Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Rudy Giuliani

2007-09-29T18:26:37Z

Sbowers3: /* September 11 Terrorist Attacks */ rm redundancy

[[Image:Rudy Giuliani.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Rudolph William "Rudy" Giuliani''' (born May 28, 1944 in [[Brooklyn]], NY) is a former two-term [[Mayor]] of [[New York City]], former [[United States Attorney]] and [[Deputy U.S. Attorney General]]. As mayor of New York City he became a media favorite based on his [[liberal]] positions on [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]] and his devotion to the press. As mayor he would hold almost daily press conferences, and his personal indiscretions became favorite topics for the media. Despite his shortcomings in preparation and immediate response to the terrorist attacks of [[9/11]], the media hailed him as "America's Mayor" for his frequent media appearances afterwards.

Originally a Democrat who supported [[George McGovern]],<ref>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/13/swiftboat_rudy/</ref> Giuliani is currently a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]].

== Early Life ==

According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>

:In 1944, Rudolph W. Giuliani was born to a working class family in Brooklyn, New York. As the grandson of Italian immigrants, Mayor Giuliani learned a strong work ethic and a deep respect for America's ideal of equal opportunity. He attended Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School (Class of '61) in Brooklyn, Manhattan College (Class of '65) in the Bronx and New York University Law School in Manhattan, graduating magna cum laude in 1968.</blockquote>

== Personal Life ==
Giuliani has been married three times. First to his second cousin [[Regina Peruggi]], on October 26, 1968. In 1976 the couple split. They did not have any children. His second marriage was to [[Donna Hanover]]. Giuliani filed for legal separation from Peruggi on August 12, 1982. Giuliani and Hanover started living together later that year in Washington, D.C. A [[Roman Catholic]] Church [[annulment]] (of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage) was granted at the end of 1983[93], according to Giuliani, because they did not have the Church dispensation needed.

Giuliani and Hanover then married on April 15, 1984. They had two children, Andrew and Caroline. In May 2000, Giuliani admitted to an extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan. Giuliani called a press conference to reveal he intended to separate from Hanover.
Giuliani then married Judith Nathan in 2003, his third marriage.

==Legal Career==

According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>
:Upon graduation, Rudy Giuliani clerked for Judge Lloyd MacMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. In 1970, Giuliani joined the office of the U.S. Attorney. At age 29, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and rose to serve as executive US Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani was recruited to Washington, D.C., where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General. From 1977 to 1981, Giuliani returned to New York to practice law at Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler.

:In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General, the third highest position in the [[U.S. Department of Justice]]. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised all of the US Attorney Offices' Federal law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the US Marshals.

:In 1983, Giuliani was appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he spearheaded the effort to jail drug dealers, fight organized crime, break the web of corruption in government, and prosecute white-collar criminals. Few US Attorneys in history can match his record of 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals. </blockquote>

==Mayoral Campaigns and Service==
According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>
:In 1989, Giuliani entered the race for mayor of New York City as a candidate of the Republican and Liberal parties, losing by the closest margin in City history. However in 1993, his campaign focusing on quality of life, crime, business and education made him the 107th Mayor of the City of New York. In 1997 he was re-elected by a wide margin, carrying four out of New York City's five boroughs.
:As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani has returned accountability to City government and improved the quality of life for all New Yorkers. Under his leadership, overall crime is down 57%, murder has been reduced 65%, and New York City - once infamous around the world for its dangerous streets - has been recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for the past five years. <ref> See also "Time's 2001 Person of the Year Rudy Giuliani"[http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/]</ref></blockquote>

In 2002 he published ''Leadership'', recounting his terms as mayor.
 
 
Among Giuliani's most notable accomplishments during his mayoralty was his successful assault on [[pornography]] businesses in [[Times Square]]. The neighborhood had long been a mecca for "sexually oriented businesses", but through a prolonged campaign which included maintaining an alliance of local businesses, conservative and feminist groups and the general public, Giuliani managed to clean up the sex mart which was Times Square and replace it with legitmate theaters, restaurants and shops.

==September 11 Terrorist Attacks==

On Sept. 10, 2001, Giuliani was known as a crime fighter from his days as a United States attorney and as the mayor who had overseen New York's revival, including a 40% drop in crime. But at home his approval rating hovered around 50 percent. In any case, he was a lame duck, barred by term limits from seeking re-election, in a city that in any case felt increasingly worn out by eight years of combativeness and racial tension. The year before, after a surprisingly rocky re-election campaign, a diagnosis of prostate cancer had led him to reject a run for the Senate seat eventually won by Hillary Rodham Clinton. And while his supporters talked of a presidential bid, the prospect seemed a long shot for a Republican who supported abortion rights and restrictions on gun sales.

A week after the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11 attacks]], due to his almost universally acclaimed leadership in the aftermath of that tragedy, his approval rating hovered at nearly 80%. Since then he has been on almost every short list of Republican contenders. In his talks, Giuliani uses Sept. 11 to make two points. The first is that he has proven himself to be a leader, and having a proven leader in these troubled times, he tells audiences, is more important than whether you agree with everything he stands for. The other is that his handling of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks proved his competency. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/us/politics/12topic-giuliani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref>

The International Association of Fire Fighters, America's largest union of [[firefighter]]s, posted a grievence against Giuliani's November 2001 decision to reduce the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades. Their argument is that Giuliani's decisions meant that firefighters and citizens who died would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever or be removed like other rubble and garbage and deposited in landfills.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html</ref>

According to one news report, "Giuliani's backers also released an open letter to firefighters from retired New York firefighter Lee Ielpi that calls the union's accusations 'offensive and inaccurate.' Ielpi lost his oldest son, 29-year-old New York City firefighter Jonathan Lee Ielpi, on Sept. 11.

'I was deeply disappointed and disheartened to learn of the recent partisan political activities' by the IAFF, he wrote. 'Firefighters have no greater friend and supporter than Rudy Giuliani,' Ielpi said."<ref> Firefighters Claim Giuliani Ignored Needs After 9/11 (Update2) by Kim Chipman Bloomberg News, March 9, 2007 [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a8o5p2XiTQhk&refer=us]</ref>
Giuliani's campaign staff noted that the IAFF endorsed Senator [[John Kerry]]'s presidential bid in 2003 when the Massachusetts Democrat was still considered a long shot.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a8o5p2XiTQhk&refer=us</ref>

==Political Views==

===Abortion===
Rudy Giuliani supports "responsible" restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on [[partial birth abortion]] – except when the life of the mother is at stake. And that he and his fellow Republicans can "respectfully disagree" on this issue. However, In 1997 Giuliani said that then - President [[Bill Clinton]] made the right decision when he vetoed a ban partial birth abortion. During his 2000 Senate campaign he said that he would "vote to preserve the option for women.” Giuliani has also given six contributions to [[Planned Parenthood]] in the 1990s. The payments, totaling $900, were made in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999. Planned Parenthood is one of the top abortion advocates and abortion providers in the [[United States]].

===Death penalty===
Giuliani only favors capital punishment for murder in certain circumstances. One such example is that he has advocated the death penalty for [[terrorist]]s following September 11.
===Education===
Giuliani supports school vouchers for lower-income students. He is also a supporter of privatizing failing schools.

===Government Spending===
Rudy Giuliani supports a large decrease in federal spending and a Balanced Budget Amendment to ensure responsible fiscal management. As New York City mayor, he cut the size of city-funded government bureaucracy by nearly 20% - excluding the number of cops on the street and teachers in the classroom.

===Gun Rights===
Giuliani has changed his views on guns over time. As mayor of New York, he was a proponent of urban gun control, but, while running for President, has stated that he thinks differently about more mid-west environments. As Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on [[Meet the Press]] in late 1993. He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In 1995, Giuliani called member's of the [[National Rifle Association]] "extremists." And that anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for America."

===Health Care===
On February 26, 2007, Giuliani said that he was against any notion of universal health care in America, which would mean a "socialization" of American medicine. "That would be a terrible, terrible mistake. [Solutions] have to be free market solutions. They have to be a competitive system." He wrote an article for the Boston Globe on his official position on health care. In it he stated that taxes should not be raised to provide more health care but instead lowered for "individual empowerment". He talked about the creation of a tax-free Health Savings Account that would allow individuals and small businesses to stock up on health insurance and in effect lower rates.

"America is best when we solve our problems from our strengths, not our weaknesses. Healthcare reform must be based on increased choice, affordability, portability, and individual empowerment." (Giuliani)

===Homeland Security===
Giuliani has supported President [[George W. Bush]]'s tactic of using domestic surveillance.

===[[Immigration]]===
Rudy Giuliani's position on illegal immigration has changed over the years. In 1996, he said that "We're never, ever going to be able to totally control immigration in a country that is as large as ours." He went on to say, "If you were to totally control immigration into the United States, you might very well destroy the economy of the United States, because you'd have to inspect everything and everyone in every way possible." As Mayor, Giuliani said that, "There isn’t a mayor or public official in this country that is more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti immigrant legislation about 2 or 3 years ago." However, now his view on Immiration is much more conservative. In February 2007, in a meeting with [[California]] Republicans, Giuliani was quoted as saying "We need a [[border]] fence, and a highly technological one." And identify every non-citizen in the country.
Giuliani defends New York City's sanctuary policy. <ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/giuliani_immigration/2007/09/07/30827.html Rudy: Illegal Immigration Not a Crime], [[NewsMax]], September 7, 2007</ref>

===[[Iraq]]===
Rudy Giuliani strongly supports completing the mission in Iraq and hunting for terrorists and insurgents. Giuliani was described by [[Newsweek]] magazine in January of 2007 as "one of the most consistent cheerleaders for the president’s handling of the war in Iraq."

===Personal Tax===
Giuliani is known to be a strong [[fiscal conservative]]. He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes and enjoyed their lowest tax burden in decades, while the economy grew and city government saw its revenues increase from the lower tax rates. [[Club for Growth]], a conservative political action committee which supports lower taxes, school choice and free trade has said that, "it is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment."

===Same-Sex Marriage===
Although Rudy Giuliani does not support same-sex marriage, he does support "domestic partnerships" that provide stability for Americans who are in non-traditional relationships.
==2008 Presidential Campaign==

He is running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in 2008. The [[National Catholic Register]] is advising Catholics not to vote for Giuliani in 2008 because he is pro-choice. <ref>[http://ncregister.com/site/article/2017 No Deal Rudy]</ref> 

Giuliani is leading in most polling for the 2008 Republican nomination.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html</ref>

In an apparent attempt to appease (or mislead) [[conservatives]], Giuliani picked [[libertarians]] (Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada) and an executive (Larry Thompson), all likely to be pro-choice, to head his panel for nominating judges.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289367,00.html</ref> Olson opposed [[conservative]] [[John Roberts]] in 1982 on limiting jurisdiction,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/27/roberts.documents/index.html</ref> and Estrada applied RICO against abortion protesters and forced open the airwaves to profanity. The [[neoconservative]] (socially [[liberal]]) [http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018248.php Power Line blog] declared without basis, "It would be hard to come up with a group of lawyers and judges that would be more reassuring to conservatives in this regard."

== Further Reading ==

*About: Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, 2006
*Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, 2005
*The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life, by Fred Siegel, 2005
*Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, by Andrew Kirtzman, 2000

==References==
<references/>

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Guiliani, Rudolph}}
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Rudy Giuliani

2007-09-29T18:15:31Z

Sbowers3: /* Personal Life */ space after period

[[Image:Rudy Giuliani.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Rudolph William "Rudy" Giuliani''' (born May 28, 1944 in [[Brooklyn]], NY) is a former two-term [[Mayor]] of [[New York City]], former [[United States Attorney]] and [[Deputy U.S. Attorney General]]. As mayor of New York City he became a media favorite based on his [[liberal]] positions on [[abortion]] and [[homosexuality]] and his devotion to the press. As mayor he would hold almost daily press conferences, and his personal indiscretions became favorite topics for the media. Despite his shortcomings in preparation and immediate response to the terrorist attacks of [[9/11]], the media hailed him as "America's Mayor" for his frequent media appearances afterwards.

Originally a Democrat who supported [[George McGovern]],<ref>http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/13/swiftboat_rudy/</ref> Giuliani is currently a candidate for the [[Republican]] nomination for [[President of the United States of America|President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]].

== Early Life ==

According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>

:In 1944, Rudolph W. Giuliani was born to a working class family in Brooklyn, New York. As the grandson of Italian immigrants, Mayor Giuliani learned a strong work ethic and a deep respect for America's ideal of equal opportunity. He attended Bishop Loughlin Memorial High School (Class of '61) in Brooklyn, Manhattan College (Class of '65) in the Bronx and New York University Law School in Manhattan, graduating magna cum laude in 1968.</blockquote>

== Personal Life ==
Giuliani has been married three times. First to his second cousin [[Regina Peruggi]], on October 26, 1968. In 1976 the couple split. They did not have any children. His second marriage was to [[Donna Hanover]]. Giuliani filed for legal separation from Peruggi on August 12, 1982. Giuliani and Hanover started living together later that year in Washington, D.C. A [[Roman Catholic]] Church [[annulment]] (of the Giuliani-Peruggi marriage) was granted at the end of 1983[93], according to Giuliani, because they did not have the Church dispensation needed.

Giuliani and Hanover then married on April 15, 1984. They had two children, Andrew and Caroline. In May 2000, Giuliani admitted to an extramarital relationship with Judith Nathan. Giuliani called a press conference to reveal he intended to separate from Hanover.
Giuliani then married Judith Nathan in 2003, his third marriage.

==Legal Career==

According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>
:Upon graduation, Rudy Giuliani clerked for Judge Lloyd MacMahon, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York. In 1970, Giuliani joined the office of the U.S. Attorney. At age 29, he was named Chief of the Narcotics Unit and rose to serve as executive US Attorney. In 1975, Giuliani was recruited to Washington, D.C., where he was named Associate Deputy Attorney General and chief of staff to the Deputy Attorney General. From 1977 to 1981, Giuliani returned to New York to practice law at Patterson, Belknap, Webb and Tyler.

:In 1981, Giuliani was named Associate Attorney General, the third highest position in the [[U.S. Department of Justice]]. As Associate Attorney General, Giuliani supervised all of the US Attorney Offices' Federal law enforcement agencies, the Bureau of Corrections, the Drug Enforcement Agency, and the US Marshals.

:In 1983, Giuliani was appointed US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, where he spearheaded the effort to jail drug dealers, fight organized crime, break the web of corruption in government, and prosecute white-collar criminals. Few US Attorneys in history can match his record of 4,152 convictions with only 25 reversals. </blockquote>

==Mayoral Campaigns and Service==
According to his official biography<ref> "A Biography Of Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani" The City of New York Office of the Mayor [http://www.nyc.gov/html/records/rwg/html/bio.html] </ref>
<blockquote>
:In 1989, Giuliani entered the race for mayor of New York City as a candidate of the Republican and Liberal parties, losing by the closest margin in City history. However in 1993, his campaign focusing on quality of life, crime, business and education made him the 107th Mayor of the City of New York. In 1997 he was re-elected by a wide margin, carrying four out of New York City's five boroughs.
:As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani has returned accountability to City government and improved the quality of life for all New Yorkers. Under his leadership, overall crime is down 57%, murder has been reduced 65%, and New York City - once infamous around the world for its dangerous streets - has been recognized by the F.B.I. as the safest large city in America for the past five years. <ref> See also "Time's 2001 Person of the Year Rudy Giuliani"[http://www.time.com/time/poy2001/]</ref></blockquote>

In 2002 he published ''Leadership'', recounting his terms as mayor.
 
 
Among Giuliani's most notable accomplishments during his mayoralty was his successful assault on [[pornography]] businesses in [[Times Square]]. The neighborhood had long been a mecca for "sexually oriented businesses", but through a prolonged campaign which included maintaining an alliance of local businesses, conservative and feminist groups and the general public, Giuliani managed to clean up the sex mart which was Times Square and replace it with legitmate theaters, restaurants and shops.

==September 11 Terrorist Attacks==

On Sept. 10, 2001, Giuliani was known as a crime fighter from his days as a United States attorney and as the mayor who had overseen New York's revival, including a 40% drop in crime. But at home his approval rating hovered around 50 percent. In any case, he was a lame duck, barred by term limits from seeking re-election, in a city that in any case felt increasingly worn out by eight years of combativeness and racial tension. The year before, after a surprisingly rocky re-election campaign, a diagnosis of prostate cancer had led him to reject a run for the Senate seat eventually won by Hillary Rodham Clinton. And while his supporters talked of a presidential bid, the prospect seemed a long shot for a Republican who supported abortion rights and restrictions on gun sales.

A week after the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|9/11 attacks]] due to his almost universally acclaimed leadership in the aftermath of that tragedy, his approval rating hovered at nearly 80%. Since the 9/11 attacks he has been on almost every short list of Republican contenders ever since. In his talks, Giuliani uses Sept. 11 to make two points. The first is that he has proven himself to be a leader, and having a proven leader in these troubled times, he tells audiences, is more important than whether you agree with everything he stands for. The other is that his handling of the aftermath of the terrorist attacks proved his competency. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/us/politics/12topic-giuliani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</ref>

The International Association of Fire Fighters, America's largest union of [[firefighter]]s, posted a grievence against Giuliani's November 2001 decision to reduce the number of firefighters searching the rubble of Ground Zero for the remains of some 300 fallen comrades. Their argument is that Giuliani's decisions meant that firefighters and citizens who died would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever or be removed like other rubble and garbage and deposited in landfills.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html</ref>

According to one news report, "Giuliani's backers also released an open letter to firefighters from retired New York firefighter Lee Ielpi that calls the union's accusations 'offensive and inaccurate.' Ielpi lost his oldest son, 29-year-old New York City firefighter Jonathan Lee Ielpi, on Sept. 11.

'I was deeply disappointed and disheartened to learn of the recent partisan political activities' by the IAFF, he wrote. 'Firefighters have no greater friend and supporter than Rudy Giuliani,' Ielpi said."<ref> Firefighters Claim Giuliani Ignored Needs After 9/11 (Update2) by Kim Chipman Bloomberg News, March 9, 2007 [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a8o5p2XiTQhk&refer=us]</ref>
Giuliani's campaign staff noted that the IAFF endorsed Senator [[John Kerry]]'s presidential bid in 2003 when the Massachusetts Democrat was still considered a long shot.<ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=a8o5p2XiTQhk&refer=us</ref>

==Political Views==

===Abortion===
Rudy Giuliani supports "responsible" restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on [[partial birth abortion]] – except when the life of the mother is at stake. And that he and his fellow Republicans can "respectfully disagree" on this issue. However, In 1997 Giuliani said that then - President [[Bill Clinton]] made the right decision when he vetoed a ban partial birth abortion. During his 2000 Senate campaign he said that he would "vote to preserve the option for women.” Giuliani has also given six contributions to [[Planned Parenthood]] in the 1990s. The payments, totaling $900, were made in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999. Planned Parenthood is one of the top abortion advocates and abortion providers in the [[United States]].

===Death penalty===
Giuliani only favors capital punishment for murder in certain circumstances. One such example is that he has advocated the death penalty for [[terrorist]]s following September 11.
===Education===
Giuliani supports school vouchers for lower-income students. He is also a supporter of privatizing failing schools.

===Government Spending===
Rudy Giuliani supports a large decrease in federal spending and a Balanced Budget Amendment to ensure responsible fiscal management. As New York City mayor, he cut the size of city-funded government bureaucracy by nearly 20% - excluding the number of cops on the street and teachers in the classroom.

===Gun Rights===
Giuliani has changed his views on guns over time. As mayor of New York, he was a proponent of urban gun control, but, while running for President, has stated that he thinks differently about more mid-west environments. As Mayor of New York, Giuliani became a nationally visible figure in favor of gun control measures, beginning with an appearance on [[Meet the Press]] in late 1993. He was in favor of the 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban. In 1995, Giuliani called member's of the [[National Rifle Association]] "extremists." And that anti-gun control positions of many Republicans are "terrible for America."

===Health Care===
On February 26, 2007, Giuliani said that he was against any notion of universal health care in America, which would mean a "socialization" of American medicine. "That would be a terrible, terrible mistake. [Solutions] have to be free market solutions. They have to be a competitive system." He wrote an article for the Boston Globe on his official position on health care. In it he stated that taxes should not be raised to provide more health care but instead lowered for "individual empowerment". He talked about the creation of a tax-free Health Savings Account that would allow individuals and small businesses to stock up on health insurance and in effect lower rates.

"America is best when we solve our problems from our strengths, not our weaknesses. Healthcare reform must be based on increased choice, affordability, portability, and individual empowerment." (Giuliani)

===Homeland Security===
Giuliani has supported President [[George W. Bush]]'s tactic of using domestic surveillance.

===[[Immigration]]===
Rudy Giuliani's position on illegal immigration has changed over the years. In 1996, he said that "We're never, ever going to be able to totally control immigration in a country that is as large as ours." He went on to say, "If you were to totally control immigration into the United States, you might very well destroy the economy of the United States, because you'd have to inspect everything and everyone in every way possible." As Mayor, Giuliani said that, "There isn’t a mayor or public official in this country that is more strongly pro immigrant than I am. Including disagreeing with President Clinton when he signed an anti immigrant legislation about 2 or 3 years ago." However, now his view on Immiration is much more conservative. In February 2007, in a meeting with [[California]] Republicans, Giuliani was quoted as saying "We need a [[border]] fence, and a highly technological one." And identify every non-citizen in the country.
Giuliani defends New York City's sanctuary policy. <ref> [http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/giuliani_immigration/2007/09/07/30827.html Rudy: Illegal Immigration Not a Crime], [[NewsMax]], September 7, 2007</ref>

===[[Iraq]]===
Rudy Giuliani strongly supports completing the mission in Iraq and hunting for terrorists and insurgents. Giuliani was described by [[Newsweek]] magazine in January of 2007 as "one of the most consistent cheerleaders for the president’s handling of the war in Iraq."

===Personal Tax===
Giuliani is known to be a strong [[fiscal conservative]]. He cut taxes 23 times in New York and turned a $2.3 billion budget deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, while balancing the city’s budget. Because he turned his conservative principles into action, New York City taxpayers saved more than $9 billion in taxes and enjoyed their lowest tax burden in decades, while the economy grew and city government saw its revenues increase from the lower tax rates. [[Club for Growth]], a conservative political action committee which supports lower taxes, school choice and free trade has said that, "it is impossible to ignore Giuliani's overall commitment to a pro-growth philosophy and his executive talent for implementing that philosophy in a hostile political environment."

===Same-Sex Marriage===
Although Rudy Giuliani does not support same-sex marriage, he does support "domestic partnerships" that provide stability for Americans who are in non-traditional relationships.
==2008 Presidential Campaign==

He is running for the Republican nomination for president of the United States in 2008. The [[National Catholic Register]] is advising Catholics not to vote for Giuliani in 2008 because he is pro-choice. <ref>[http://ncregister.com/site/article/2017 No Deal Rudy]</ref> 

Giuliani is leading in most polling for the 2008 Republican nomination.<ref>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/republican_presidential_nomination-192.html</ref>

In an apparent attempt to appease (or mislead) [[conservatives]], Giuliani picked [[libertarians]] (Ted Olson and Miguel Estrada) and an executive (Larry Thompson), all likely to be pro-choice, to head his panel for nominating judges.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,289367,00.html</ref> Olson opposed [[conservative]] [[John Roberts]] in 1982 on limiting jurisdiction,<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/27/roberts.documents/index.html</ref> and Estrada applied RICO against abortion protesters and forced open the airwaves to profanity. The [[neoconservative]] (socially [[liberal]]) [http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018248.php Power Line blog] declared without basis, "It would be hard to come up with a group of lawyers and judges that would be more reassuring to conservatives in this regard."

== Further Reading ==

*About: Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11, 2006
*Rudy! An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, 2005
*The Prince of the City: Giuliani, New York and the Genius of American Life, by Fred Siegel, 2005
*Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, by Andrew Kirtzman, 2000

==References==
<references/>

{{2008_presidential_candidates}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Guiliani, Rudolph}}
[[Category:United States Mayors]]
[[Category:2008 Presidential Candidates]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]

Talk:Rudy Giuliani

2007-09-29T14:39:54Z

Sbowers3: Procedure to edit protected page?

{{protect|TK}}

This article appears to be in clear violation of the 6th commandment. The majority of the article is unsourced opinion. He is a lawyer. For this site's sake, shouldn't more care be taken to avoid libel? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:24, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

* I quite agree. I have removed the unsourced material, personal opinion, and added a complete, fair and ''accurate'' page. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 21:35, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

----

== User Mageoflulz/Eljoe ==

Just added "cross-dressing" to the list of Giuliani's hobbies. He should be removed as a user. I have reverted it. --Terry 01:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*User Mageoflutz just removed the post above....doesn't seem to understand the history is saved, even if he deletes it, lol. --[[User:TK|Terry]] 02:13, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Same user, vandalized the page, using user name: Eljoe, to read:'''

Personal

Giuliani's sexuality is often a topic in the press and at times his sexuality is questioned. The Catholic Church annuled Giuliani's first marriage between he and his then wife, Regina Peruggi, because Giuliani discovered that they were in fact second cousins. While he and his second wife Donna Hanover were separated he moved out of Gracie Mansion and moved in with two gay friends. Guiuliani has appeared several times dressed as a woman at public events. He appeared in drag in an episode of "Queer As Folk." He also wore a blond wig and pink dress for the 1997 Inner Circle dinner in New York. He then appeared again on national television on "Saturday Night Live" cross dressing. [http://www.planetout.com/news/article.html?2001/10/19/3]

:*User as Eljoe, just reposted the paragraph above. Reverted it. --[[User:TK|TK]] 02:30, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::*User Eljoe reposted the above paragraph once again. --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

'''Reply''' Giuliani's cross dressing is of importance to voters that might plan on choosing him as the next President, particularly if family values and moral behavior are important to you. I cited my addition as well. What is the problem with this?

:::* Why would you revert the post about how Giuliani married his second cousin? It is a fact that he married his second cousin. TK you should stop trying to make this site less credible. Correct information should not be deleted.

*This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service. You will be banned soon, so warm up your other logins. LOL--[[User:TK|TK]] 03:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::We put facts, not opinions, not judgements, not gossip on these pages. TK, I copied your message to Aschlafly on to the Conservapedia:Abuse page. It'll be replied to faster there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

None of what I added is gossip. It is a fact he was married to his second cousin. It is a fact he moved in with two of his gay friends. It is a fact he appeared on television dressed in women's clothes. And how one presents himself to the public and the world is incredibly important when serving public office.

::*Myk, I had already added a section on Andrews page. ;-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 04:08, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I know... don't bother Andrew with all that... he's got enough to deal with. Hold up on the edits here for a sec... I'm going to reformat it. Not mucking with content, just making it encyclopedic. We edit conflicted and I lost it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Removed section ==

Removed line "he was hailed around the world as "America's Mayor,"" this is an unverifiable fact. It may be a quote from a single newspaper article but hardly a consscensous from around the world.

*Please do not edit if you are unaware of the facts. Please also sign your posts. He has been hailed as "America's Mayor" in almost every publication, newspapers, all major networks, including Fox and CNN. A person would have to be disingenuous or have lived in a total vacuum not to be aware of that. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Formating==
Now it looks more like an encyclopedia article and the format is at least similar to the McCain article. It's still slightly POVish... Giuliani does have some political warts, after all but it's looking much better. Nice job with the content, TK. If you want to help, I'm going to try to do some of the other Republican candidates tomorrow (this is conservapedia after all) before moving on to the Democrats (full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 04:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*'' "full disclosure.. I'm a Democrat"''... Well, good luck with your choices, lol. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:27, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Comedy Skits ==

"This is an encyclopedia, not the gossip columns. Ronald Reagan, Bush 41, and many others have dressed in drag for comedy skits, same as Giuliani, and it is not important to their record of public service."

::I was thinking about that comment and I have to agree that this is suppose to be an encylopedia and encyclopedias do not focus on one aspect of a person's life so it would not be appropriate to limit topics on Giuliani to simply his "record of public service". So in the same way it is important to understand Reagan in the context of the Cold War it is within the scope of an encyclopedia to include the fact that he was an actor and liked jelly beans. So I am suggesting a Giuliani topic that would be "Comedy Skits" would that be more acceptable?

*It isn't germain at all. However since you seem hell-bent on trying to get it in, I have no problem with it, as I just re-edited it. To me, it makes him look better than if you had just agreed to leave it out. Please sign your responses! It saves the aggravation of skipping back to history to see who you are. --[[User:TK|TK]] 21:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== The entry is way too one-sided ==

This entry reads like a campaign brochure for Giuliani. I'm going to track down and reinsert some of the inappropriate edits that has made this so distorted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Rather than do that why not simply add some balancing material. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
*Goodness! Perhaps if you would respond to your email, or IM's sent to you, Andrew, stuff like this could be avoided, and there wouldn't be a need for you to publicly complain.....I'm a Newt man, and for the life of me, I don't see this article as pro or con Rudy. Could you be more specific? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 19:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

This is from wikipedia but would balance the entry. Alot about hie leadership after 9/11 is mentioned but this is a fair criticism:

Aftermath of Ground Zero recovery effort

In February 2007, the International Association of Fire Fighters issued a letter accusing Giuliani of "egregious acts" against the 343 fireman who had died in the September 11th attacks. The letter asserted that Giuliani rushed to conclude the recovery effort once gold and silver had been recovered from World Trade Center vaults and thereby prevented the remains of many victims from being recovered: "Mayor Giuliani's actions meant that fire fighters and citizens who perished would either remain buried at Ground Zero forever, with no closure for families, or be removed like garbage and deposited at the Fresh Kills Landfill," it said, adding: "Hundreds remained entombed in Ground Zero when Giuliani gave up on them." --- Eljoe

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/09/giuliani.firefighters.ap/index.html

Is is fair to balance a formal complaint by a union of 280,000 firefighters with a single letter from a retired firefighter? There's more text discrediting the union (who were the real heroes of the day) than there is describing their claims. And why mention that Giuliani is trying to discredit them as partisan? It makes him look like he's playing politics with their lives. --~[[user:RWest]] 10:27 24 July 2007

*User Aschlafly has posted that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information here, nor is it acceptable to cite it for work here. The complaints of a very few Firemen, as to if the Recovery effort was ended too soon, isn't a valid criticism, as it was predictable that there would always be some percentage that would think as they do, even if the Recovery effort lasted two years. PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS! --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 21:25, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Agree on the point in general about not using wikipedia, but the International Association of Fire Fighters is not a very small group of firemen. And I'll tell you, here in New York, this is a big deal. People are still finding remains down there. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 21:28, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes if you follow the CNN link the International Association of Fire Fighters is 280,000 members. It is a significant viewpoint of Giuliani's handling of 9/11--[[User:Eljoe|Eljoe]] 21:31, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*If one lives anywhere but NY, it isn't. 280,000 members for a "International" organization, isn't very large, gentlemen. If you are hell bent on adding that stuff, get the other side as well, and enter it in the same paragraph. Fair & Balanced like. I am not looking to paint him as Evil, and neither should anyone engaged in this project. For every story, there are at least two sides. On Fox News, I saw the story, the complaints about ending the Recovery effort. Do some research on major disasters, and see if NYC's recovery effort took less or more time than those...let's see you bring in what those who decided to end recovery say about those "charges". Then we will have something worth the space, and useful to those doing research. :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 22:04, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::That's what journalists do, not encyclopedists. For a man whose reputation is due in large part to his dealing with 9/11, criticism from first responders is a significant deal. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 22:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, encyclopedia's have an obligation to state facts. Charges by some group, any group, are not "facts". To my knowledge, what that fire fighters group is saying has not been proven factual by any board of inquiry or government body, correct? Are you suggesting that any and all allegations, made by anyone or any group should be included, that it is right to include such items, on the page of any person in this Conservapedia? Should, for example, the page about Ronald Reagan include speculation about his family? Should a page about Ted Kennedy include the speculations and charges of others about that girl who drowned when his car went off the road? --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:08, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::There are two issues here. One is that a very large union of firefighters is criticizing Giuliani on behalf of its members who served under him during the 9/11 terror attacks. That is news because it will impact his campaign and already did when he wasn't invited / didn't show up to address this union at an event where every major candidate was president. And yes, they are still finding remains in the ruin which verifies the claims of the firemen. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:18, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*So, now you are saying opposite of what you said above. Encyclopedia's are not newspapers. I understand Andrew's additions, as they are indeed factual, and germain but the fire fighters not inviting him to address them, which is why he didn't attend, and their feelings about the recovery effort is something to include, since he is a candidate, however it should be balanced with his side as well. Otherwise the entry just becomes a vehicle for people who dislike him to include all manner of things, and I think my comment about what is "fair game" is valid. Look in any other written encyclopedia, and see if opponents remarks are printed with some rebuttal included..... --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::How did I contradict myself? Encyclopedia's report facts, but I'm not going to investigate. To the best of my knowledge Giuliani's campaign had no comment on the subject. If you would like to balance the story by finding Giuliani's response to it, that will be a fine addition. But I don't feel compelled to include it. An association of firefighters is openly criticizing a presidential candidate over the very issue which is the foundation of his candidacy. That is a key constituency for him. If I had a dog in that hunt I'd be looking at something to balance it, but I don't. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 23:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, for a guy without a dog in the hunt, you are pretty worked up, and post lots of words, about including what you did, lol. It's all good. But I do wish you would be more concerned with a balanced presentation, no matter what your personal interest is. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::In case you didn't notice, I didn't actually add anything to the article. I just look it over to make sure it's got a source and that it looks pretty like. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

*No, I apologize, Mike, I didn't really check that well. I think the lines I added balance out the article. --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 02:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Military service ==

The fact that Giuliani received a deferrment is notable. The fact that he never served in the military is not. It could be justified in an electability section, but not in his early life section. Was he also not a Boy Scout? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:16, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The fact he did not serve in Vietnam is relevant to his "Early Career" particularly given the timiming.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:22, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Eljoe2, if you remove only a partial quote, as you did the portion about the fireman's union, you will earn yourself a time-out. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''It is neither notable, or unique, nor important to giving a description of his life. Hundreds of thousands received deferments from the draft for attending school or being in certain professions. This was something that was done by the Selective Service Administration. His draft lottery number in particular, isn't relevant. Not having served in the military (as I did) isn't something shameful or unique either. If you wish to skewer Rudy, do so the right way, by posting germain factual information about his public record as Mayor or a U.S. Attorney.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:25, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

As a person who is seeking the Presidency, the Commander in Chief of America's military, it is of significance to include in an encyclopedia that persons history of involvement or lack of involvement during in that military, particularly during a time of war.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:35, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::And people can figure out for themselves that he didn't serve by the fact that it is never mentioned that he ''did'' serve. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:38, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The quote I removed was from someone working on his campaign staff in regards to the Firefighters Union and John Kerry, that seems 1)Biased because of the source and 2) More fitting for John Kerry's entry. It should be removed.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If I recall correctly Dick Cheney had "other priorities" during the Vietnam War, getting multiple deferments in the process. Just an observation that may be taken into account here. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 00:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So Eljoe made a good point anyway... the source was from the Giuliani campaign. Note that the Union supports Democratic candidates, which it does, and leave the analysis portion out of it. And '''unlock the article.''' Just because people disagree with you is not a good reason to protect an article.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 00:49, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*'''Since the Union has a clear record of endorsing Democratic Party candidates, and in this case, endorsing Kerry way before he had locked up the primaries, their prior actions do indeed go to a pre-disposed bias, no? And it was quoted in Bloomberg as Rudy's response to the Union's open letter, therefore it is part of the record. Showing only the Union's charges, without allowing the other side's response, isn't fair, it isn't balanced. My IM is listed in the box of my talk page, feel free to use it. Until all the constant reverts, and removing of partial quotes ends, either someone is being suspended, or it will stay locked for tonight.''' --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 00:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, it is not clear that the Union has a record of endorsing democrats, the artcle provides the single example. In addition the linked reference actually then describes the political makeup as "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent, according to union spokesman Jeff Zack." --[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 00:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Dude, you are abusing your power as a sysop. I have presented multiple compromises and alternative ways to phrase it to present a neutral POV. I'm not going to IM you because I'm not going to give you my IM address. You seem to feel the need to bold your comments as if this will make them more important. It won't. And how can the constant reverts and edits change if it's locked? This is a wiki. If conservapedia turns into a top-down power structure, it will paint a very bad picture of conservatives. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:00, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*Well, something more than idealogy must be driving you, Myk. I didn't ask for you to IM me, I said, you could avail yourself of it. If it is that important, I can agree a simple sentence, "RG did not serve in the Military, and was given an occupational deferment by Selective Service." would be fair. The rebuttal to the Union, as quoted by Bloomberg should stay. Far enough? If not, we can leave it locked, and you two can cry to Andrew, if you haven't already, lol. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Errr... isn't that what we had after eljoe reposted it? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::And yes, something more than ideology is bothering me. List the facts, avoid speculation, let people find their own truth. Did Giuliani receive a deferment? Yes. Did he serve in the military? No... but people are smart and when they see no military record and the fact that he received a deferment, they'll figure it out? Was he rebuked by a firefighter's union? Yes. Does that union have a Democratic trend? Also, yes. Reporting the speculation of a Giuliani employee as to the possible motivations of rebuke, however, is not encyclopedic, even if it is reported by Bloomberg news. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

*The article now notes he did not serve in the Military, and the portion of his reply to the union, speculating on its political motivation is removed, allowing the readers to decide. Now, all of your issues seem to have been dealt with. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:24, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Just a note: We have an IRC channel set up on irc.freenode.net #conservapedia to allow real time...discussions. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 01:02, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wish I could, Cracker...don't have the IRC application, and it isn't allowed, anyway, on my work server, due to Govt. security rules. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:08, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

If information about the Union is to be included to show that it is biased towards democrats than more information on that bias should be presented. Their support of John Kerry is not enough. Providing an official record of who they backed since their creation would show that. This article does not. If you want to show their political makeup include the quote from the same source I posted above.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:13, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== ralling point. ==

First paragraph. You mean rallying. --[[User:Lohengrin|Lohengrin]] 01:26, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Wasn't my copy! I fixed it. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

The part about the Union bias is still a direct statement from Giuliani's camapign staff. That is spin, not a fact. A fact is the political makeup of the Union as in the quote from the same article "About 42 percent of IAFF members are Republican, 40 percent Democratic and the rest independent..." or that the Union has endorsed the Democratic candidate for President in the past two election cycles.--[[User:Eljoe2|Eljoe2]] 01:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, read the article. It said Rudy's response was....: and given by his campaign office, which is all he has, since he is no longer Mayor, eh? Would you prefer to change it, remove the response and add that the Union has endorsed Democratic candidates the last two election cycles for President? --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 01:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
==picture==
[[Image:Rudy Giuliani.jpg|right|thumb]]

== Procedure to edit protected page? ==

What is the process for making corrections/additions to protected pages such as the Rudy article? Here's one simple example. There is bad grammar in the September 11 errorist attacks section:
<blockquote>
A week after the 9/11 attacks and has been on almost every short list of Republican contenders ever since.
</blockquote>
That is not a sentence and I'm not even sure what it was supposed to say. I think there are other passages that could use copyediting. There might also be places with more substance that could be improved.

I recognize that vandalism is a problem but there must be a mechanism for making improvements in spite of protection. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 10:39, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Robin Hood

2007-09-29T14:12:47Z

Sbowers3: NOT a socialist

Ed Poor, why did you delete my revision of this page, was there something wrong with it, and if so, what exactly? {{unsigned|Graham}}

==Not a socialist at all==

The question above by Graham segues nicely into my own thoughts. Here is Graham's revision:
<blockquote>
Robin was a heartless socialist, taking the wealth of the rich and redistributing it among the lazy poor. He also had scant regard for law and order, constantly undermining the statutes and the common law system prevalent under Medieval England.
</blockquote>

I've long thought that the phrase "stole from the rich to give to the poor" was inaccurate. I'd say that he stole from the tax collectors to give back to the tax payers. Or perhaps that he stole back from those who stole in the first place, then he returned the stolen goods to the victims. In the modern telling, there were wealthy people from whom Robin Hood did not steal. Those wealthy people had earned their wealth and were entitled to it. But some wealthy people, e.g Prince John and the Sheriff of Nottingham, used their power to tax, i.e. to steal, from hard working peasants who were unable to protect themselves. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 10:12, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?

2007-09-29T13:37:19Z

Sbowers3: The Constitution DOES allow public display of the 10 Commandments

{{debate-politics}}

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." - United States Constitution
----------------------
Amendments can be amended. The fact that we can all legally enjoy a beer is proof (except for you college freshmen and sophomores in New York State)
:::<s>Spoken like a true person-who-has-recently-attained-the-age-of-majority! Me, I can legally ''consume'' a beer. But enjoy? After years of bracing myself, swallowing the stuff, trying hard not to wince, and learning to say "Ahhh! That hit the spot" as if I meant it, I finally concluded that I don't actually ''like'' the taste of spoiled yeast dying in its own waste products. (Now, milk overgrown with lactobacillus acidophilus bacteria? Mmmm, good. A burned slab of mangled muscle tissue from an immature castrated cow? Yes, and give me fries with that.) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:36, 24 March 2007 (EDT)</s>
:::Yikes! I just found out that Andrew Schlafly's mother's nephew—would that be a second cousin?—Tom Schlafly, runs [http://www.schlafly.com/faq.shtml Schlafly Beer], a craft brewery in St. Louis, that even brews [http://www.schlafly.com/beers.shtml beer made from sorghum]. I guess I'd better stop making negative comments about beer, huh? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well actually the example here is misleading. Prohibition wasn't amended, it was repealed. Amendments aren't amended, the constitution is. The bill of rights is not going to change. It is the moral fabric of our constitution. Separation of church and state was made as a result of the religious persecution of christian sects in England. There is no need for a secular government to display any religious paraphernalia of any kind.
:By the way, by "public" I assume this article means government buildings and property as "public", and not public demonstrations by private citizens.
:Furthermore, the role of the 10 commandments for christians is clear: Jesus fulfilled the law. He also gave us the sum-total of the commandments, love your God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as you love yourself. The whole idea of erecting stone monuments of a book is a bit cultish anyway, bordering on a violation of the commandment prohibiting engraven images. [[User:Teji|Teji]] 00:37, 5 April 2007 (EDT)
-----------------------

Seperation of church and state is not in the constitution; it perfectly constitutional to allow a public display of the ten commandments. In fact, if one takes the constitution at its word rather than twisting it (probably by calling it an "evolving document"), it is '''''UN'''''constitutional for congress to prohibit any public display of religion.
--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 21:19, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Nobody is suggesting that displays of the 10 Commandments by private individuals should not be allowed. The issue is whether any branch of the Government should allow the public display of religious documents for the express purpose of encouraging their acceptance. Specifically, allowing a judge to display the protestant version of the 10 commandments (there are differences between different Christian sects) and to imply he is using them to superceede the actual laws of the country.

:Surely it depends on the context: what message the people who placed the display meant to send, what message is perceived by those who view it.

:Do you think it would be constitutionally protected free speech for a judge to have a huge swastika in his courtroom, with the explanation that it is a Hindu religious symbol? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:19, 17 January 2007 (EST)

::This is silly because you are conflating the judge in his roles as a private citizen and public servant. In a courtroom, which is a public building, there is separation of church and state, no religious paraphernalia allowed. But in his private life, he can practice any religion he wants.

'''Reply:''' Despite your straw man, I will answer that, yes, it would be protected. Perhaps the judge who has the swastika should never have been approved as judge, or perhaps there may even be good grounds to impeach him, yet his swastika should not be removed under the excuse that it is religious symbol; that would be unconstitutional. Fortunately I think that there is little chance of this ever being a problem.

:Well, I think that the legal situation here, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, let alone a constitutional scholar, '''must surely depend''' on what is in the judge's heart. If the judge is, in his heart, a Hindu, and has put the swastika up for the purpose of expressing his Hinduism, then it is sending a ''religious'' message. But what if the judge is not really a Hindu at all, but is actually a Nazi, and has put it up to send a ''political'' message and is just pretending that it is a religious message? Is it the same situation?

:Although I used the phrase "free speech" and you might be right: it might be protected regardless of whether it is "really" a Hindu or Nazi symbol, and in both cases the ''speech'' might be protected, but that would not necessarily make the judge immune from consequences. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:59, 18 January 2007 (EST)

::Guys, the question is a trick. The judge does not have control over his courtroom above the constitution. Suppose he also wanted to put a French flag in the courtroom, can he do that? Of course not. The courtroom is not his private property; he is a public servant working in a public building under the regulation of a government that is separate from the church.

What message do you think that the ten commandments send, and what message would be perceived by the viewers?

--[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 20:36, 17 January 2007 (EST)

:'''It depends.''' In the case of the monuments funded by Cecil B. DeMille, for example, it was at least partially a commercial message.

:Even in the case of something like the Ten Commandments, which are part of the religious heritage of the vast majority of American citizens, there are opportunities for sectarian friction, since Protestants, Catholics, and Jews number the commandments differently. Incredible as it may seem, this was a real issue when the Eagles began placing these monuments in the 1950s. "It wasn’t until after a few of the monoliths were placed that some criticism surfaced because of the different versions of the Ten Commandments and their numbering. Changes were made after the first series of distributions regarding the numbering and the wording of the Ten Commandments based on the Interdenominational Public School Format of 1958. Some aeries still chose to keep the numbering system even after the change was offered."[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm] [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:38, 17 January 2007 (EST)

*'''Comment''' Some resources for exploring this question include:
**[http://morallaw.org/ Foundation for Moral Law], Judge Roy Moore's organization and website, "Defending our Inalienable Right to Publicly Acknowledge God."
**[http://www.judicial.state.al.us/documents/final.pdf Court decision] removing Moore from office (which states "Indeed, we recognize that the acknowledgment of God is very much a vital part of the public and private fabric of our country")
**[http://www.religioustolerance.org/hoffman01.htm The real history of the Ten Commandments project] Website about the partnership between Cecil B. DeMille and the Fraternal Order of Eagles, which placed many Ten Commandments monuments in public places
**[http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/index.html ACLU's website] explaining their viewpoint on Ten Commandments cases: "A Christian cross that is fully visible from a public sidewalk is constitutionally protected when placed in front of a church. But if that same cross were moved across the street and placed in front of city hall, it would violate the Constitution." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 16:42, 18 January 2007 (EST)

*The ACLU is clearly wrong on this one. The first Amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religeon. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:28, 18 January 2007 (EST)
**Perhaps the ACLU is wrong, but I doubt that they are "''clearly''" wrong. If the issue were clear, it would not be controversial. Since the ACLU has won some of these cases, some judges must have thought some cases of this kind were not "clear." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 07:32, 21 January 2007 (EST)

'''Reply:''' I don't quite agree with your argument. The ACLU has an agenga; they are trying to remove religious symbols from public display. Despite the fact that allowing a public display of the 10 commandments '''''is''''' clearly protected by the constitution, the ACLU ''still'' fights it because it is against their agenda. This is why (I believe at any rate) that people call the constitution an "evolving document" and why the 1st ammendment is re-interpreted "eperation of church and state"; The only hope for the ACLU is to '''''reduce''''' clarity.

::: Tim, I'm a bit confused by your logic. You state that "regulation of the display of the 10 commandments is unconstitutional because it is a prohibition of the free exercise of religeon." This isn't an issue of congress passing a law prohibiting the display but an issue of whether government officials can have such displays and if so under what circumstances. It isn't at all clear to me what that has to do with congress passing regulations. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:03, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::: The only way to prohibit displays of the 10 commandments would be for congress to make a law against them. This is prohibited by the free exercise clause: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [Of Religion.]" The only reason ever given for prohibiting government officials from having displays of the 10 commandments is that it violates the establishment clause of the first ammendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." There is nothing in the establishment clause that prohibits officials from having displays. People say that there is a "Seperation of Church and State," in the first ammendment, but that is not true. The establishment clause was put in to prevent the government from establishing a state religion. (like the Church of England) --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 15:28, 7 February 2007 (EST)

REPLY: We need to be clear, that although the Constitution does not use the PHRASE "Separation of Church and State," it may contain the IDEA. The writings of Thomas Jefferson (Letter to the Danbury Baptists) and of James Madison, in particular, indicate that a separation of Church and State is EXACTLY what was intended by the 1st Amendment.

::::::People also say there's "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" in the Constitution, but gosh darn it, I can't seem to find those words anywhere! Does that mean that those, too, are invalid? A public display of the 10 Commandments, on public/government property, is a violation of the 1st Amendment in that it implies that one religion (in this case any one of a number of Christian denominations) is endorsed and valued more highly than any other by government. Government should remain neutral to religion, and the 10 Commandments are certainly not a religiously neutral document.

:::: Ok, so let me see if I understand your argument. You are dismissing out of hand the actual logic used in all cases by the courts where they have struck down such displays and therefore think that the only relevant case is if congress prohibited it? Am I following you correctly? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:47, 7 February 2007 (EST)

::::'''Reply''' I am saying that the "Seperation of Church and State" is not Found in the Constitution, therefore 10 commandments displays cannot be banned based on it, and any court ruling contrary to that is not following the constitution. And the only way to properly ban it (that I can think of)would be an act of congress, and that is prohibited by the free exercise clause. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 16:58, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::::: Point- since the entire argument revolves around whether or not there is an establishment clause problem, it might be best to focus on that issue. Also note that one doesn't need a "Seperation of Church and State" to consider the placement of a 10 commandments to be an establishment of religion (note that not even everyone agrees how to split them up. As far as I can tell there are three major divisions, Catholic, Protestant and Jewish (although some Protestants use the Jewish division, and some Protestants(Anglicans?) use the Catholic division). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:37, 7 February 2007 (EST)

The Establishment clause is very clear, and it does not prohibit government officials free exercise of religion. The division of the commandments is irrelevant to this debate. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 19:26, 7 February 2007 (EST)
::You're right, it doesn't prohibit government officials the free exercise of their religion. It does, however, prohibit governmental endorsement of any religion, which would be implicit in the placement of such a monument on public/government property.

:It's not quite irrelevant, because it means that even though the Ten Commandments are common to Catholics, Protestants, and Jews, any particular public display of them ''in which they are numbered one through ten'' is identifiable as being the Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish "version." How many people are aware of this, or how important it is, I don't really know. But I'll bet a nickel that Judge Roy Moore ''is'' aware of this, and that his monument uses the Protestant numbering. (I haven't checked yet...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:40, 7 February 2007 (EST)

:I finally found a largish image of Moore's monument[http://www.retakingamerica.com/ten_commandments_001.html]... and, not to my surprise, see that he uses the Protestant numbering. (Unless you count "I am the Lord thy God in which case he has eleven commandments...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:16, 19 February 2007 (EST)

:But really, the interesting question is: why are people making such a fuss about this? I have the feeling that neither side is being candid about their motivation.

:If Judge Roy Moore (or anyone else) wants to acknowledge God, he can do so with his actions and with the conduct of his life... I don't know why he needs a ton of stone to do it. If I felt that the only message people intended to send by a display of the Ten Commandments was that they personally oppose murder, adultery, profane language, and Sunday shopping, I don't think I would see any harm in it.

:On the other hand, I don't really think I really equate a public display of the Ten Commandments, with a legal requirement that, as a condition of employment, every government official and university professor must subscribe to the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:49, 7 February 2007 (EST)

== Freedom of religion ==

[[User:Phist|Phist]]I have no problem with someone putting up a massive banner with the 10 Commandments on it all over their house or workplace, but you have to be prepared for your next door neighbor putting up an equally massive banner with satanic slogans on it. The USA does not have a state religion, and as such if you allow public displays of one religion's tenants you must extend that to all religions. So if you're prepared to see Islamic, Buddist, Hindu, CoS(Church of Satan), Athiest, Shamanistic and Nihilistic banners too, go ahead and put up those commandments.

:The moral values of Western culture aren't based of Satanic, Animist, and Shamanistic ideals. They are based directly off of what is described on the Ten Commandments. It's not a religious point; It's a historical one, because the entire justice system is based off of it. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:59, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::Unfortunately, we're still not allowed to make laws outlawing religious displays just because they're for a false religion. For soem fool reason, the Founding Fathers didn't make Christianity the State Religion of the US, so if the courts allow the 10 Commandments, they HAVE to allow everyone to put up their 'holy' laws as well. Do you want YOUR kids reading quotes from the Satanic Bible in school? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:49, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:::That might have something to do with the fact that there was not then and is not now any one religion called 'Christianity'. Catholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Lutherans all come readily to mind. So also do the Quakers, the Puritans. Today the number of different branches of Christianity is even greater. Which one should be the official religion of America and why? [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:29, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I think you missed the point of my statement; the Ten Commandments could easily be considered as historical artifacts, because of the significant impact that they have had on American society as a whole for over 2,000 years. I doubt that The Satanic Bible, The Qu'ran, etc. have had anywhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:53, 11 March 2007 (EST)

::::The second largest religion in the world is Islam. It seems that the Koran has had somewhere near the cultural and political impact of the Ten Commandments - especially given that the Ten Commandments had a couple thousand years' head start to make its impact. --[[User:FPiaco|FPiaco]] 16:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Western'' culture; The Qu'ran didn't have the impact on ''Western'' culture like the Bible did. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:32, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::By your reasoning then [[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']] the public schools could teach history OF the Bible. I don't think that's likely to happen. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 14:37, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Public schools ''can'' and ''do'' teach the ''history'' of the Bible, in ''history'' class. The curriculum I am familiar with (Washington State) has a 2-week high school freshman course on the ''history'' of Biblical times, Jesus's life, etc. As a historical, literary object, the Bible is extremely important. Just like the ten Commandments have significant historical impact. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 14:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CrimesoftheLemon:

Absolutely not. It's a clear breach of the 1st Amendment.

HUH? im from washington state...i dont remember that course at all.... I do vaugly remember
that there was one paragrah on Jesus in our history books but it didnt call him messiah.
which town are you from?
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:49, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==Shouldn't the title be...==
*'''Are''' public displays of the Ten Commandments allowed under the constitution?

or

*Does the Constitution '''ever''' prohibit public displays of the Ten Commandments?

As it reads now, it seems to be asserting that the Constitution does not allow public displays of the Ten Commandments, and the debate is whether or not it should (presumably by amendment). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:26, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Don't the first and second commandments contradict the American constitution? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:03, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

::I agree that the title is misleading. The word "public" is the problem. As worded, it seems to ask if a display "visible to the public" should be allowed (which, ''of course'', it is!). The question I believe it ''means'' to ask is whether the 10C's can be displayed on ''public property'' - which they can be, and are - when they are presented in historical context (cf. the frieze on the Supreme Court). It is when they are presented in the context of the processes of government, especially presented alone, that the issue gets contentious. So the lesson I see here for people posting debate topics is to be very careful about wording so the question is clear and unambiguous. Which can sometimes be very challenging! [[User:Human|Human]] 16:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well its clear that some people dont want ANY displays of the 10 commandments, what it comes
down to is if a teacher puts up the 10 commandments on a wall in thier classroom is that an
"establishment" of Christianity of is it "free exercise thereof". Now if the Teacher wanted
to wear a T-shirt that had the 10 commandments to me thats "free exercise thereof" and there
is nothing the gov't can do..however if she were to post it on the wall of a gov't building
it might be construed as "establishing" Christianity as far as the gov't is concerned and probably
shouldnt be allowed. One might note though other relgions namely islams 5 laws? may be posted on
gov't property under the lame excuse of "historical reference".
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:59, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

==The Constitution DOES allow the public display of the 10 Commandments==

For 200 years the Constitution allowed the display of the 10 Commandments on public property. The Supreme Court building itself has a representation of the 10 Commandments engraved on it. The Constitution has not changed since that time. What has changed is the interpretation of the Constitution by unelected federal judges and justices.

The Constitution still allows display of the 10 Commandments. Sadly the interpretation of the Constitution currently enforced by our government does not allow their display.

The courts won't allow the 10 Commandments, but they will allow a crucifix in a bowl of urine. They will protect anti-religious "art" in the name of freedom of speech. If the First Amendment did not mention religion, then freedom of speech would allow display of the 10 Commandments. The religion clauses of the First Amendment were intended to allow even more freedom for religious expression, but courts have interpreted them to provide less protection for religious symbols than for ordinary speech. The courts have twisted the religion clauses to protect people from religion, rather than to protect religion from government.

The Constitution should be interpreted - as it long was - as allowing religious expression in the public arena and preventing the government from interfering with religion. [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:37, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?

2007-09-29T13:19:41Z

Sbowers3: People who work aren't the problem

==Yes==
Is one civilization responsible for the well being of another civilization?
Is an influx of uneducated people into your country beneficial to your country?

In my humble opinion, in terms of whats best for the country, I would say no to both questions.
: Seekcommon has made a number of interesting points, but he/she is simply wrong. The FBI arrested several men who were plotting to kill american soldiers, many were illegal and in the US for several years. It is imperative that the FEDS go all out to round up all illegals and deport them to whereever they came from. What the heck, they have broken the law anyway and contribute nothing to this society of law abiding and God fearing citizens. [[User:dninsafbicia]]

==No==
Legal immigration control is the answer to illegal immigration. That way people will know what is legal and illegal. Legal=civility while illegal=jail time.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 12:40, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

: I agree. It is time that the White man who killed the original inhabitants of the country we call the US of A should leave. Christopher Columbus thought he had reached India when he did not and he allowed for the killings that followed. More recently, so many Irish came to the US, many illegally, we should demand proof that they are here legally. Every one who was not born of parents who were not here on this land originally ought to be asked to demand proof that they belong here and are not here illegally. Great idea. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::Well, that is what is called racism. It has nothing to do with immigrating from one sovereign country to another in a legal means by todays standards of civilization. But let us go farther back in time when succesive waves of people "immigrated" to the Americas. Each one killing their way across the continents until they became the dominant culture. If you can go back far enough to find the first person to inhabit the Americas then it won't mean nothing since they probably no longer exist. But their ancestors weren't originally born here either if you go back far enough. So how about putting a clamp on the racism?--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:25, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::: I see "racism" in the current vitriol being thrown at "illegal" immigration, yes, "illegal". The fact is that, "illegal" immigration happens because we have a flawed/inhumane "legal" immigration policy. Today's immigrants (legal and illegal) are very different from the ones that came in the early 20th century/late 19th century. The fact is that without the illegals, much of our economy will crawl. Using the pretext of "illegal" immigration, demagogues like Lou Dobbs of CNN unload on "legal" immigration - issues of H-1 visas for technical people and such - claiming that "such immigrants" take jobs away from "natives". Rubbish, says that most radical of all newspapers, The Wall Street Journal. [[User:Seekcommon] PS - My comments about the white man and such were, obviously meant to make a point that we are ALL immigrants and many came illegally. Inspite of all this, I have always believed that of ALL countries in the world, the US of A remains the most humane and welcoming of ALL foreigners, immigrants - Let's keep it that way, is what I hope we do. [[User:Seekcommon]]

::No, illegal immigrants aren't "helping" the economy. The exploitation of illegal immigrants is the slave mentality. Just as on the cotton plantations of the 19th century, today we have the idea of businesses exploiting illegal immigrants for their own profit. You are right about the existance of flawed policy. That we have sanctuary cities and towns that protect criminal business practices who exploit cheap labor. All about the money, right? They don't lose their business or go to jail even if their under paid workers are rounded up and deported. There are always plenty of American citizens in line to replace them. But if you were given the choice of paying someone five bucks an hour or fifteen bucks then the decision is simple. I've also noticed that only those that don't see a problem with the illegal exploitation of illegal aliens are always screaming about racism. The flawed/inhumane legal immigration policy of the United States allows the "legal" immigration of more people then any other country on the planet. Perhaps the real answer to illegal immigration would be throwing American Citizens in jail for the inhumane monetary exploitation of their fellow human beings. Until that happens, people will immigrate illegally to work as cheap labor.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 15:58, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

::: The fundamental reason our country, the US of A is a magnet for the rest of the world is the simple fact that each person has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. By any measure, we have benefited enormously by both legal AND illegal immigration, I know you disagree. Fine. The workers who are "exploited" are still better off than they would have been in their own country (yes, that includes legal AND illegal immigrants). In fact what is happening is that because the world is slowly trying to catch up to the US and as more opportunities are made available to people in those countries, there is less and less interest and pressure for many to emigrate from their native lands and immigrate to the US - these trends are evident in Higher Education, for sure. Unlike other countries, we are dynamic - people who are laid off, do find other ways to survive/thrive. Yes, many are hurt irreversibly and never recover. No system is perfect, what we have in the US comes close. Adam Smith explained it best - supply and demand. It is OUR demand for goods/services and OUR refusal to pay any more than what we WANT to pay that results in producers trying to find ways to reduce their costs and OUR costs. Yes, the producers DO MAKE money by using cheap labor, but millions of people do have jobs and do very well. No matter what I say or write (or what the Wall Street Journal writes), you will hold steadfast to your view that "illegal" immigration hurts us all and does not help the economy. I disagree. You can make a difference. Stop shopping at Walmart, do not buy a car or a computer or a shirt or a pant that is NOT made in the US A and before you buy anything, ask if the people who made them were paid a "decent wage" and were "not exploited" or whatever. [[User:Seekcommon]]

Apparently illegal border crossings have slowed by more than 10% this year according to a report cited by the Wall Street Journal, today May 2, 2007.
But instead of rigorous enforcement as many would have us believe, this reflects supply and demand, again according to the Wall Street Journal. The slump in the housing market is cited as the main reason as to why fewer illegals are crossing the border and it indicates, again as the Wall Street Journal reports, that immigrants come here to work and not idle and collect welfare. I should add they work and improve OUR standard of living while accepting jobs that go abegging. Many on our unemployed rolls are unwilling to take these jobs or perhaps do not even have those skills necessary or simply refuse because they can and sit and complain about illegal immigration or something else. I'd recommend that they complain to the Wall Street Journal and tell them that the Journal is being unpatriotic and UnAmerican. [[User:Seekcommon]]

: I seem to have some difficulty in providing a link to any interested reader. The article is at online.wsj.com/article/SB117807233027389126.html

I suppose I see immoral behavior anywhere when it comes to immigrants and their current status in the US (particularly Mexican, Chinese, Korean or other non-caucasian, non-white). Even for a litigious society like the US, this surely takes first prize - the story of a Judge that sues a dry cleaner for 65 million dollars - taking it out on immigrants who have done good I suppose.
[www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/25/AR2007042502763_pf.html Here is the article by Marc Fisher] I am curious as to what the position (if any) of the conservatives on this board about whether of not the law suit has any merit. And why there has been no significant outcry - Could it be because the affected party is not white or black? Where is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton when working people like the Cheungs are being victimized by the system? Or does it have to do something about the race and color of the affected parties and the one that is doing the suing? No, I do not know if the Most Eminent Judge Pearson is black or white - BUT I can guess He is black since nary a word from Jackson or Sharpton. Replace black with "African American" if it offends and I am aware that certain words are to be used only by certain people at certain times under certain conditions after getting permission from Jackson and Sharpton. [[User:Seekcommon]]
: The Most Honorable Judge Pearson is an African American, there was a video. Now it makes perfect sense as to why Jackson and Sharpton are not protecting the cleaners against this blatant racist, anti-immigrant fervor of an officer of the Court in these United States of America - after all, he is one of them and so cannot be bad. Shame on the establishment for allowing such obvious attempts at persecuting hard working immigrants. I can only imagine the treatment meted out to the poor illegals that cross the border to find work and take jobs that others refuse to take [[User:Seekcommon]]

These jobs that americans won't take are a myth. There is no such thing. What is really happening is they are taking jobs at a salary lower than that which americans will take, and in most cases lower than americans are allowed to take due to minimum wage. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] [[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]] 09:30, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

==British point of view==
So far this debate has been US-centred, but we have immigration problems of a different kind in the [[United Kingdom]]. Let me say that I believe, in principle, in the value of immigrants to a society, both economically and socially. But our problem is that our country's immigration policies are inadequately enforced by an incompetent bureaucracy. At present, people may be living in the UK and waiting for up to 5 years before the [[Home Office]] processes their application for indefinite leave to remain, or for asylum status. They're in a sort of limbo - they don't have the proper documentation, so they find it hard to get a job, so they can't contribute to society. This isn't the immigrants' fault - it's the incompetence of our [[Labour Party|Labour]] government, who have simply failed in their duty to provide a system that works. Not to mention, we're now getting mass immigration from Eastern Europe due to those countries joining the [[European Union]]. This isn't a bad thing in itself, but we've had a few cases of people with criminal records entering the UK - and our immigration services don't even bother to check their background before letting them in. Once again, the Labour government failed to plan for the future. What a dismal record of failure. [[User:Palace1|Palace1]] 13:13, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

==Student POV==
I don't see why we have to reform American laws concerning immigrantion. Indeed our side of the fence has already solved the problem way back when. The reformation has to occur on the other side of the tortilla wall. If los presidentes of the latin nations would reform their own laws conserning work where people don't earn 10 bucks a day, then we wouldn't have a problem. Secondly, the people of those nations need a spine transplant. They need to learn that governments break with pressure. I hate tools who come into my country demanding that we change our laws. They need to go back and reform their country that they love oh so much. [[User:Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed]] June 25 2007

== OTHER ==

jez could you ask the question in a better format?

IMMIGRATION control is the answer to ILLEGAL immigration....

a country that doesnt have borders isnt much of a country....

--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 19:37, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

==People who work aren't the problem==
Illegal immigrants who come here and work hard and pay their bills aren't the problem. It's people who DON'T work who are the problem. As Milton Friedman said, you can't have open borders and a welfare state. Some number of illegal immigrants are a burden to society. They collect welfare, they occupy subsidized housing, they don't pay for their medical treatment, they get free education, reduced college tuition, etc. Americans are infuriated by those who are parasites on the taxpayers. The majority (?) of illegal immigrants are not burdens, they are contributors. They work hard, producing valuable goods and services. They pay their bills, they follow the rules (except for the obvious illegal immigration).

There is often a difference between immorality and illegality. The voluntary transaction between worker and employer is not inherently immoral but it is illegal if the immigrant is illegal. The involuntary transaction between welfare recipient and taxpayer is immoral but may be illegal.

We should invite into our country those who will be a positive contribution to our American society. We should deport those who are a burden on society.

(To those Conservapedia users who are not US citizens I apologize for writing with a US point of view. I am an American - for which I make no apologies.) [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 09:19, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fred Thompson

2007-09-29T12:51:22Z

Sbowers3: He has announced

{{Protected|TK}}

== Wikipedia Copying ==

Almost all of the changes made in the last 2 major edits by [[User:AmeriCan]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&diff=187117&oldid=186582][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&diff=200220&oldid=191930] were taken almost verbatim from the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&oldid=138717152 Fred Thompson Wikipedia article].

I am going to revert those edits to the last clean version I can find. I will try to preserve as many of the changes as possible that occurred between these 2 edits. --[[User:Brian|Brian]] 11:02, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you for catching this, and your help in restoring it, Brian! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 06:17, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

*Brian, you are out of your mind. The information I added primarily came from Thompson's own official biography on imwithfred.com, not Wikipedia. Yes, I added his first college and his parents names. That's not violating copyright, it's obviously encyclopedic info for a person's encyclopedia entry. OMG, what the heck is happening to Conservapedia! Has it been hijacked by the same nutjob crowd that runs Wikipedia. -- [[User:AmeriCan|AmeriCan]] 11:52, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

::If you don't believe me, just compare your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&diff=200220&oldid=191930#Actor Actor] section with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&oldid=138717152#Character_actor Character Actor] section from Wikipedia, the first 2 paragraphs of your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&diff=200220&oldid=191930#Attorney Attorney] section to the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&oldid=138717152#Attorney Attorney] section, and the majority of your [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&diff=200220&oldid=191930#Post_Senate Post Senate] additions with the Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fred_Thompson&oldid=138717152#After_the_Senate After the Senate] section.
::There are many more examples that I could list, but I trust other editors/sysops can make a determination for themselves. As for your claim, these examples are not in his [http://www.imwithfred.com/About.aspx official biography] at imwithfred.com, and even if they were, it would still be a copyright violation.--[[User:Brian|Brian]] 13:23, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

==Template adding/ Fred or all?==

Should this(http://www.conservapedia.com/Template:2008_presidential_candidates) presidential candidate template be added to this page?
Also, I'm not sure about this sentence in the article, "''Not a candidate for reelection in 2002 resumed acting career.''" Is it talking about Fred Thompson or all reelection candidates in 2002? Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:06, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*Tash, he should be added if and ''when'' he announces he is a candidate. I'll look at the sentence. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:00, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

Okay. Thanks!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:43, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion gets no mention?==

I was surprised to see that the abortion information which was mentioned in the Main Page note on his candidacy announcement isn't mentioned in the article on him? Isn't that strange? I would have thought it merits at least a line, especially consdiering the article mentions his other lobbying work from back then? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:19, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

== He has announced ==

It has been several weeks since he officially announced. I was going to add some information but the article is protected. Vandalism might be an even greater problem now than before. Is perhaps the way to handle it to draft a new page here on the talk page, then a sysop could add it to the article? [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 08:51, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany

2007-09-29T12:42:43Z

Sbowers3: Couldn't create account

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center></noinclude>
=General Messages=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Miscellany/Archive1|1]]

=="A small thing"==
A small thing...the article "River Trent" is unable to be edited because of a "spam filter". Um...what gives? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:24, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

I fixed it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Page Creation ==

Hello,

A few days ago a small group of us tried to create a page on a local conservative activist named J.R. Hedrick to have the page deleted. We read the guidelines and adjusted our page and were hoping we could ask the conservapedia staff to reconsider. We currently have the page wewantjr.homeip.net if you could take a few minutes check out the website see our reasoning and message and reconsider it would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or would like a shortened verstion of our reasoning feel free to email us at wewantjr@yahoo.com.

*Sorry, this is an encyclopedia, not Vanity Fair. For inclusion, one would have to be of national prominence, not a "local hero". Sorry. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 06:59, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

== Can't email other users ==

I try to email other users, I am logged in and I do have a valid email address in my preferences but it won't let me do it. What's up?

:Wismike, maybe the users you've tried to email haven't supplied an email address. When I went to your user page and clicked "Email this user", I got the following notice:
:*This user has not specified a valid e-mail address, or has chosen not to receive e-mail from other users.{{unsigned|Wismike}}

:You can send me a test e-mail if you want. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:08, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

*Users need to supply their email on the preference page in order to send emails to other users. Even if the other user has it enabled, you need to have done it as well. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:20, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== What's wrong with Ishi Press? ==

I can't put ishi press dot com as a ref for Woody Allen marrying his stepdaughter. Spam filter blocks it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:42, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

== Outages? ==

There seem to be times when the entire site is protected. What's going on? -[[User:Pipkin|Pipkin]] 16:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, indeed there is. Editing, except by those with special rights, is usually turned off over-night (generally 1:00AM to 6:00AM) East Coast United States time. This is due to the high degree of vandalism at the hands of [[deceit|deceitful]] Liberals. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:43, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Uncyclopedia]] and [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]] ==

I think these two articles serve no encyclopedic purpose whatsoever, and as written are basically nonsense and inccurate to general knowlege about their subjects. Also it is to note that the alternate spelling of [[Encyclopædia Dramatica]], [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]] has been salted. --[[User:WikiLeon|WikiLeon]] 20:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

*Your several posts about this has been noted. The articles will stay. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:48, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

== I may have found some nonesense. ==

I am here to report what might be vandalism. I'm not sure, but someone called User: Clavicle made an ususual edit on [[William Shakespeare]]. The edit was on the list of Shakespeare's historical plays. He wrote *[[Austin Kenn]] (1999). I happen to know about Shakespeare's histories and had never heard of the play before. I also knew that Shakespeare died in the 1600s not any period after 1999. This sounded fishy and later on (some months later) when I recieved no reply on the discussion page about this, I investigated. I found that this User: Clavicle had put the play in just in one edit (without putting it in any good order.) He didn't have a page for me to contact him about this, so I decided to try to report this unusual edit. I admit I'm wording it badly and akwardly, but I just thought I'd explain this small case. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 14:52, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:The user was already blocked for an unrelated offense. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:02, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

*Hopefully that vandalism has been removed? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:15, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I removed when I saw it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 13:28, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== Article Categorization ==

Many of the articles on accounting seem to be government accounting related. Nothing wrong with this, but I believe they should be in a different category, say, Government Accounting.

I would like to make this change, but, feel it would be impolite to simply make the change without contacting the author. However, I cannot seem to do so.

What is the right thing to do? Should I just create a new category (if I know how to do that) and make the changes?

*You go to my user page, find the link to my sandbox on categories, and plead your case to Azi. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 23:45, 3 September 2007 (EDT)

== Edit to page "gossip" ==

I made an edit to the [[gossip]] page, which has now been reverted. The nature of my edit was to clarify that although gossip is inherently negative, the fact is that the word has multiple connotations. The positive connotation: "gossip" can have a perfectly normal social context as innocuous chatter between groups of people who are interacting. The negative connotation: what was on the page before and now.

I'm used to seeing trollers blocked and edits reverted - most "permanent" edits are made by the sysops etc. But I take great personal offence when the sysop who reverted my edit, "BethanyS", flies off and says: "Don't go around trolling or I will personally block you from this site forever." I believe that to be completely injustified, absolutely insulting to my ideological position as a conservative (the implication being that I'm some sort of liberal who goes around Conservapedia making silly edits) and a baseless assault on my personal character without even considering the reasoning of my edit. [[User:Karalius Nyder|Karalius Nyder]] 09:27, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

== Before I even start posting! ==

I was an avid user in Wikipedia, (Quality) not edit warring and Spam.
Can I move my articles that I improved from Wikipedia?
I am conservative or Liberal, I just hate biased garbage and I am looking to focus mainly on history. (I could care less about politics and hypocrisy). I don't like politicians in general and I don't have a rpoblem with any race or religion.
Is this going to be a problem or should I go my own way, now before I waste my time?--[[User:Validquest|Validquest]] 15:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Couldn't create account ==

I tried to create an account but could not find a button to click to do that. I searched around and eventually found a FAQ that account creation was enabled only at certain times of day. It would be helpful if you put that notice right up front on the login/create account screen so people won't wonder why they can't find how to create an account [[User:Sbowers3|Sbowers3]] 08:42, 29 September 2007 (EDT)