Changes

User talk:1990'sguy (view source)

Revision as of 02:18, October 4, 2019

433 bytes added , 02:18, October 4, 2019

no edit summary

Line 468: Line 468:

*@Northwest: this is the expected response.

*@1990's guy: this is ''not'' the response I expected. I'm chagrined that you think the article is of low quality. Especially since you know how to write high quality articles.

−

I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "~~social justice warriors~~ on the left". The latter term is straight out of ~~Huffington Post~~ and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an ~~SJW~~ to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

+

I'm serious. I was proud of that article as originally written/expanded by me. I thought it laid out the facts accurately, and avoided name-calling and such. Exactly like the March for Science article. Please look at the article (preferably the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pussy_Riot&oldid=1328015] version, before name-calling got put in) and fix it up as you see fit. The name-calling consisted, among other things, of saying that those people around the world who took an interest in the case were "elitists" and "pathetic whiners on the left". The latter term is straight out of Puff Horror and their ilk. It is a term of bleeding hearts in America, and not used widely elsewhere. In any case, one doesn't need to be an pathetic whiner to oppose murderous thug tyrant Vladimir Putin. In fact, given the recent falling out between President Trump and Putin, the accepted orthodoxy here at CP might be swinging away from support for the murderous thug. I hope so.

Please improve the article.

Line 588: Line 588:

:You're welcome, always happy to help! --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 08:58, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

==Nasty edit summaries==

−

Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news ~~reporters~~. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

+

Dear 1990sguy: Please stop writing inflammatory edit summaries. There is no need to make false personal attacks on other editors. As for Breitbart, each reference is evaluated individually on its own merits. If it is news reporting, I welcome it. However, some references are clearly opinion-editorial pieces that criticize other news stories instead of offering any independent news gathering. Some authors there are editorial-opinion writers rather than news democRATS with bylines. Also, when I check a source and see photos of immodestly dressed women with "wardrobe malfunction" captions or women wearing tight T-shirts imprinted with "no silicone", I am less inclined to use those sources, given our family-friendly approach. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 15:31, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

−

:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news ~~reporter~~ sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

+

:Conservapedia has no requirement that only news democRAT with bylines sources can be used for mews sources. For example, many excellent conservative editorial pieces link to a news story or quote a news story while providing excellent commentary.

−

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more ~~reporters~~ and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

+

:The mainstream press. which is very liberal, have a lot more democRATS with bylines and they still have some foreign bureaus if I am not mistaken. Then you have Fox which only has a fraction of the combined viewership of ABC, CBS, and NBC.

−

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have ~~reporters~~ is not a good policy.

+

:To be overly reliant on news sources merely from websites who have democRATS with bylines is not a good policy.

:Yes, there are conservative news organizations such as CNS News. But I don't think we should limit ourselves to merely using conservative news organizations as far as news sources.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:54, 28 June 2017 (EDT)

−

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at ~~CNN~~ or the NYT?

+

::I agree with Conservative on this. We can use conservative news sources, even if the articles appear to be editorializing. This is a conservative encyclopedia, after all. Why should we adopt editing policies that give liberal MSM sources an unfair advantage? How then can we differentiate ourselves from Wikipedia? I am not opposed to citing MSM sources (I do it myself), but we should give precedence to conservative sources, which do not have leftist bias. Yes, Breitbart has silly ads, but I care more about the content of the article than the ads. There are many Breitbart writers who support conservative, Christian pro-family policies. Are there any at Clinton News Network or the NYT?

::JDano, yes, my edit summaries were inflammatory. I probably should have acted cooler when dealing with you, and for that, I apologize. Your behavior, constantly reverting and adding changes that I genuinely believe to contain leftist bias without going to the talk page until you've been reverted several times, is not constructive. I do believe your changes are undermining our status as a conservative alternative to Wikipedia. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:50, 29 June 2017 (EDT)

Line 656: Line 656:

== Re: Trump ==

−

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the ~~Obama~~ administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

+

I think Donald Trump is going to get stuck with the blame for the economic bubble created by the Dumbo administration and the Federal Reserve.[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHwtkIpgAnA]

In addition, TrumpCare probably will not work because it is keeping the "precondition clause" of ObamaCare due to its popularity. People will often not buy health insurance until they are sick. So the health care system will not be viable. Car insurance companies could not be profitable if people could buy their car insurance after their car accident in order to replace their car. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:00, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

−

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the ~~Obama~~ Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

+

:You are probably right on both of those things. The first point would be the fault of the Dumbo Administration, and the second by the establishment GOP Congress. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:05, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

Got it, thanks for letting me know. --[[User:OneTrueConservative|OneTrueConservative]] ([[User talk:OneTrueConservative|talk]]) 00:12, 12 July 2017 (EDT)

Line 719: Line 719:

:::While I am a strong supporter of Israel, I do think that many Jewish organizations in Europe and the United States are politically left-wing -- unlike the current Israeli government. The fact that they opposed Höcke's speech is unsurprising, even if he is not a neo-Nazi. Most European/American Jews support the ruling establishment's views on who is extreme and who is "moderate." And besides, Jewish organizations have their own interests. It's reasonable for them to defend monuments mourning a genocide of their own people, regardless of whether having such a monument, or at least the mindset behind it, is a good thing or not.

−

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about ~~Obama~~ when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

+

:::It seems to me that you are making a jump from noting what Höcke is saying to calling him a neo-Nazi. A lot of what he is saying seems reasonable, even if it is better that he watches what he says more closely, and I don't see how these comments make them neo-Nazis (I do see, however, how such comments are far outside the current German mainstream, and that they make such parties less attractive to moderate Germans). It seems to me that Höcke is a nationalist who is angry at the culture of shame in his country, which is probably the reason why it is being flooded with immigrants and weakened by the EU. Many conservatives said silly things (that sounded extremely racist) about Dumbo when he was U.S. President, even though those people would have voted for conservative blacks (Ben Carson, Allen West, Herman Cain) or Hispanics (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz) in a heartbeat. Could it be that this is what Höcke is doing?

:::My last thing I want to say in this comment is not related to the above. I would like to remind you that CP is a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I think this policy also applies to talk pages. I request that you thus refrain from spelling out cuss words when making comments. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:35, 1 August 2017 (EDT)

Line 753: Line 753:

Thanks,

[[User:Bluedogdemocrat|Bluedogdemocrat]] ([[User talk:Bluedogdemocrat|talk]]) 22:59, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

−

:You could write "~~Planned Parenthood~~ eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

+

:You could write "Infancide R Us eventually expanded to support the form of murder known as abortion." Something like that. We should keep the wording encyclopedic, as this is not a blog or anything like that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:05, 18 August 2017 (EDT)

== Re: Block of TimJim ==

Line 775: Line 775:

== Maybe I was too pessimistic. Good news ==

−

'''Why [[~~Democrats~~]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-~~democrats~~-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

+

'''Why [[democRATS]] Should Be''' Losing Sleep Over Generation Z.[https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2017/08/11/why-RATS-should-be-losing-sleep-over-generation-z/]

Bye for now. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 23:47, 5 September 2017 (EDT)

Line 893: Line 893:

::I looked at your revisions and all you did was revert to your original article, with a few minor edits to try to convince me that you really took my suggestions into consideration. Basically what you did to the article is like putting wood filler and new paint on a house with termite rot. I've dealt with folks like you over on "the other site", who think that once they write an article, it's perfect and can't accept any changes to it. I'm not going to waste time with this one any more; clearly you're trying to espouse tinfoil hat conspiracy theory under the guise of "Christian conservatism". [[User:Quidam65|Quidam65]] ([[User talk:Quidam65|talk]]) 09:22, 31 January 2018 (EST)

:::Much of your changes involved inserting parenthetical notes, which I think made the article more bloated than it had to be. The "or are believed to control" phrase in the first sentence was simply unnecessary and overemphasized your disbelief in the deep state. The part about Wall Street was cited to a good research article, so I don't think we need the "is believed" language for that. But I will still see if I can incorporate more of your edits.

−

:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and ~~Democrats~~ hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.

+

:::About the existence of the deep state, it and the drive for one-world government are things that should be common and uncontroversial knowledge -- but people (both supporters and detractors) "conspiracize" these things and that's how accusations of me wearing a tinfoil hat come about. Look at the evidence -- most of our society (except theologically conservative Christians, most of them probably being premillennialist) accept the Idea of Progress, adopted during the Enlightenment Era. They believe that humanity is progressing for the better, and that this will lead to a one-world utopia with world peace and freedom for humanity (read Kant, for example). Thus, they believe that national identity, subsidiarity, and national sovereignty are growing useless and antiquated and actually are impediments to this utopia. This flows into their policies -- advancing international organizations, taking away national sovereignty, etc. As for the deep state, just look at the whole DOJ/FBI stuff going on right now, or the fact that Republicans and democRATS hire administration personnel from the same group of organizations -- CFR, Trilateral, etc.

:::The garbage that there is some secret conspiracy by liberals to take over the world, that their motives are malevolent, that they want to do evil, that this is a short-term project, and that the Illuminati is involved with all this -- this is all garbage perfectly fit for "the other site". In reality, the drive for a one-world utopia is one of the fundamental philosophical views in our culture, and liberals openly see it as natural/normal/benign (and they're in it for the long haul). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:04, 31 January 2018 (EST)

Line 1,022: Line 1,022:

== Left Wing Sources ==

−

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, ~~SPLC~~ might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat ~~SPLC~~ might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

+

Hi... I do not usually look at the political leanings... I cite sources which I am SURE state something that is verifiable... Though, Left Wing Liars might be left leaning, I am SURE they can get Richard Spencer's birth date right... So I cited as a source for his birth date... The RWW, was a YOUTUBE video, that is the one I found first, I don't cite them to support left leaning politics, just facts that are verifiable by ANY honest person... I repeat Left Wing Liars might be left, but I am sure they can get a BIRTH DATE correctly! So that is what I cited, but do as you please! --[[User:Kingdamian1|Kingdamian1]] ([[User talk:Kingdamian1|talk]]) 16:22, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

−

:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than ~~SPLC~~. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

+

:Surely, there are better sources that give Spencer's birthdate than Left Wing Liars. Also, those sources are not merely "left-leaning" (that designation more properly belongs to something like "The Atlantic") -- they are far-left partisan interest groups. They have no business being here. As a conservative encyclopedia, it makes sense to predominantly rely on conservative sources (or, at least, apolitical sources). --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:27, 28 April 2018 (EDT)

== Arguing With You ==

Line 1,090: Line 1,090:

Just in case (s)he makes another sock account, (s)he should know that campaign finance laws are unfair and D'Souza was directly targeted because of his unpopular opinions. Also, in the case of Roy Moore, there is only accusations and hearsay. That troll must also ignore the things that Leftist politicians did:

−

Bill Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

+

Bill "Serial Rapist" Clinton: raped, molested and abused several women.

−

Hillary Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

+

Hillary "The Lying Criminal" Clinton: Deflected responsibility for Bengazi, kept emails on her own private servers illegally, and covered up her husband's illicit affairs.

And I'm sure you could name more. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 09:21, 24 June 2018 (EDT)

Line 1,110: Line 1,110:

I created the article [[Brian and Ed Krassenstein]]. If you would like to do improvements and better grammar to it, feel free to do so. --[[User:MaddieJ|MaddieJ]] ([[User talk:MaddieJ|talk]]) 14:38, 20 May 2018 (EDT)

−

== Barack ~~Obama~~'s achievements ==

+

== Barack "The First Female President" Dumbo's achievements ==

−

See: [[Essay: President Barack ~~Obama~~'s achievements]]

+

See: [[Essay: President Barack "The First Female President" Dumbo's achievements]]

It required a lot less work than your article [[Donald Trump achievements]]. :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 22:59, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

−

:Ha! And the little that ~~Obama~~ actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

+

:Ha! And the little that Dumbo actually did is being wiped away by President Trump right as we speak! :) --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:22, 29 May 2018 (EDT)

==Finland==

Line 1,186: Line 1,186:

A high proportion of CP's readers lean left. I changed the title because I thought the new title would engender less cognitive resistance to these readers and therefore be more likely to change their mind. In addition, I thought the new title sounded more encyclopedic.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 18:01, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

:That's understandable, but the article is not about opposition to Kavanaugh in general, it's specifically about the accusations made against him by left-wing people (as opposed to people criticizing him with his judicial philosophy being the stated reason). I'm not opposed to the page being moved, but it would be a title that makes it clear that the article is specifically about the attempted rape allegations against him. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:37, 23 September 2018 (EDT)

−

::The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the ~~Democrats~~ are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

+

::The allegations against him are a joke. It is a reflection that the democRATS are a sad joke. All the corroborating witnesses say the events never happened.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:14, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

::::Exactly -- they're politically-motivated character assassination, nothing more. Thus, "Kavanaugh smear" is an appropriate title for the article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:24, 24 September 2018 (EDT)

Line 1,234: Line 1,234:

:Lee Harvey Oswald has historical significance -- and fortunately, we get the facts right, that he was a left-wing Marxist (a fact many on the Left like to ignore). The Cesar Sayoc guy may be dominating headlines (of the left-wing mainstream media and the Left, which want to capitalize on this single incident of a mentally ill man and put a rug over the [[Left-wing violence in the Trump era|many examples of leftist violence in the past couple years]]) at the moment, but his 15 minutes of fame will soon end and his 58-year jail sentence will soon begin. I let the other administrators know of the dispute over this page, and they will decide soon. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:08, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

::I got the facts right in the Sayoc article, I hope you are not implying otherwise. I’d like to think the Best of the Public could create an article free from liberal bias. Alas, it looks like the readers of Conservapedia will have to suffice with the liberal slant since you are keen to prevent this educational resource from telling the truth. Sad.--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 17:35, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

−

:::All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. ''Per the Associated Press'': {{quotebox|7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to ~~CNN~~ along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to ~~CNN’s~~ offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack ~~Obama~~, Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to ~~CNN~~ was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

+

:::All the facts except that he wasn't a bomber. ''Per the Associated Press'': {{quotebox|7:50 p.m. A law enforcement official says tests have determined that a powder found inside an envelope delivered to Clinton News Network along with a pipe bomb was harmless. The official wasn’t authorized to discuss the investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. New York City’s police commissioner said earlier Wednesday that the package sent to Clinton News Network’s offices in Manhattan contained a live explosive and an envelope containing white powder. The FBI said the package was similar to explosives sent to former President Barack "The First Female President" Dumbo, Hillary "The Lying Criminal" Clinton, former Attorney General Eric Holder and billionaire George Soros. The package sent to Clinton News Network was addressed to former CIA Director John Brennan, a frequent guest on the channel. The official says that parcel contained no note or claim of responsibility. — Tom Hays Associated Press, October 24, 2018}} [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:41, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

::A man sends bombs through the mail, and in your opinion, he is not a bomber? The director of the FBI is quoted as saying the devices were ‘…not hoax devices’. What, exactly, is your definition of a bomber?--[[User:JLind|JLind]] ([[User talk:JLind|talk]]) 18:17, 26 October 2018 (EDT)

:::They were too hoax devices. You have terrible reading comprehension. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 01:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Why did you block me? All I did was state the obvious fact that Joe Manchin is a DINO. he voted to confirm Kavanaugh, confirm Gorsuch, and supports the coal industry. He's even more right-wing than Lisa Murkowski! [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 17:50, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

−

:Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with ~~Democrats~~ -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for ~~Planned Parenthood~~ is pretty extreme for a red-state ~~Democrat~~ who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

+

:Manchin lives in a state that voted for Trump by 40 points, and he knows it. He's appealing to the people of his state so he doesn't alienate them. Take a broader view, rather than look at the narrow set of issues where he made a big deal of supporting right-of-center people on -- for example, notice how he's voted against many of Trump's conservative circuit court nominees and several cabinet nominees. Also, when there were narrow votes for any nominee or bill, Manchin voted with democRATS -- he only voted with Republicans when his vote wasn't anywhere close to affecting the vote's outcome. And his support for Infancide R Us is pretty extreme for a red-state democRAT who has claimed to be pro-life. I stand entirely by my reverts, and CP has never considered Murkowski a conservative, AFAIK. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:44, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

−

::And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several ~~Democrats~~ even have better ratings than him.

+

::And look at his record with the 2A -- he has a "D" rating from the NRA, a moderate (as opposed to GOA) pro-gun organization -- several democRATS even have better ratings than him.

−

::In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the ~~Democrat~~ Party. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

+

::In short, Manchin only votes with conservatives in high profile votes when his vote is not a deciding factor in whether the bill/nominee will pass. He's not a conservative, and he's in line with the democRAT Party. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:54, 28 October 2018 (EDT)

Sorry about that. In the meantime, I'm a very skilled wiki writer who wrote for Wikivoyage for a while, and my skills are exactly what this site needs. I hope you can overlook this disagreement. [[User:Libertarianmoderate2|Libertarianmoderate2]] ([[User talk:Libertarianmoderate2|talk]]) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (EDT)

Line 1,267: Line 1,267:

== Does CP hate video games? ==

−

I think the tone of the video games article is a little too critical. If you truly are a 1990's guy, then you probably grew up with video games too. You probably also remember the controversy of video game violence back in the 90s too (perhaps there should be a section in the article on that). Ironically, the members of Congress who pushed for potential legislation were two ~~Democrat~~ senators, Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl. I was, along with my fellow kids of the 90s, booing and jeering at the old people who knew nothing about video games criticizing our hobby. There is a reason why the article "Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games" exists. Most of the people who criticize video games are older people who didn't grow up with them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:15, 29 November 2018 (EST)

+

I think the tone of the video games article is a little too critical. If you truly are a 1990's guy, then you probably grew up with video games too. You probably also remember the controversy of video game violence back in the 90s too (perhaps there should be a section in the article on that). Ironically, the members of Congress who pushed for potential legislation were two democRAT senators, Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl. I was, along with my fellow kids of the 90s, booing and jeering at the old people who knew nothing about video games criticizing our hobby. There is a reason why the article "Essay:Greatest Conservative Video Games" exists. Most of the people who criticize video games are older people who didn't grow up with them. [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 11:15, 29 November 2018 (EST)

:To be clear, the 1990s was the decade I was born in, so unfortunately, I don't have firsthand knowledge of the controversies of that decade. I played some video games, though not as much as other people, and only on my Gameboy and Nintendo DS, and I lost all interest by the time I turned, roughly, 13.

Line 1,419: Line 1,419:

Hello,

−

I have a random question which I was wondering if you might know the answer to. When ~~Obama~~ was in office, he released control of the Internet to the W3C (an international organization). In the opinion of many conservatives including myself, this was a big mistake. I since heard in vague terms that Trump had somehow put a stop to the transfer and retained at least partial control. However, my research attempts have turned up little of value. Do you know if this is something Trump has done, and if so, to what extent? Thank you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:00, 8 January 2019 (EST)

+

I have a random question which I was wondering if you might know the answer to. When Dumbo was in office, he released control of the Internet to the W3C (an international organization). In the opinion of many conservatives including myself, this was a big mistake. I since heard in vague terms that Trump had somehow put a stop to the transfer and retained at least partial control. However, my research attempts have turned up little of value. Do you know if this is something Trump has done, and if so, to what extent? Thank you! --[[User:DavidB4|David B]] ([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]]) 19:00, 8 January 2019 (EST)

:I remember noting that there was a bit of a controversy between Ted Cruz and the Commerce Department nominee most in charge of this topic area, but the nominee agreed to "look into it" (whatever that means): [http://thehill.com/policy/technology/359325-trump-pick-confirmed-to-telecommunications-federal-agency 1],[https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/23/trump-commerce-pick-internet-oversight-reversal-305178 2],[http://thehill.com/policy/technology/370426-trump-commerce-pick-told-lawmakers-he-would-look-at-reversing-obama-move-on 3] I looked into it further, and found these opinion articles ([http://netpolicynews.com/index.php/89-r/997-trump-wants-u-s-to-take-over-internet-governance-like-putin 1],[https://lawreview.unl.edu/Should-the-U.S.-Reclaim-Control-of-the-Internet 2]), which indicate that nothing was done, though I also found [https://regmedia.co.uk/2018/06/05/ntia-internet-policy-noi-jun18.pdf this notice in the Federal Register] where the Commerce Department asked what should be done with the transfer. The government is looking into it, but so far, I have not found anything saying that an official policy change has been enacted.

:I am very interested in this, and I think whatever decision the government makes, it will be relevant to the [[Donald Trump achievements]] series -- so if you find anything else, or if the government makes a decision in the future, please let me know. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 19:27, 8 January 2019 (EST)

Line 1,446: Line 1,446:

== Lou Dobbs ==

−

Hey, 1990's guy, check out [[Lou Dobbs]]' Conservapedia article: He himself claims he is an "independent populist". Lots of people who do news reporting and support Trump call themselves independent like [[Jedidiah Bila]], [[Alex Jones]] or were ~~Democrat~~, like [[Harlan Hill]]. We really ought to respect their wishes, don't you think? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:11, 8 February 2019 (EST)

+

Hey, 1990's guy, check out [[Lou Dobbs]]' Conservapedia article: He himself claims he is an "independent populist". Lots of people who do news reporting and support Trump call themselves independent like [[Jedidiah Bila]], [[Alex Jones]] or were democRAT, like [[Harlan Hill]]. We really ought to respect their wishes, don't you think? [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] ([[User talk:VargasMilan|talk]]) 00:11, 8 February 2019 (EST)

−

:First off, self-descriptions are meaningless. Dobbs can call himself whatever he wants, but it's his actual positions that matter -- and those positions are, without a doubt, conservative. There are many [[token conservative]]s who align 80-100% with globalist ~~Democrats~~ but still call themselves "conservative" -- but we shouldn't add them to your essay because of what they call themselves.

+

:First off, self-descriptions are meaningless. Dobbs can call himself whatever he wants, but it's his actual positions that matter -- and those positions are, without a doubt, conservative. There are many [[token conservative]]s who align 80-100% with globalist democRATS but still call themselves "conservative" -- but we shouldn't add them to your essay because of what they call themselves.

