Chavez is supposed to say she's anti-american? Whether or not you agree with the woman everyone must admit that she got into the game as a result of her son's death. So if there is to be a picture of her with someone that is part of her public story then maybe it should be her son. Or would that be too politically biased? [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 02:22, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-06-18T12:24:37Z

Priestspez:

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::There IS no Liberal Media! [[User:MrDubya|MrDubya]] 01:27, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

*Don't you mean "there is no cabal!" ? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 01:39, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

Does it bother the reader that while citing Exxon Mobile profits being at record highs, gas prices also are at record highs? This may not be a very good supporting argument as it raises suspicion that our current American way of life is at risk due to the high costs of fuel, which is hurting real estate as more and more people re-urbanize living closer to their workplaces in the city as well as the overall economy as people go out less because they want to conserve fuel. {{unsigned|Tchen}}
::Does it bother the reader that [[China]] has one fifth of the planets population and only 1% drive cars? Does it bother the reader that China's economy is growing at 17%? Does it bother the reader that when 2% of China's population own cars, gas will go from $3 to $6 per gallon? Does it bother the reader that US politicians in Washington DC can nothing about this? Does it bother readers that implied solution here is to exterminate the Chinese? Yes, it does bother this reader. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:28, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Eavesdropping program ==

When it becomes possible to edit this article again, something should be added about the NSA eavesdropping program. As today's New York Times indicates, this program is extremely controversial even among conservatives and almost led to the resignations of Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller.--[[User:Amyz]] 10:04, May 16, 2007 (EDT)

== This is one sad page... ==

....And since it's locked, only the syspos (who have enough to do as it is) can DO anything with it. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 02:37, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

*I quite agree, Gulik3. Me, for instance, I have been reading your many posts, all seeming to be unhappy ones. I hope you will straighten us out with good, solid examples of article production so that we may learn from you! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:16, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

::That's be a good trick on my part, seeing how everything worth editing is locked. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 23:53, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

:::There actually is a real simple way around that: try, for the first time in known history, to actually write an article according to WP's NPOV. It would actually work here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:15, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

::::'''Wikipedia's''' NPOV? The onbe that's "Six times more Liberal than America"? That NPOV? I can try... --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 00:29, 22 May 2007 (EDT)
:::::Yep. Since WP does not enforce its only policies, perhaps we can have the first ever NPOV article written here. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:42, 22 May 2007 (EDT)

== template ==
I think this article should use a template similar to the others in Presidents of the United States category.. see [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] for example. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 13:03, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

== Public Criticisms? ==
Shouldn't Bush's page have a public criticisms page as suggested in the manual of style? It is an issue significant to his presidency. And what about his handling of 9-11? And why does the economic section sound sarcastic with respect tp executive salaries. This article needs a lot of help. [[User:Pokowpane|Pokowpane]] 18:00, 31 May 2007 (EDT)
:What? You think you can do it? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:28, 31 May 2007 (EDT)

This page should have a criticism title like those for other President's. I don't think it has much credibility unless it does. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 10:24, 18 June 2007

Talk:Hippie

2007-06-13T15:10:51Z

Priestspez:

[[Hippy]]

The second part of this article is clearly someone's personal view of the description of 'hippie', especially the ridiculous last remark about politicians not wanting to grow beards. Clearly the person who wrote this trying to be comical. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]]

: Nope. Guess again. This time offer your alternative reason why politicians almost never grow beards today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:46, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Humility, so as not to look like Jesus? Or... anti-Christian sentiment, so as not to evoke Christian patriarchs? I want to know your opinion. Mr. Schlafly, did you know that [[beard|beards]] were a major symbol in ancient times? I wrote a short article on it.-[[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]] 00:47, 13 June 2007 (EDT)

Where is his reason for suggesting it in the first place. I can't understand how this can hold up. Maybe politicans don't have beards because of fashion trends, or because they don't want to have to shave. Michael Savage has a beard - does that make him a hippie? [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 00:45, 14 June 2007 (AUS)

I note that Michael Savage is not a politician, however I am sure he has negative views on hippies. [[User:Priestspez|Priestspez]] 01:13, 14 June 2007 (AUS)

Talk:Hippie

2007-06-13T14:40:16Z

Priestspez:

Talk:Hippie

2007-06-13T04:32:56Z

Priestspez: