Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Ayzmo

2012-03-04T23:21:25Z

Ayzmo: Undo revision 966027 by JamesWilson (talk) Do not revert edits on my own page.

{{welcome}}
[[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 23:07, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

==OWS==
I've been watching you add religious people to the sympathizer. I reverted your edits regarding the pope. He did not mention Occupy Wall Street, he mentioned banking reforms and world government that moves away from liberal financial greed. I will research the Archbishop of Canterbury addition next. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 10:22, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
:I didn't add the Archbishop as you can see in the edit history. He was added by someone else. I just changed it so that it added the internal link as per what I said in my edit description as the person who added it did not. I did no research as to whether or not he supports it but figured I'd fix the formatting. As to the Papal addition, the piece he put out has been widely, from what I've read, been interpreted as sharing the views of OWS if not an endorsement. I haven't read much of the actual piece but it is not exactly a glowing review of American Capitalism. If you don't agree with the addition that's fine, I just thought I'd try and contribute more to that article than just grammar flow and formatting. Thanks for the explanation since I probably would have wondered why. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:55, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
:The addition of Rowan was done by user ScottDG, fyi. And Rowan has, according to the Telegraph article, endorsed the UK branch of OWS currently camped out outside St. Paul's. Unless the quote is false or miss-attributed(same thing really) there is no reason he shouldn't be on the list. Again, like the Pope, I really don't care if he is or not. OWS is not exactly an interest of mine. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:02, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
::Sorry for the mix up in attribution. Rowan did not endorse the Occupy protests, it was recognition. A decision was made not to evict the protesters, which had been the plan. Calling for banking reform might be interpreted as aligning behind the movement as he blames capitalism like the protesters do. The Telegraph headline is a bit misleading "The Archbishop of Canterbury has thrown his weight behind the St Paul’s Cathedral anti-capitalist protesters." As for the Pope, he was not calling for socialism and he was not blaming capitalism. He was blaming greed by way of liberal financial practices. Hardly an endorsement but too tempting for agenda driven WaPo not to hype. Keep up the good work and do tell what Ayzmo stands for. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:54, 2 November 2011 (EDT)
::It isn't a problem. Quick looks at edit logs don't tell much. And that works for me. Again, not my area of interest. I do like to clean up things that bother me though so I wander in now and then because I'm nosy and watch every page I edit.

::My username is one I've used for what must be going on 10 years or so now. I first used it as a screen name on AIM. It is a typo actually. I was typing a Hebrew word(can't recall the word for the life of me anymore) and in my haste I made a typo and hit enter too quickly. Since then it is a username I have used over and over though I'll admit I have come across others who've used it shockingly enough. It is also my username on Wikipedia. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 19:11, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

==Manual of Style==

We do not refer to a gay man's sex partner as a husband. [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=It_Gets_Better_Project&diff=prev&oldid=965124] Conservapedia does not recognize so-called "[[gay marriage]]" or the "[[marriage equality]]" initiative. If a woman "married" her parakeet, we might write about her crazy deed, but we wouldn't call the parakeet her "spouse".

Don't try to win wars here. Just describe reality in a trustworthy way. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:13, 4 March 2012 (EST)

:Wasn't fighting a war and did nothing untrustworthy. I do not appreciate either accusation. The reality is that he is legally married under the law and so that is what he is. I guess "partner" would be the alternative. I'm more than ok with that. I can't say I'm thrilled with some of the changes made. Most notably the actual name is the "It Gets Better Project." That should be the title of the article. Your opinion on whether it is a project or not does not override the reality of its name. And the lead has lost its encyclopedic intro which was the main point of my rewrite and instead reads like an about section. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:19, 4 March 2012 (EST)
::"Ayzmo", the article will not be rewritten to fit your liberal, pro-gay perspective. These changes reflect the POV and manual of style of Conservapedia. Please respect that. If you cannot, there are many, many other articles to work on. The [[dog]] article, perhaps?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 15:23, 4 March 2012 (EST)

:::I tried to write the article from a neutral perspective as much as possible. As such I tried not to touch the criticisms that were there. The Title of the project is not a matter of contention anywhere as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not sure you'll want to now fix the spelling mistakes and broken sentences you have just reverted to. I'm sorry I improved an article which was by any standards pretty uninformative. I will however ask Andy about the Title since we should be getting that correct if nothing else. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:28, 4 March 2012 (EST)
::::A senior Administrator decided it's not as much of a project as it is a slogan. If you feel the need to talk to Mr. Schlafly about the title, go ahead. And a "neutral" perspective, as defined by liberal [[Wikipedia]] especially, results in even more [[liberal bias]], so just write from a true and trustworthy perspective.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 15:43, 4 March 2012 (EST)
:::::Just because you call something true doesn't mean it is true; you will have to back up your claim, or the claim you are defending, with reliable sources. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. If you cannot provide reliable sources, please don't bother serious contributors. There are many, many other articles to work on. The [[rat]] article, perhaps? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:57, 4 March 2012 (EST)
::::::"Baobab", you have contributed little of substance. This is an issue of Administrator versus ordinary user. Admin trumps user. Simple enough. I was obviously not the one to make the change, but I personally don't see the big deal between "It Gets Better" and "It Gets Better project". And this is an encyclopedia. But a conservative one, unlike the pseudo-neutral [[Wikipedia]]. Therefore it will take a conservative perspective.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:17, 4 March 2012 (EST)
::::::: Admin trumps user and facts trump Conservapedia. I do like your style though James. Very Schlafly-esque. [[User:Tyoung|Tyoung]] 18:11, 4 March 2012 (EST)

As glad as I am that this issue riles you all up I would ask that you please take it somewhere other than my talk page. Also, do not revert comments on my talk page. Thank you. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:21, 4 March 2012 (EST)

User talk:Ayzmo

2012-03-04T23:18:43Z

Ayzmo: Undo revision 966025 by JamesWilson (talk) My userpage is my castle. Do not revert comments.

Same-sex marriage

2012-03-04T22:03:57Z

Ayzmo: /* Background */ The laws haven't taken affect yet but I added Maryland and Washington.

'''Same-sex "marriage"''' is a proposed redefinition or variation on the traditional concept of [[marriage]], granting [[same-sex union]]s the same legal status as heterosexual marriage. Another similar system is [[civil unions]]. Like [[polygamy]], it replaces the pattern of "one man, one woman" which is considered a divine mandate by most modern religious people. The proposal is outrageously unacceptable to most adherents of [[Christianity]], [[Judaism]] and [[Islam]] because it uses the force of law to justify what scripture has clearly labelled a sin: i.e., [[homosexual]] relations. [[Hate speech]] rules and laws are already in place which restrict criticism of same-sex unions (see also [[hate crime]]).

Campaigns advocating same-sex marriage are at the forefront of the [[gay rights movement]]'s attempt to normalize the rights of [[homosexual]]s with those of heterosexuals, overturning centuries of established tradition whereby homosexuals were required to keep their sinful acts hidden, protecting society from their immorality. Some opponents of efforts to normalize same-sex marriage claim its purpose is to destroy the [[family]] as an institution, merely to secure a legal basis for [[sexual freedom]]. According to some opponents of same-sex marriage, the primary purpose of marriage is to bring joy to society as much as to safeguard the development of happy families, and it is not for individual glory. They believe that unrelated people living together make each other miserable and harm society. Among the many reasons homosexuals might advocate same-sex marriage are the ability to make emergent healthcare decisions for a loved one in the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, the alteration of the laws of intestate succession to include gay partners, and equal tax treatment as heterosexual married couples.

[[United States]] [[law]] defines "marriage" as "one man, one woman" for purposes of the federal [[Defense of Marriage Act]], which prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if permitted under state law, and permits a state to disregard a same-sex marriage entered into in another state. An interesting consequence of the federal definition of "marriage" is that it specifically rules out [[polygamy]]. 

__TOC__
==Morality==
Social [[conservatives]] regard same-sex marriage as immoral, and argue that use of the word "[[marriage]]" is a misnomer, because the [[Form of Solemnization of Matrimony|marriage services]] of Christian denominations define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Some social liberals try to use this debate as a excuse to take the socially-conservative view of marriage out of the law. In some Christian marriage ceremonies, the wedding will begin with a statement along the lines of: "Dearly beloved: We have come together in the presence of God to witness and bless the joining together of this man and this woman in Holy Matrimony,"<ref>''The Book of Common Prayer,'' Episcopal Church, The Church Hymnal Corporation and the Seabury Press, 1979: "The Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage," p. 423</ref> a definition which was also written into United States federal law in 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000007----000-.html US Code - Title 1, section 7]</ref>

Dr. [[James Dobson]]'s [[Focus on the Family]] organization prefers the phrase ''same-sex "marriage,"'' with quotation marks around the word "marriage," to call attention to his belief that marriage—civil as well as religious—is intrinsically a union between a man and a woman, and that that same-sex unions are "counterfeits."<ref>[http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000464.cfm Same-Sex 'Marriage' and Civil Unions], ''Focus on the Family's'' website</ref>

Use of the term "same-sex marriage" was unheard of a few decades ago; however, these unions are now among a number of issues advocated by [[liberal]] activists. They argue that heterosexual people are allowed to marry and so the homosexual population should be given that right too.

Some advocates of same-sex marriage view marriage as a purely civil matter, which in the history of the United States is a position taken particularly strongly by Puritan colonists, who viewed the interjection of religion into the franchise of marriage as scandalous to Christ's Church.

== Background ==
In the United States, marriage is primarily governed by each individual state and marriage laws differ from state to state. Several states allow [[civil union]]s between two people of the same sex, and eight, [[Massachusetts]], [[Connecticut]], [[Vermont]], [[New Hampshire]], [[New York]], [[Maryland]], [[Washington]], and [[Iowa]], plus the [[Washington, D.C.|District of Columbia]], currently issue same-sex marriage licenses. These marriage licenses are not recognized by the Federal government.

In 1996 Congress recognized the likelihood that [[liberal]] activists would soon seek changes to the laws in some states that pertain to homosexuals. It considered the possibility of test cases reaching the Supreme Court, and of the court conceivably ruling that a state—even though it prohibits same-sex marriage itself—must honor same-sex marriages performed in another state pursuant to the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. The Defense of Marriage act, which was passed and signed by President Clinton, prevents this possibility, and also prevents the Federal Government from recognizing marriage as anything other than a union between a man and a woman. Its Constitutionality has not yet been tested under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the 5th Amendment, or the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment.

In 1999 a Vermont court ruled that under its constitution, it was not required to allow same-sex marriage but was required to make provisions to grant same-sex couples legal rights identical to those provided by marriage. Vermont responded by creating "civil unions," which are legally distinct from marriages but convey the same rights. In 2009, the Vermont legislature overrode the governor's veto to pass a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

In 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that under Massachusetts' constitution, same-sex couples could not be denied Massachusetts marriage licenses, making Massachusetts the first state to issue same-sex marriage licenses. As of April 2009, same-sex marriage was legal in four states, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, and Iowa. <ref>''Vermont Legislature Makes Same-Sex Marriage Legal'' [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/08vermont.html?_r=1&hp]</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_re_us/connecticut_same_sex_marriage Conn. high court rules gay couples can marry]</ref>

Beginning in 2008, the states of [[Washington]], and [[Oregon]] also provide for same-sex unions. [[Hawaii]] provides certain benefits to same sex couples. <ref>[http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/connecticut/ny-bc-ct--civilunions-optio0531may31,0,341613.story?coll=ny-region-apconnecticut Newsday]</ref> The State of New Hampshire issued civil unions until the summer of 2009, when it passed a bill approving same-sex marriage <ref>"New Hampshire Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/04marriage.html]</ref> The state will begin issuing same-sex marriage licenses in January, 2010.

In the fall of 2009, a same-sex marriage bill was introduced to the [[Washington, D.C.]] city council by At-Large Council Member David Catania (who is openly gay.) After two days of testimony involving nearly 250 witnesses <ref>''D.C. Council hears from both sides in gay marriage debate'' [http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local/D_C_-Council-hears-from-both-sides-in-gay-marriage-debate-8442433-66188647.html]</ref>, the council voted to approve the bill, 11-2. Once signed by the Mayor, the bill went to Congress for a mandatory [[DC Home Rule|30-day review period]]. While opponents of the bill vowed to fight it in Congress<ref>"DC Council Approves Same-Sex Marriage" [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/15/AR2009121500945.html]</ref> it passed and became law in 2010.

The New York legislature voted for same-sex marriage on June 24, 2011.<ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-gay-marriage-passes-in-new-york</ref>

Same-sex marriages were legal for a brief period in the state of [[California]], but the people of that state voted to repeal the law in the fall of 2008<ref>"California Votes for Prop 8"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122586056759900673.html]</ref>, through a ballot initiative known as [[Proposition 8]]. The legislature of [[Maine]] approved a same-sex marriage bill in May of 2009 <ref>"Lawmakers approve same-sex marriage in N.H., Maine" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/maine.same.sex.marriage/index.html]</ref> but opponents lobbied to have the bill put up to a popular vote, and it was defeated by the voters in the fall of 2009.<ref>"Maine rejects same-sex marriage law" [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/04/maine.same.sex/index.html]</ref>

Same-sex marriage is legal in seven countries: [[South Africa]], [[Spain]], [[Canada]], the [[Netherlands]], [[Belgium]], [[Norway]] and [[Sweden]]. Other countries, such as [[France]], [[Germany]], and the [[United Kingdom]], recognize [[civil unions]] and [[domestic partnership]]s.<ref>[http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-03/05/content_311998.htm Countries worldwide address gay marriage]</ref>

In Israel, all marriages must be performed by a religious organization - there is no "civil" marriage. Specific religions may determine the definition of marriages that they perform, and none currently recognize same-sex couples. However, a Supreme Court decision determined that Israel must recognize all marriages performed outside the country, same-sex or opposite-sex. In September of 2011, an Orthodox Jewish rabbi in Israel attempted to marry homosexual males to homosexual females so they could start a conventional family. However, the plan drew criticism both from liberals, who said the plan was meant to discourage homosexuality, and from conservatives, who claimed the plan promoted loveless relationships. <ref>"Israeli rabbi pairs gays to lesbians" http://news.yahoo.com/israeli-rabbi-pairs-gays-lesbians-061904417.html</ref>

Some opponents of same-sex marriage believe that the religious ceremony of marriage is governed by each denomination and is unaffected by laws passed by civil authority. Same-sex marriage is forbidden in Orthodox Judaism, Catholicism, and most mainstream Protestant denominations. In Massachusetts, however, about 6% of all marriages are same-sex marriages, so this does not appear to be a problem. <ref>[http://www.massequality.org/news/news_story.php?id=273]</ref><ref>http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fnchs%2Fdata%2Fnvss%2Fmarriage90_04.pdf&images=yes</ref>

Public attitude toward same-sex marriage parallels attitude toward homosexuality. In general, it is opposed by social conservatives and outside of this group, support is split down the middle leaning to opposition.<ref>[http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Relationships/same_sex_marriage_poll_040121.html Same Sex Marriage Poll from ABC News]</ref>

== Issues ==
[[Image:Cycle.gif|thumbnail|200px|right|A recent study by the [[Canada|Canadian]] government states that "violence was twice as common among homosexual couples compared with [[heterosexual]] couples".<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/85-570-XIE/2006001/findings/risk.htm Aforementioned Canadian Study.</ref>]]
[[James Dobson]] cites Stanley Kurtz to argue that the motivation of those advocating same-sex marriage is not to secure the benefits of marriage for gay couples, but to destroy the institution of marriage itself:
:...most gays and lesbians do not want to marry each other. That would entangle them in all sorts of legal constraints. Who needs a lifetime commitment to one person? The intention here is to destroy marriage altogether. With marriage as we know it gone, everyone would enjoy all the legal benefits of marriage (custody rights, tax-free inheritance, joint ownership of property, health care and spousal citizenship, etc.,) without limiting the number of partners or their gender. Nor would "couples" be bound to each other in the eyes of the law. This is clearly where the movement is headed.<ref>Stanley Kurtz, "Beyond Marriage," The Weekly Standard, August 4/August 11, 2003. - cited in [http://www.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/A000000771.cfm Marriage on the Ropes], Dr. James Dobson, retrieved from ''Focus on the Family'', 15 May 2007. </ref>

According to a March, 2007 report, there are 65,000 adopted children in the U.S. being raised by same-sex couples. The same report says 14,100 foster children were being raised by one or more gay or lesbian foster parents.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/25/gay.adoption/index.html Gay adoption: A new take on the American family]</ref>

In Great Britain, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has expressed its full support to the stand taken by the Catholic Church opposing regulations on gay adoption. The Catholic Church sought to be exempt from the new law. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams of the Church of England, supports the Catholic Church's efforts declaring that the rights of conscience cannot be subject to laws. Catholic leaders have already said that its teachings prevent its agencies placing children with homosexuals and they will have to close if bound by the rules. The MCB, the UK's leading Muslim umbrella group embracing over 400 affiliated organizations, said that while it supported anti-discrimination laws, homosexuality is forbidden in Islam. <ref>[http://www2.irna.com/en/news/view/menu-234/0701266670200554.htm UK Muslim group backs Christian opposition to gay adoption rules London], Islamic republic News Agency, Jan 26, 2007.</ref>

Studies indicate that homosexual couples have higher rates of promiscuity than heterosexual couples.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02 Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples]</ref> Allowing gays to marry would make gays seek more partners.<ref>2004 General Social Survey, Statistics Canada, Canada's National Statistical Agency, July 7, 2005</ref> In addition, studies report that [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|homosexual couples have significantly higher incidences of violent behavior]].{{fact}} These studies are not surprising given what pathologists have stated regarding the [[Homosexuality and Murders|commonness and brutality of homosexual murders]].{{fact}} The prevalence of violence and emotional abuse in gay domestic partnerships. One survey found 53% of gays felt if the high incidence of violence against partners in homosexual relationships was known and understood by the heterosexual population, it would hinder the drive for gay rights.

Domestic abuse is divided into two categories, emotional abuse and physical abuse. While gay domestic abuse has not been studied to the extent that heterosexual relationships have, [[Homosexual Couples and Domestic Violence|preliminary studies indicate a much higher level of abuse]]

Bishop Harry Jackson has shown how same-sex "marriage" is causally linked to the breakdown of the family in recent decades, particularly the black family.<ref>[http://townhall.com/columnists/harryrjacksonjr/2008/10/13/the_naacp_abandons_the_black_family The NAACP Abandons the Black Family]</ref> As noted in the 1965 [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan|Moynihan]] Report,<ref>[http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/webid-meynihan.htm The Negro Family: The Case for National Action]</ref> the breakdown of the African-American family is a national concern. He has attributed support for same-sex marriage in the District of Columbia and Maryland to a demonic force called the [[Queen of Heaven]].<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GMnaW-0rQ-U Harry Jackson, Cindy Jacobs Rally Against Same-Sex Marriage]</ref>

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" is correlated with social dysfunctions<ref>[http://www.allaboutlove.org/same-sex-marriage-countries.htm Same Sex Marriage Countries]</ref> that states and countries banning it have avoided. States and countries legalizing same-sex "marriage" have markedly different levels of quality of life from those that have banned it.

Ancient civilizations that recognized same-sex "marriage" collapsed as a result, while those that refused to recognize it have been spared that fate.<ref>[http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Slippery-Slope-Of-Same-Sex-Marriage&id=824855 The Slippery Slope of Same Sex Marriage]</ref>

Legalization of same-sex "marriage" would confer [[special rights]] on homosexuals, thereby placing heterosexuals at a legal disadvantage.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/December/New-Jersey-Lawmakers-Drop-Same-Sex-Marriage-Bill/ New Jersey Lawmakers Drop Same-Sex Marriage Bill], from [[CBN]]</ref>

The fact that the strongest predictor of support for same-sex "marriage" is level of education<ref>[http://www.gainesville.com/article/20090902/ARTICLES/909021016?p=1&tc=pg UF study: Education best predicted support for gay marriage ban]</ref> shows that [[brainwashing]] into [[professor values]] has a corrosive effect on morality.

Since rights are a [[zero-sum game]],<ref>[http://bbprof.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/the-new-three-rs/ The New Three R's], by Bill Borst</ref> granting same-sex couples the right to "marry" will necessarily come at the expense of the rights of others.

After recognizing same-sex "marriage" and other liberal policies, [[Portugal]] saw its credit rating reduced to junk level.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/05/us-usa-economy-instantportugal-idUSTRE7645BV20110705 Instant view: Portugal downgraded to junk by Moody's]</ref> More generally, in the European debt crisis, countries that recognize same-sex "marriage" are faring worse than countries whose policy on the subject still follows Christian and conservative moral teachings.

==See also==
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]
*[[Gay bowel syndrome]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Bible]]
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==External Links==
*[http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp Gay Marriage: Why Would It Affect Me? Ten Arguments Against Same Sex Marriage], NoGayMarriage.com
*[http://www.robgagnon.net/homoPresbyTodayArticle.htm Why “Gay Marriage” Is Wrong, by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.]
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]

Talk:It Gets Better

2012-03-04T21:29:41Z

Ayzmo: /* project */

==Merge Request==
I prefer that this page grows on. So, my vote is no merge, uno vs. uno. We need a tie breaker Ed.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:53, 20 January 2012 (EST)

==Lost==
You're really unpleasant about gay people on this website. Why? Denying my sexuality was causing me severe mental distress. It really does get better coming out and acdcepting the fact that you're gay, actually. Sorry, you're wrong.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:Really? Is that so? I believe the [[Bible]] says otherwise.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:38, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::There is medicine to help with your mental distress. You can have feelings for same-sex but you don't have to act on it. We love the sinner and hate the sin. We rather you hear the truth than to sugar coat it. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:::It is not important if it please you or you you 'think' it is better the wicked way you choose. The important matter is how God sees it and I assure you: God does not approve !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:46, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::::Yep I'm on good medication, good therapy the works, and I'm now in a good, stable, loving relationship. I'm not particularly religious, but have nothing against those who are. I'm in a much better place than I ever was when I tried to deny my sexuality or convince myself it was 'evil' or something to be 'cured'. And I'm not the only one. You are causing significant suffering and distress - why? I've read the Bible, surely the idea of 'sin' is something that is harmful to humanity - my sexuality is in no way harmful to anyone, quite the opposite. Were I to carry on living a lie, trying to suppress the truth, believing that being gay is wrong or abhorrent, that would be harmful - to myself, my friends and my family, as it was. That's true, from human experience. If you've not experienced it, but only read about it or heard about it, what makes you think you're qualified to judge? Why do you sit in judgment? Leave us alone to be happy, we aren't interfereing with you. I'm not mlitant, I don't hate anyone, and yet everywhere come across poison and hatred based on prejudices and misinformation, such as in Rick Perry's latest campaign ad. Why? I'm not harming anyone. Why should I have to live in denial? I am a moral person, loyal, kind and committed, which is more than can be said for many straight people -including many of those looking to run for President of the United States, on both sides of the political spectrum. God, I am sure, would want me first and foremost to be happy and contented, and cause happiness and contentment to those around me. I am now able to do this, thanks to my coming out. You are promoting a negative, isolating, cold view of love and human relationships. Please, stop. How can you be so certain God does not approve? I am not wicked, I didn't choose to be this way. Sometimes I wish I weren't, but I am what I am. End of.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:::::You know, if you want to believe your own delusions, go right ahead. But I know and you know God does not approve of that lifestyle. It explicitly states it in the Old ''and'' New Testaments! Sure Jesus makes no specific reference, but He didn't have to. I hope you decide to turn from your wicked sin and find a good doctor. You are in my prayers.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 13 December 2011 (EST)
:::::As for Rick Perry's ads, he makes a good point. Why are they allowed to serve in the military when our children can't celebrate ''Christmas'' or pray in school? It seems the left will tolerate any lifestyle except Christian ones. They hate Christianity, but they will accept Islam, homosexuality, and anything else. You can be homsexual, but you can't pray in school. Does that seem sound to you?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:25, 13 December 2011 (EST)
::::::I've an excellent doctor and have turned from my 'wicked ways' - these being periods of self-harm and aggression caused not by my being gay, but by my repressing it. Now I have come to terms with it and am in a good, stable relationship, with the support of my friends and family, my life is infintitely better. It is sad and distinctly unChristian of you to disparage that and the love and support I have found. I feel very sorry for you that you have such horrible, twisted delusions about gay people and human sexuality. I have nothing to feel ashamed of now, but you clearly do - your hatred and bigotry stem from either a profound bitterness and insecurity, or a cult-like delusional religious Stalinism of skewed biblical literalism and the poison dripped in your ear by false prophets. I pity you. In love.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
::::::::It appears you did not heed my warning about making productive edits to entries, and you instead decided to waste time by talking uselessly. I hope you see the light of [[conservative values]] and recover from the sin you are committing against our Lord. All the best.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:57, 15 December 2011 (EST)
:Let's refrain from ad-hominem when blocking, JamesWilson. It grows the stereotype that conservatives are all close-minded insulting people. Instead, gently rebuke them. 23:59, 13 February 2012 (EST)
::Apologies, but this particular editor, despite ''several'' warnings, continued to talk, talk, talk, without contributing anything of substance (or anything at all for this matter) to this article (or any other article), as can be witnessed here. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 06:42, 15 February 2012 (EST)
:::You provoked him and pressed him on. Had you just left him alone, maybe, just ignored or didn't criticize his original comment, he wouldn't have continued. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 16:37, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::No, I didn't. I was not the only one to rightfully criticize his original comment. Do you agree with it by chance?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:35, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::I meant "you" in its plural form. And no, I don't agree. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 17:46, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Protected? ==

Why is this protected? I would be interested in adding some more facts(100% referenced) to the article. As it is the article gives very little information on the project itself and just reads like an essay. If you want an essay on why it is wrong write one but an article should actually give information on the project in more than the lead. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 00:06, 14 February 2012 (EST)
::I will unlock it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:24, 14 February 2012 (EST)

== Rewrite ==

I've been working on a [http://conservapedia.com/User:Ayzmo/IGB rewrite of the article] to make it more encyclopedic. I've kept much of the content but rewrote the intro entirely and added a history section. I wasn't really sure how to work the criticism section. It needs a lot more work before it should be moved over here but I'd really appreciate any comments, suggestions, or criticisms on the talk page. Please don't alter what I've already written. If you put something on the talk page I'll find a way to work it into the article. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:43, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== project ==

It's definitely a "project," or at least more than a slogan. I would suggest moving it back. More information can be found [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ here]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:19, 4 March 2012 (EST)
:It's fine where it is. Why make a big deal if "project" is in the title, anyway?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:22, 4 March 2012 (EST)
::[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=It_Gets_Better&diff=965969&oldid=965965 Another editor had moved it from It Gets Better Project to It Gets Better]--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 16:26, 4 March 2012 (EST)
:::Maybe it would be better to wait but I'll express my opinion because I don't think I explained my reasoning well. An opinion on what it is does not change a fact such as the title of the organization. It would be no different from doing the same with the NOAA because you don't believe it is an administration. That's fine if opinions are held to that but they should be included in the article and should not affect the title. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 16:29, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Michele Bachmann

2012-03-04T21:13:13Z

Ayzmo: /* 2012 Presidential Candidate */ I'm not sure what the sentence was trying to say and the paragraph seems fine without it.

{{Officeholder
|name=Michele Bachmann
|image=Michele Bachmann.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Marcus Bachmann
|religion= Non-Denominational Christian
(Was formerly a member of the [[Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod]])<REF>[http://www.christianpost.com/news/michele-bachmann-leaves-church-gets-catholic-support-52384/ Bachmann leaves church] Anugrah Kumar, The Christian Post, 27 July 2011</REF>
|offices=
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Minnesota
|district=6th
|terms=January 4, 2007 – Present
|preceded=Mark Kennedy
|former=
|succeeded=
}}
}}

'''Michele M. Bachmann''', born April 6, 1956 (age {{age|1956|04|06}}), is a [[conservative]] and the first [[Republican Party|Republican]] woman to be elected to the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] from [[Minnesota]]. She represents the 6th District of Minnesota.

A [[movement conservative]], Michele Bachmann defeated a massive attempt by [[liberals]] to unseat her in 2008 and 2010. Prior to her election to [[Congress]], she served in the Minnesota state [[legislature]] since first being elected there in 2000 as a check against the leftists then encroaching on Minnesota's freedoms.

Michele Bachmann, an [[attorney]], is a former tax litigator. She has five [[children]] and has also opened her home to 23 foster children.<ref>http://bachmann.house.gov/Biography/</ref>

Bachmann is [[pro-life]], [[pro-gun]],<REF>[http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/archive/2008/10/bachmann_gets_n.shtml Bachmann gets new campaign manager, NRA endorsement] MN. Public Radio, OCTOBER 3, 2008</REF> pro-religion and holds many other core conservative values. She is widely considered one of the most important politicians in the fight against [[evolution]]. A search for her on [[Google]] turns up five positive sites for every 100 nasty liberal smear sites, like the [[Huffington Post]]. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has now officially put the outspoken Minnesota Republican in their sights with the bachmannwatch website. She has been heavily influenced by Francis Shaeffer, and is not afraid to defend her conservative Christian moral convictions against even the most desperate attacks by liberals.

==2012 Presidential Candidate==

Michele Bachmann became the nation's first female presidential candidate from the GOP. Her campaign showed promise with a win in the [[Iowa]] straw poll 2011, however the [[Iowa caucus]] in 2012 would turn out much different. Her campaign expected more from Iowans but she finished near the bottom. After the less-than-favorable showing she decided to formally suspend her campaign. She was lampooned as a non-intellectual, a target for [[Mainstream media|pathetic journalism]] to smear. <ref>The Jimmy Fallon Talk Show incident, Chris Wallace interview to name a few</ref> In addition, the MSM went after her husband Marcus. They mock his demeanor as woman-like. <ref>Marcus Bachmann was trending on [[Twitter]] January 3rd, 2012</ref>

== [[Liberal]] Hysteria about Bachmann ==

Liberals have been hysterical about some of the candid observations of Congresswoman Bachmann. She was targeted for comments made seeking an investigation into the [[Obama]]-[[William Ayers|Ayers]] connection, the "tolerant" liberal establishment even compared her to the Nazis.<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/10/21/hardball-gone-mad-congresswoman-compared-nazi-insisting-media-cover-obam Hardball Gone Mad: Congresswoman Compared to Nazi for Insisting Media Cover Obama-Ayers Connection], Tim Graham, ''Newsbusters'', October 21, 2008</ref> She deserves many compliments for her insight and courage. Congresswoman Rep. Bachmann "has shown an uncanny knack for infuriating critics with sometimes off-the-wall behavior and comments, all the while advancing her own political career." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/pub-michele-bachmann/ Outspoken But Not Outmaneuvered, Rep. Bachmann Manages Her Candor], Judson Berger, ''Fox News.com'', March 27, 2009</ref>

The liberal smears are part of a familiar pattern whereby they work overtime to try to discredit conservative women or minorities. The reason is obvious: conservative women and minorities disprove the falsehood that liberals are better for them.

Liberals have also tried to smear Michele Bachmann for her work as a tax attorney for the IRS. As usual, Congresswoman Bachmann rose above the liberal smears when she told a crowd "I went to work into that system because the first rule of war is 'know your enemy.'"<ref>http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/michele-bachmann-i-worked-for-the-irs-so-i-could-take-down-the-irs/</ref> Their newest line of attack is trying to demonize her opposition to government mandated vaccinations when abstinence is the truest prevention of HPV infection.

Bachmann's husband has also been the target of smears by liberals, many of whom disapprove of his work to help misguided gay teens.

== See also ==
*[[United States Presidential Election, 2012]]
[[File:Bachmann3.jpg|left|150px]]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bachmann, Michele}}
[[Category:110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]
[[Category:United States Representatives]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Minnesota]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:2012 Presidential Candidates]]
{{Conservatism}}

==External links==
*[http://www.michelebachmann.com/ Official Michele Bachmann For President website]
*[http://bachmann.house.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/412216_michele_bachmann Open Congress]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY Video of Bachmann talking about the gangster government on the House floor]

User talk:Ayzmo

2012-03-04T20:28:07Z

Ayzmo: /* Manual of Style */

It Gets Better

2012-03-04T20:21:47Z

Ayzmo: Fixed some spelling errors, missing words, and bolded the entirety of the official name.

The '''It Gets Better Project''' argues that a problem the gay community faces is lack of acceptance and toleration from "straight" people. Project founder [[Dan Savage]] argues that if homosexual youths can "just get through their teen years", they'll be able to enjoy the protection of adult power and camaraderie which will overcome the "daily tormenting and bullying" they face now.<ref>http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/showing-gay-teens-a-happy-future/ Showing Gay Teenagers a Happy Future</ref>

The [[liberal]] project was founded in September 2010, when Savage claimed there were a number of suicides by gay teenagers who had been bullied for their perceived sexual orientation.
The idea behind the project is to tell gay teens to hold on to their [[homosexuality]], promising them that adult homosexual life will provide them "levels of happiness, potential, and positivity".

==History==
The project was founded by on September 21, 2010 in response to the suicide of a gay teenager named Billy Lucas. Savage expressed that "I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that ''it gets better''. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, ''it gets better''."(Author's emphasis)<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4940874 Give 'Em Hope</ref> Savage, in conjunction with several organizations founded the project as a [[501(c)(3)]] organization and set up a [[YouTube]] [http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject channel] to which videos could be uploaded.

While the project started off with just a video from Savage, within two weeks more than 200 videos were submitted to the project and soon after the project reached YouTube's video limit of 640 submissions. Due to the increasing submissions an [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/ It Gets Better Project website] was launched where more videos could be hosted. The site continues to accept submissions.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/MNVJ1FP6E1.DTL
Dan Savage overwhelmed by gay outreach's response</ref>

==Criticism==
The project has seen its fair share of criticism from both sides of the spectrum.

Those on the [[right]] have argued that while it is noble to help troubled young people it's wrong to deceive them. They argue that Dan Savage's video message is wrong and that gay teens need help. Mentally and physically, it gets better by leaving homosexuality. At the least, they say, [[abstinence]] will prolong their lives, not shorten it.

Some on the [[left]] have argued that The It Gets Better Project doesn't go far enough and that the goal should be making things better now, not saying it will get better later.

== Christian faith vs. defeatism and acceptance of sexual sin ==

''See also:'' [[Ex-homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming homosexuality]]

A person doesn't move forward in their life by accepting and embracing their [[sin]], they move forward by repenting of it and establishing a relationship with [[God]] through [[Jesus Christ]]. The sin of homosexuality is no different than other besetting sins in terms of it [[Overcoming homosexuality|being able to be conquered through the assistance of Christ]] and the existence of Christian [[ex-homosexuals]] is testimony to this fact. Christian [[faith]] has been conquering the sin of homosexuality for over 2,000 years.

The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

==Notable events==
In October of 2010 President [[Barack Obama]]<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/ Obama Joins It Gets Better Campaign Dan Savage Says Make It Better</ref> and former [[First Lady]] [[Laura Bush]]<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lady-laura-bush-lends-support-bullied-gay-teens/story?id=11982691#.T1BY9fG41M4 Laura Bush Lends Support to Bullied Gay Teens</ref> submitted videos to the project.

Inspired by Obama, the White House Staff created a video in support of ''It Gets Better'' project. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4 White House Staff, YouTube]

In October of 2011 a number of Members of Parliament from the [[Conservative Party]] made a video in support of the project.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/22/conservatives-it-gets-better-video-criticism_n_1026409.html Conservatives' 'It Gets Better' Video Draws Criticism</ref>

In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two gay teens who had made videos It Gets Better Project died by suicide.(see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

==Partners==
Various benefactors are partnered with the project including: [[GLSEN]], [[ACLU]], and [[The Trevor Project]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ official website:about it gets better project]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/it-gets-better White House website, Obama "It Gets Better"]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Charity]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

User talk:Ayzmo

2012-03-04T20:19:16Z

Ayzmo: /* Manual of Style */

Pope John Paul II

2012-03-04T02:39:08Z

Ayzmo: The sentence didn't make sense as written and I gave it a word that I feel expresses what was trying to be said.

[[Image:John_Paul_II.jpg|thumb|300px|John Paul II]]
'''Blessed Pope John Paul II''' (b. May 18, 1920, died April 2, 2005), born Karol Józef Wojtyła, in Wadowice, [[Poland]] succeeded [[John Paul I]] and preceded [[Benedict XVI]]. He held the second longest papacy in modern times, after Pope Pius IX, and was the first non-Italian [[Pope]] in over 500 years. He became Vicar of Christ (the title given to the pope) in 1978, the year of three popes, and is now known as Blessed John Paul II after being beautified on May 1, 2011. He was fluent in ten languages and would often give his [[homilies]] in the local language of countries he visited. By using Godly Love, he stood up to the [[Nazi]]s and the [[Communist]]s and overcame them both. His pontificate was successful in keeping a vibrant modern Church in strict accordance with Apostolic traditions. He [[canonized]] more [[saints]] than any other pope. It is widely desired that John Paul II be sainted and have a title of "John Paul the Great."

==Early Life==
Karol was born the last of three siblings to father Karol Wojtyła and mother Emilia Kaczorowska. At a young age, he was a known to be gentle and loving to all. His mother died on April 13, 1929 and his older brother, who was a doctor, died of scarlett fever on December 5, 1932.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/KarolWojtylaPopeJohnPaulTimeline.aspx Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) Timeline]</ref> He lived with his father until he entered the Jagiellonian [[University]] in [[Krakow]], Poland. He was a very good football (soccer) player and his nickname was 'Goalie'. Karol loved the arts and was involved in poetry and drama. In 1939, Nazi [[Germany]] invaded Poland. His father died on Feb. 18, 1941, when Karol was 21 years old.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/KarolWojtylaPopeJohnPaulTimeline.aspx Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) Timeline]</ref> Occupied Poland was a tough life for Karol but he managed by hiding within the underground movement. He refused any armed struggle, and was intent on keeping his freedoms and the Polish people's dignity alive through arts. He was known to help [[Jewish]] Poles against the wrath of Nazi [[persecution]]. In October 1942, at the age of 22, he entered the underground seminary to study as a priest..<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/KarolWojtylaPopeJohnPaulTimeline.aspx Karol Wojtyla (Pope John Paul II) Timeline]</ref>

==Election and Pontificate==

The Conclave of Cardinals elected him [[Pope]] on October 1,1978. As Pope, John Paul II traveled to more places, visited more countries, and traveled more miles than any other previous Pope. He also conducted more public meetings with the faithful, as the total attendance of his Wednesday audiences alone eclipsed 17,600,000 people. Controversially, during his reign, as many new saints were created as had been created in the reigns of all previous popes combined.

On 22nd October 1996 Pope John Paul II made world headlines with his message1 delivered to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. It was entitled ''Magisterium Is Concerned with Question of Evolution for It Involves Conception of Man'' and resulted in headlines in many of the world's newspapers declaring that evolution and creation could coexist. His holiness stated his opinion on evolution that "In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

Another one of his accomplishments is the establishment of [[World Youth Day]]. Also, he wrote 14 [[Encyclicals]], 5 books, and inumerous letters.

On May 9, 2005 John Paul II's successor, [[Pope Benedict XVI]], waived the five year waiting period for beatification.

1 From the Vatican, 22 October 1996. ''Official translation published in [[L'Osservatore Romano]], "Weekly Edition in English," 30 October 1996.
''

== Assassination attempts ==
A [[Muslim]] assassin from [[Turkey]], Mehmet Ali Agca, shot Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1981 at [[St. Peter's Square]]. In critical condition, he was rushed to Gemelli Hospital with abdominal wounds and severe blood loss. The recovered pope would meet with Mehmet in prison to offer forgiveness. Years later, an [[Italian]] court ruled that the [[Soviets]] were involved in the plot, possibly done for his efforts in [[Poland]]'s Solidarity movement. [[CIA]] reports have [[Warsaw Pact]] nation communist [[Bulgaria]] as a culprit. <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8G3J3J00&show_article=1 Italian Panel: Soviets Behind Pope Attack] Ap, March 2, 2006</ref>

An ultra-conservative Spanish monk named Juan Maria Fernandez y Krohn attacked Pope John Paul II with a bayonet on May 13, 1982 in Fatima, Portugal. At the time, the pope concealed the fact from the public Fernandez y Krohn had wounded him with the blade. The monk was sentenced to 6-1/2 years in prison for the attack.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/PopeJohnPaulIITimeline.aspx Pope John Paul II Timeline]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7673443.stm Pope John Paul 'Wounded' in 1982]</ref>

Due to these attacks, the "Popemobile", a bullet-proof car, was used for Pope John Paul's visit to Great Britain on May 28 through June 2, 1982.<ref>[http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/ChurchAndMinistry/PopeJohnPaulIITimeline.aspx Pope John Paul II Timeline] </ref>

== Quotes ==
Speaking of Crossing The Threshold of [[Hope]]. [[God]] is always on the side of the suffering. His omnipotence is manifested precisely in the fact that he freely accepted suffering. He could have chosen not to do so. He could have chosen to demonstrate his [[omnipotence]] even at the moment of the [[Crucifixion]]. In fact, it was proposed to him: "Let the Messiah, the King of Israel come down now from the cross that we may see and believe." ([[Gospel of Mark|Mark]] 15.32) But he did not accept that challenge. The fact that he stayed on the Cross until the end, the fact that on the Cross he could say, as do all who suffer, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mark 15.34) If the agony on the Cross had not happened, the truth that God is Love would have been unfounded. Yes! God is Love and precisely for this he gave his Son, to reveal himself completely as Love. [[Christ]] is the One who "loved...to the end." ([[Gospel of John|John]] 13.1) "To the end" means to the last breath.

== See also ==
[[Image:JP2OLoG.jpg|thumb|Statue of Pope John-Paul II, at the basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe]]
*[[Our Lady of Guadalupe]]
*[[Catholicism]]
*[[Luigi Giussani]]
*[[Virgin Mary]]

== References ==
<references/>

== External links ==

*[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/index.htm Karol Wojtyla Official Vatican site.]

[[Category:Popes|John Paul II, Pope]]
[[Category:Polish People|John Paul II, Pope]]

Rush Limbaugh

2012-03-04T02:30:52Z

Ayzmo: /* Politics */ Added a paragraph about the Fluke incident.

[[Image:RushLimbaugh 1.jpg|right|200px]]
'''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is an extremely popular American [[conservative]] radio talk show host and author. Limbaugh has risen to the top of the ratings charts as an intensely conservative voice in a talk radio media environment dominated by conservatives. In his sharp criticisms of the [[Obama Administration]] Limbaugh has been characterized as one of the ''de facto'' leaders of the opposition. Historians compare his role to Walter Winchell, a radio commentator of the 1930s-1950s era. He has been ranked by ''The Daily Telegraph'', a popular UK newspaper, as the second most influential conservative.<ref>[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6990965/The-most-influential-US-conservatives-20-1.html The most influential US conservatives]</ref>

== Early Years ==
Rush Hudson Limbaugh III was born in 1951 in Cape Girardeau, [[Missouri]]. At age 16, he chose to explore his passion for broadcasting by working as a [[disc jockey]], hosting a radio show in his hometown. After four years, he left for [[Pittsburgh]] to work for the former [[ABC News|ABC]] owned and operated ''KQV''. Following his work as a disc jockey, Rush briefly left broadcasting for [[business]], joining the [[Kansas City Royals]] as Director of Group Sales, and then Director of Sales and Special Events. In 1983, he re-entered radio as a political commentator for ''KMBZ'' in [[Kansas City]]. A year later, in 1984, Rush dropped out of [[college]] after his freshman year to pursue work full-time as a disk jockey, when ''KFBK'' in [[Sacramento]], [[California]] hired him to host a talk show that reveled in controversy about conservative politics. Limbaugh tripled the program's ratings in four years. From there, in 1988 he went on to [[New York]] where the record-breaking national show, the ''EIB Network'', was born.