:Also, you may be confusing political party affiliation with political philosophy -- Dobbs isn't a Republican (maybe he rejoined, IDK), but he left because of the Bush Administration's liberal policies on issues such as immigration. It's his political views that matter, not his political party, and Dobbs's positions are conservative, meaning we can safely call him a conservative. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 00:27, 8 February 2019 (EST)

::I'm a bit embarrassed that I took Lou Dobbs' self-description "independent" to mean non-conservative instead of non-Republican, so not only is what you say correct, but it turns out I've never even heard him deny he's a conservative, here or elsewhere. I don't know if you know this, but coincidentally, I added Lou Dobbs' name to the TCOT list myself in April 2017. But I removed it the same day because of the "independent" label I saw mentioned in his Conservapedia entry soon after I had added his name to the list.

Line 1,571: Line 1,571:

the Conservapedia Guidelines. Also you didn't issue any warning, or suggest starting a discussion. I have edited on Wikipedia for several years and have a clean record there, I'd also note, the highly undemocratic exercise of administrative power here. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 16:24, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

−

:The fact is the Barack ~~Obama~~ article has been the way it is for years, and several editors (RobS and Pokeria, for example) support it, at least overall, and oppose your changes. Also, you admit you're not a conservative. And you think you can just come in and unilaterally make edits that others oppose? That's not how it works here. Continuing to revert will only get you indefinitely banned -- I hope you realize I'm being extremely gracious by only giving short blocks.

+

:The fact is the Barack "The First Female President" Dumbo article has been the way it is for years, and several editors (RobS and Pokeria, for example) support it, at least overall, and oppose your changes. Also, you admit you're not a conservative. And you think you can just come in and unilaterally make edits that others oppose? That's not how it works here. Continuing to revert will only get you indefinitely banned -- I hope you realize I'm being extremely gracious by only giving short blocks.

:Also, CP makes no apology for not being "democratic." We're a conservative encyclopedia with a conservative point of view, which includes support for natural law and republicanism over mob-rule democracy that Aristotle, the Ancient Roman Republicans, and the U.S. founding fathers opposed. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:57, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

−

::::Thanks -[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]]. I have no quarrel with this site's extreme right wing ideology but I do quarrel with its failure at times to implement its own policy of truth and verifiablity and the way some editors use of gossip and dubious sources. Also most of the editors I have dealt with recently are very slippery politicians–that is they avoid answering any comment or question. By the way the Barack ~~Obama~~ article is contradictory. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 18:18, 21 April 2019 (EDT) Additionally most edits made by you and others do not have an explanation. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 18:25, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

+

::::Thanks -[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]]. I have no quarrel with this site's extreme right wing ideology but I do quarrel with its failure at times to implement its own policy of truth and verifiablity and the way some editors use of gossip and dubious sources. Also most of the editors I have dealt with recently are very slippery politicians–that is they avoid answering any comment or question. By the way the Barack "The First Female President" Dumbo article is contradictory. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 18:18, 21 April 2019 (EDT) Additionally most edits made by you and others do not have an explanation. [[User:Timber|Timber]] ([[User talk:Timber|talk]]) 18:25, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

−

:::::ach ach <choke> WaPo, NYT & ~~CNN~~ aren't dubious sources? they don't use gossip? Liberal commie scholars and Marxist PhD's aren't dubious sources? As to edit summaries, you gotta earn your stripes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:46, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

+

:::::ach ach <choke> WaPo, NYT & Clinton News Network aren't dubious sources? they don't use gossip? Liberal commie scholars and Marxist PhD's aren't dubious sources? As to edit summaries, you gotta earn your stripes. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:46, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

:::::C'mon. Be reasonable and realistic. The ''NYT'' White House correspondent thinks ''Edelweiss'' is a Nazi anthem. Never in my life has there been such an open opportunity for citizen journalists as right now. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 18:49, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

−

::::::@Timber: I'm not particularly interested in the Barack ~~Obama~~ dispute -- what I care about is avoiding edit warring and making sure we give due treatment to material which has been in the articles for a long time. Thus, the content should be discussed on the talk page. On Wikipedia, not having a consensus for changes similar to yours is good enough explanation for reverting, so CP isn't actually too much different. Regarding the behavior of other editors, you might just be experiencing their differing personalities, that's all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:51, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

+

::::::@Timber: I'm not particularly interested in the Barack "The First Female President" Dumbo dispute -- what I care about is avoiding edit warring and making sure we give due treatment to material which has been in the articles for a long time. Thus, the content should be discussed on the talk page. On Wikipedia, not having a consensus for changes similar to yours is good enough explanation for reverting, so CP isn't actually too much different. Regarding the behavior of other editors, you might just be experiencing their differing personalities, that's all. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 18:51, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

:::::::@1990'sguy, he's not learning his lesson, I've given him a long block, not just for the edit warring, but also for his pretentious attitude, especially on this edit summary: [https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Michelle_Obama&diff=1518377&oldid=1518376] [[User:Shobson20|Shobson20]] ([[User talk:Shobson20|talk]]) 19:18, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

−

::Personally, I have no objection to moving the sections on natural born citizenship to [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein ~~Obama~~]] where it can be debated or sources challenged. The lesson here is, work somebody else put much time into should not be overwritten just cause some liberal communist doesn't like it or it isn't sanctioned by [[fake news]] [[mainstream media]] sources. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:08, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

+

::Personally, I have no objection to moving the sections on natural born citizenship to [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Dumbo]] where it can be debated or sources challenged. The lesson here is, work somebody else put much time into should not be overwritten just cause some liberal communist doesn't like it or it isn't sanctioned by [[fake news]] [[mainstream media]] sources. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:08, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

−

:::@RobS: It might be worth considering moving some of that content into the [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein ~~Obama~~]] article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

+

:::@RobS: It might be worth considering moving some of that content into the [[Early life and career of Barack Hussein Dumbo]] article. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 17:14, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

::::Let Timber do it, and we can seriously vet sources and wording on the Talk page there. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 17:16, 21 April 2019 (EDT)

Line 1,619: Line 1,619:

== Donald Trump's achievements keep rolling in ==

−

'''The ''[[~~New York Times~~]]'' FINALLY Admits:''' The World is Turning [[Nationalism|Nationalist]] [[Populism|Populist]].[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQOgUVsUQJQ]

+

'''The ''[[Left Wing Lunatics]]'' FINALLY Admits:''' The World is Turning [[Nationalism|Nationalist]] [[Populism|Populist]].[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQOgUVsUQJQ]

−

The ''~~New York Times~~'' article admitted that this statement of [[Donald Trump]] was prophetic: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. President, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

+

The ''Left Wing Lunatics'' article admitted that this statement of [[Donald Trump]] was prophetic: "We gonna win so much you may even get tired of winning and you'll say please, please Mr. President, It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore!"[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 13:34, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

:Trump has been very successful as a president so far, especially considering that Republicans opposed much of his agenda in 2017/2018 and the divided Congress now. The EU elections went well -- the League outperformed exit polls by a lot, becoming the largest party in Italy and tied as the largest in the EU Parliament, and the Brexit Party also won more seats than predictions I saw beforehand. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:43, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

−

::The Greens continue to gain, at the expense of Social ~~Democrats~~. This is reflective of a younger, climate orientated group of socialists, just as radical, more single issue oriented and naive, trying to throw off the history established Socialist parties. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 16:06, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

+

::The Greens continue to gain, at the expense of Social democRATS. This is reflective of a younger, climate orientated group of socialists, just as radical, more single issue oriented and naive, trying to throw off the history established Socialist parties. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']] 16:06, 27 May 2019 (EDT)

== Article suggestion ==

Line 1,718: Line 1,718:

:I think it would be helpful -- it could include links to articles like [[Border wall]], [[Economic nationalism]], [[Self-governance]], [[sovereignty]], [[National conservatism]], [[Euroskepticism]], [[Patriotism]], [[Subsidiarity]], [[Founding Fathers]], and [[U.S. Constitution]], among others. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 22:25, 1 September 2019 (EDT)

−

== The Dixiecrat, Conservative ~~Democrat~~, and Reagan ~~Democrat~~ Pages ==

+

== The Dixiecrat, Conservative democRAT, and Reagan democRAT Pages ==

−

'''"Dixiecrat was the informal term for Southern ~~Democrats who~~ in 1948 refused to support President Harry S. Truman for reelection because he was too liberal on racial issues."'''

+

'''"Dixiecrat was the informal term for Southern democRATS who in 1948 refused to support President Harry S. Truman for reelection because he was too liberal on racial issues."'''

−

Shouldn't it say because he was too conservative on racial issues since it was the '''liberal''' ~~Democrats~~ who were against civil rights?

+

Shouldn't it say because he was too conservative on racial issues since it was the '''liberal''' democRATS who were against civil rights?

:Truman desegrated the Armed Forces in 1947, so this one appears correct.

Line 1,728: Line 1,728:

:Believe it or not, there are liberal segregationists. It is not a demarcation line between liberal and conservative.

::The phrase "because he was '''too liberal''' on racial issues" kind of got me and I thought it was insisting that liberals were for desegregation and conservatives weren't.

−

:::The 1947 desegregation order marks a turning point in the liberal movement, but many liberals and alleged "liberals" (white folks riding the ~~Democrat~~, anti-Republican welfare state and gravy train) remained segregationists, or at least racists.

+

:::The 1947 desegregation order marks a turning point in the liberal movement, but many liberals and alleged "liberals" (white folks riding the democRAT, anti-Republican welfare state and gravy train) remained segregationists, or at least racists.

−

::::This point deserves expanding on cause of recent developments: Many whites who wear the "liberal" label do so for government goodies, not social equality of blacks. We see it right now in support of various ~~democrat~~ candidates. Biden is buoyed by the black vote right now, and Biden ''is not'' promising a basketful of government goodies. Sanders, Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Buttigieg are all promising wholesale government goodies, and getting the support of white "alleged liberals" - not blacks. Being "liberal" with other people's money, and being for civil rights and social equality, '''are not''' synonymous. Blacks know this more than anyone.

+

::::This point deserves expanding on cause of recent developments: Many whites who wear the "liberal" label do so for government goodies, not social equality of blacks. We see it right now in support of various RAT candidates. Biden is buoyed by the black vote right now, and Biden ''is not'' promising a basketful of government goodies. Sanders, Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Buttigieg are all promising wholesale government goodies, and getting the support of white "alleged liberals" - not blacks. Being "liberal" with other people's money, and being for civil rights and social equality, '''are not''' synonymous. Blacks know this more than anyone.

::::This was true during the [[New Deal Coalition]], the [[Great Society]], and today. Handing out food stamps to whites as well as blacks is not slave reparations, although since Great Society times whites who didn't qualify for food stamps viewed it as such. Or the creation of the [[Department of Housing and Urban Development]] in 1964, was viewed than as a poverty program for dispossessed blacks, yet today most of the funding goes to whites. Black's view white liberals as dishonest leeches, who plunder resources supposedly earmarked for them. The only thing they have in common is opposing Republicans who want to cut and balance the budget.

