From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Is Bill Maher really outspokenly socialist? I've never heard him talk about his socialism, but he's obviously pretty liberal. Outspokenly liberal, perhaps? HelpJazz 20:51, 22 September 2008 (EDT)

-Last time I checked, he was a libertarian. Not the same thing as a socialist, by a long shot. Bill Maher is outspoken in a lot of subjects. It doesn't make him a socialist. CodyH 22:49, 26 September 2008 (EDT)

He claims to be a libertarian, which is what got me to watch his show a few times. However, he's pretty anti-corpratist and economically liberal. A libertarian who's economically liberal is just a liberal. HelpJazz 23:21, 26 September 2008 (EDT)
Well then we should remain consistent because Bill Maher is called a socialist on his own article. Last I checked however, someone who favors gonverment interference in economic issues, to whatever degree, is a socialist. --Stirlatez 18:23, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
Yes, his article does say that... it probably needs changed as well. However, socialism is more than simply "favoring government interference in economic issues." HelpJazz 18:44, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

That picture!

It's really...erm...bad. Does anyone have a better photo of him? --St0dad 21:43, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Don't you get it? It's not meant to make him look good, it's meant to make him look stupid! Which he is! Like all liberals are! DRussthegreat 21:49, 11 November 2008 (EST)
Actually the picture is most likely a copyright violation. As far as I can tell fair use laws require the source of the image to be stated, which does not occur on the image page or within the article. Unless a source is given, or it is proven the picture is in the public domain, this picture must be removed from the article and deleted from the server. NormanS 21:55, 11 November 2008 (EST)

Merge with Maher article

This is to establish a discussion of a possible merge of this article with the Bill Maher general article, as suggested by Ed Poor. As to my stance on the matter, I think that the two articles should remain separate; Religulous is something Maher created, and should be listed on his article as one of his "achievements", but I don't think it should be completely incorporated into his article, to prevent clutter. See also the connection between Ben Stein and "Expelled!".--JZim 16:04, 22 November 2008 (EST)

  • Merge it HenryS 16:01, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Henry, I wanted to establish a discussion of the merge, not an affirmation of your view.--JZim 16:05, 22 November 2008 (EST)
  • Merge it You haven't even tried to open discussion, and your comment above borders on a personal attack. --Ed Poor Talk 16:08, 22 November 2008 (EST)
I don't like it gentlemen, but it is a movie, it was released in the theatres, and it had a regular run. Make sure it's not gloried and tell the truth of what it presents, but it is still a movie. Learn together 20:19, 22 November 2008 (EST)
Ed, I fail to see how my comment was a personal attack. I established in my first comment that what I want is a discussion. I also presented my view and my reasons for it, which is quite condusive to discussion. HenryS presented only his view, which I pointed out, and somehow pointing this out is a personal attack. You did the same thing Henry did, and in addition you accused me of being morally low. Thanks. Let's try to have a discussion, please.--JZim 19:46, 24 November 2008 (EST)
The film is not notable enough for its own article in an encyclopedia. HenryS 19:51, 24 November 2008 (EST)
Is it somehow more notable than Expelled? As far as I know, more people watched Religulous than Expelled, and also, Religulous was at the box office, is relevant to religious discussion here. It certainly was a notable film in its own right. Perhaps it was not as notable as, say, Batman, but in its class it was one of the most notable films of the last few years.--JZim 20:13, 24 November 2008 (EST)


"poorly done attempt"? How exactly is that not biaised, compared to wikipedia? DomB8 19:41, 17 August 2011 (EDT)