−

::::Blacks today are indeed the conservative, moderate, or centrist wing of the ~~Democrat~~ party, while white liberals are the [[far left]], handing the election to Trump. It will be one more grievance Blacks have against white ~~Democrat~~ liberals when it is all over. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 13:59, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

+

::::Blacks today are indeed the conservative, moderate, or centrist wing of the democRAT party, while white liberals are the [[far left]], handing the election to Trump. It will be one more grievance Blacks have against white democRAT liberals when it is all over. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 13:59, 22 September 2019 (EDT)

Doesn't this:

−

'''"The Dixiecrats went back to the ~~Democrats~~, where they came into increasingly more conflict with the liberal sections of the party, and eventually abandoned the ~~Democratic Party~~ for the Republican Party after the presidency of Lyndon Johnson."'''

+

'''"The Dixiecrats went back to the democRATS, where they came into increasingly more conflict with the liberal sections of the party, and eventually abandoned the National Socialists for the Republican Party after the presidency of Lyndon Johnson."'''

play into the liberal narrative that the racist conservatives switched parties and Dixiecrats were conservatives when in fact they were racist southern liberals?

−

:That's a misreading, but one this one needs some touching up. As is, it's a basic restatement of the [[fake news]] media, academia, and ~~DNC~~ false narrative of a Southern Strategy; Dixiecrat was basically a one-hit-wonder in 1948, when ~~Democrats~~ were divided 3 ways, Progressives, Dixiecrats, and Regular ~~Democrats~~. What page is this on?

+

:That's a misreading, but one this one needs some touching up. As is, it's a basic restatement of the [[fake news]] media, academia, and National Socialists false narrative of a Southern Strategy; Dixiecrat was basically a one-hit-wonder in 1948, when democRATS were divided 3 ways, Progressives, Dixiecrats, and Regular democRATS. What page is this on?

That's on the [[Dixiecrat]] page.

Line 1,747: Line 1,747:

:Curtis LeMay was George Wallace's VP pick in 1968; he was also [[Robert MacNamara]]'s (JFK & LBJ's defense secretary) boss during the Korean War. His nickname was the "Mad Bomber". Both Nixon & Humphrey were running as "Peace candidates". I don't recall Le May's politics off the top of my head, though I'm fairly certain he was not a Republican. Again, that's Prof. Jensen's work, and IMO, [[fake news]] from the 1960s intended to smear conservatives as warmongers, as usual (in fact, most conservatives are peaceniks and isolationists). We're in agreement, the page needs an overhaul.

−

On the [[Reagan ~~Democrats~~]] page, this feeds into the narrative that the racists jumped ships:

+

On the [[Reagan democRATS]] page, this feeds into the narrative that the racists jumped ships:

'''"Most were working men and women who had come to feel that the Democratic party was no longer championing them, but favored blacks instead."'''

:i see nothing wrong with this statement; and it's corroborated by the Stan Greenberg poll cited here just prior to the 1992 election: [https://www.salon.com/2016/01/31/the_clintons_sordid_race_game_no_one_will_say_it_but_the_clintons_rise_was_premised_on_repudiating_black_voters/ The Clintons’ sordid race game: No one will say it, but the Clintons’ rise was premised on repudiating black voters], Corey Robin, ''Salon'', Jan 31, 2016.

−

On the [[Conservative ~~Democrat~~]] page, it says:

+

On the [[Conservative democRAT]] page, it says:

−

'''"A few former Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, were early converts to the Republican Party, foreshadowing a long trend of conservatives leaving the ~~Democrats~~ and joining the Republicans that continued through the 1980s and 1990s."'''

+

'''"A few former Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, were early converts to the Republican Party, foreshadowing a long trend of conservatives leaving the democRATS and joining the Republicans that continued through the 1980s and 1990s."'''

:Good point; looks like Prof. Jensen's work; [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiprVX4os2Y Prof. Carol Swain of PragerU] refutes the notion three switched and says only one. And Helms association as a Dixiecrat I'd have to look into. There's much of Prof. Jensen's work I've been meaning to revise, beginning with [[New Deal Coalition]] and [[Conservative Coalition]] which carries a lot of the historical revisionist basis for the alleged GOP Southern Strategy.

−

I thought only 3 Dixiecrats ever switched. The rest remained ~~Democrats~~ until they died. There was no switch and the Dixiecrats were not conservatives. They were liberals. Can you please explain why these pages insist they were conservatives who were opposed to the liberals when it's us, the conservatives who were for civil rights and the liberals who were against it or clarify the edits on the pages made by DavidB4-bot? And on Joe Biden's page, it says '''a coalition of liberals and George Wallace supporters''' and I thought they were one and the same. --[[User:Classical Liberal|Classical Liberal]] ([[User talk:Classical Liberal|talk]]) 10:10, 21 September 2019 (CDT)

+

I thought only 3 Dixiecrats ever switched. The rest remained democRATS until they died. There was no switch and the Dixiecrats were not conservatives. They were liberals. Can you please explain why these pages insist they were conservatives who were opposed to the liberals when it's us, the conservatives who were for civil rights and the liberals who were against it or clarify the edits on the pages made by DavidB4-bot? And on Joe Biden's page, it says '''a coalition of liberals and George Wallace supporters''' and I thought they were one and the same. --[[User:Classical Liberal|Classical Liberal]] ([[User talk:Classical Liberal|talk]]) 10:10, 21 September 2019 (CDT)

:Dixiecrats were racist Southern New Dealers; there were both conservatives and liberals among them. Most importantly, they were anti-Republican, a legacy of Reconstruction. And as Prof. Swain says, only one Senator ever switched. Strom Thurmond himself was a liberal.

Line 1,767: Line 1,767:

:Thanks for letting me know about this. I'll see what we can do to improve CP's coverage on this topic. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 14:51, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

−

::Dixiecrat is basically one of the those journalistic terms that takes on its own life and lives on in infamy; in 1948 Truman, [[Henry Wallace]], and Strom Thurmond all claimed the mantle of ~~Democrat~~; the press assigned labels to distinguish them.

+

::Dixiecrat is basically one of the those journalistic terms that takes on its own life and lives on in infamy; in 1948 Truman, [[Henry Wallace]], and Strom Thurmond all claimed the mantle of democRAT; the press assigned labels to distinguish them.

−

::Strom Thurmond would be the first to deny he was a "Dixiecrat', given the definition journalists assigned to it. He'd argue he was ~~Democrat~~, loyal to the ~~Democrat~~ party ideals and traditions.

+

::Strom Thurmond would be the first to deny he was a "Dixiecrat', given the definition journalists assigned to it. He'd argue he was democRAT, loyal to the democRAT party ideals and traditions.

−

::[[Cokie Roberts]], who just died and her obituary lauds her as a feminist pioneer in political journalism, reared as the daughter of a longtime ~~Democrat~~ Majority Leader, doesn't mention she was reared by her father [[Hale Boggs]] (signer of the [[Southern Manifesto]]) in the Dixiecrat tradition. Cokie Roberts, raised in a Dixiecrat household by parents who'' both'' served in the House (her mother succeeded her father), owed her entire success and career to the political education she received from her parents, and never rebelled against it.

+

::[[Cokie Roberts]], who just died and her obituary lauds her as a feminist pioneer in political journalism, reared as the daughter of a longtime democRAT Majority Leader, doesn't mention she was reared by her father [[Hale Boggs]] (signer of the [[Southern Manifesto]]) in the Dixiecrat tradition. Cokie Roberts, raised in a Dixiecrat household by parents who'' both'' served in the House (her mother succeeded her father), owed her entire success and career to the political education she received from her parents, and never rebelled against it.

−

::Which of coarse brings us to a discussion of Louisiana ~~Democrat~~ politics and its godfather, Huey "Every Man a King (except blacks)" Long, his place in the history of American Socialism, and his successors in Louisiana-style politics and demagoguery, notable among several, [[James Carville]]... [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 15:39, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

+

::Which of coarse brings us to a discussion of Louisiana democRAT politics and its godfather, Huey "Every Man a King (except blacks)" Long, his place in the history of American Socialism, and his successors in Louisiana-style politics and demagoguery, notable among several, [[James Carville]]... [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 15:39, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

−

[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the ~~Democrats~~]]

+

[[Image:Gop-plank.JPG|thumb|275px|1936 cartoon shows GOP building its platform from the conservative planks abandoned by the democRATS]]

:And I have one more question. On the [[Conservative]] page, is this picture accurate?

−

::I'm not exactly sure of Prof. Jensen's reasoning there; I'd say it is related to the ~~Democrat~~ Congress in 1931 turning down Herbert Hoover's relief efforts at the start of the Great Depression, paving the way to blaming Hoover for the Depression in the 1932 election. But some it can go back as far as the creation of the Federal Reserve Board after the 1912 elections, or even the Cross of Gold speech of William Jennings Bryan in 1896. "Sound Money" in that context refers to an anti-inflationist gold standard; I don't know when ~~Democrats~~ ever were "Sound Money" anti-inflationists, other than when they nixed Hoover's relief efforts or passed the Federal Reserve Act (but even there, that's debatable whether the Federal Reserve Act was inflationary or for maintaining a rigid gold standard).

+

::I'm not exactly sure of Prof. Jensen's reasoning there; I'd say it is related to the democRAT Congress in 1931 turning down Herbert Hoover's relief efforts at the start of the Great Depression, paving the way to blaming Hoover for the Depression in the 1932 election. But some it can go back as far as the creation of the Federal Reserve Board after the 1912 elections, or even the Cross of Gold speech of William Jennings Bryan in 1896. "Sound Money" in that context refers to an anti-inflationist gold standard; I don't know when democRATS ever were "Sound Money" anti-inflationists, other than when they nixed Hoover's relief efforts or passed the Federal Reserve Act (but even there, that's debatable whether the Federal Reserve Act was inflationary or for maintaining a rigid gold standard).

::On the whole, I've debated with myself for years about removing some of Prof. Jensen's work, cause I regard him as a qualified historian. Only when I'm armed with the facts do I challenge some of his biases or excesses. And he does have a habit of using what I regard as biased fake news sources going back as far as 1936. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]][[User talk:RobSmith|De Plorabus Unum]] 21:55, 21 September 2019 (EDT)

Line 1,796: Line 1,796:

I will not restore those articles two articles above because they had some quality issues, but I did restore the mainspace articles/essays I could find. I turned [[Atheism and chaos]] into an essay.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 21:50, 1 October 2019 (EDT)

:I restored all but 2 of BernieandTrump fan articles/essays.[[User:Wikignome72|Wikignome72]] ([[User talk:Wikignome72|talk]]) 09:26, 2 October 2019 (EDT)

+

== Ted Cruz edit ==

Calm down, please. At that time, I used the 'Stop Left Wing Newspeak' extension. It automatically changes some words. I reverted it immediately, and changed the preferences of the extension. Please do not lose your temper over a minor mistake. I am only trying to improve Conservapedia, and your unpleasant reaction has put me off a little. -- [[User:Toby Chester|Toby Chester]] ([[User talk:Toby Chester|talk]]) 01:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Toby Chester

SkipCaptcha

571

edits

Changes

User talk:1990'sguy (view source)

Revision as of 02:18, October 4, 2019

Navigation menu

Search