On August 1, 1988, Rush launched his phenomenally successful radio broadcast into national syndication, with 56 radio stations. More than 20 years later the show is heard on nearly 600 stations by up to 20 million people each week and is the highest-rated national radio talk show in America. Rush was awarded the "Syndicated Radio Personality" of the year by the [[National Association of Broadcasters]] in 1992, 1995, 2000, and 2005. He was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1993 and National Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame in 1998. Rush Limbaugh has been labeled as the savior of AM radio by broadcast industry leaders, sometimes called the "Doctor of Democracy."<ref name=doctor>[http://www.twoifbytea.com/doctor.php Rush Limbaugh, the "Doctor of Democracy"], [[Two If By Tea|TwoIfByTea.com]].</ref>

== Radio ==
Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its incisive criticism of the follies of liberalism. He is often at odds with liberal activists, such as [[Al Franken]], who wrote a book entitled ''"Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot". Limbaugh habitually refers to [[feminists]] who support [[abortion]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as having "talent on loan from God". Sensitive about his own schooling, he ridicules the college educated as the "Arts & Croissant Crowd."

Limbaugh's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 16-20 million listeners weekly, making him the #1 radio talk show host in America.
<ref>[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Talkers magazine online</ref> In July 2008, Rush announced "he has renewed his contract with Premiere Radio Networks and Clear Channel Radio, continuing syndication of his show 'many years into the future.'" <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27326 Rush Renews Contract], ''[[Human Events]]'', July, 2, 2008</ref>

=== Audience ===
Limbaugh's fans enjoy his bluster and bombast, but behind it there is a substantive defense of a coherent political philosophy. He makes politics engaging and entertaining, producing an audience more eager to seek out other sources of information. Limbaugh "dittoheads" consume more print news than do non-listeners. Like Fox News viewers, Limbaugh fans are more likely to tune in to presidential debates. Far from making people cynical or indifferent toward public affairs, Limbaugh reinforces his audience's disposition to participate in the political process.<ref>Jamieson and Cappella (2008) </ref>

Conservative Republicans are in his audience, but educational attainment, family income, and race do not predict who listens. Listening to Limbaugh is significantly correlated with public affairs information. He is not merely an entertainer and people who listen to him regularly are very well informed on public affairs. However, his radio audience is smaller than the TV audiences of conservative commentators [[Bill O'Reilly]] and [[Sean Hannity]].<ref> Stephen Earl Bennett, " Who Listens to Rush Limbaugh's Radio Program and the Relationship Between Listening to Limbaugh and Knowledge of Public Affairs, 1994-2006," ''Journal of Radio & Audio Media,'' May 2009, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p66-82, in [[EBSCO]]</ref>

=== Poking fun at Obama liberals ===
Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said on MSNBC's "Hardball" that Obama was "sort of God."

Asking rhetorically what [[God]] has in common with Obama, Limbaugh said, "Neither has a birth certificate." <ref>[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=100717 Rush Limbaugh pummels Obama on birth certificate] WND, June 10, 2009</ref> He went on to say "God does not think he's Obama," and "Liberals love Obama." Limbaugh explained more differences, "Another difference is that God only demands to be worshiped once a week," and "God asks for only 10 percent of your money", and "God gives you freedom to live your life as you choose."

=== Obama to Fail ===
Limbaugh made national headlines when he was asked to write 400 words for a newspaper column about Obama's plans. He said he didn't need 400 words, he needed just four: "I hope he fails." He was immediately attacked by the Obama White House and liberal pundits as an unpatriotic obstructionist. Limbaugh expounded his view in the show's [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html transcript]; if Obama is for socialist policies and against capitalist policies, of course Limbaugh could not support those policies, and hoped he would fail. <ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html Limbaugh radio show transcript.]</ref>

Limbaugh addressed [[CPAC]] and further discussed his stance that generated so much attention. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/limbaugh-leader-obama-chief-staff-calls-talk-host-barrier-progress/ Limbaugh the Leader? Obama Chief of Staff] Fox News, March 01, 2009</ref> {{cquote| ''"Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail? Well, they certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. ... The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So where is it -- what is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?"'' }}

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele called Limbaugh an "entertainer" whose comments were "incendiary" and "ugly," and Limbaugh counterattacked Steele's fitness to run the party. A Gallup poll in May 2009 on who was the main voice of the GOP found Limbaugh leading the pack at 13%, with Steele trailing at 1%.

== Other Media Work ==
The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style.

Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. <ref>
[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com</ref>

Rush occasionally writes op-ed pieces for the [[Wall Street Journal]].

== Politics ==
Limbaugh endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. <ref>[http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#Limbaugh%20Endorses%20Romney Limbaugh Endorses Romney], [[Melanie Hunter]], ''[[CNSNews]]'', February 05, 2008</ref> He was often critical of [[John McCain]] during the Republican primaries, but supported him in the general election.

Limbaugh has warned against false prophets, telling his audience in 1996 that, "You are being manipulated in a way that I find very bothersome." "Pat Buchanan is not a conservative. He's a populist."<ref>See [http://www.nytimes.com/1996/02/23/us/politics-on-the-air-radio-talk-show-host-fears-for-true-conservatism-s-fate.html?n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Robin Toner, "Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate," ''New York Times'' Feb. 23, 1996]</ref>.

=== The Harry Reid Letter ===
On October 2, 2007, Senate Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] wrote a letter to Mark P. Mays, President and CEO of Clear Channel Communications, who is Limbaugh's chief patron. In it Senator Reid essentially demanded that Mays order Limbaugh to apologize for remarks he made concerning "phony soldiers."<ref name=ReidText>Reid, Harry, ''et al.'' "[http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284699 Letter to Mark P. Mays of Clear Channel Communications]." [http://reid.senate.gov/ Electronic Office of US Senator Harry Reid], October 2, 2007. Retrieved October 19, 2007.</ref> A ''phony soldier'' is someone who is not a soldier at all but is pretending to be one, especially in a public forum. Such activity is unlawful, and the faker whose activity prompted Limbaugh's attacks has since been convicted and punished.<ref name=PhonySoldier>Limbaugh, Rush. "[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html The Anatomy of a Smear: 'Phony Soldiers' Is a Phony Story]." ''[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh Official Site]'', accessed December 25, 2007.</ref> This letter was co-signed by nearly all Democratic senators. In a speech in Philadelphia on October 11th, Limbaugh announced plans to sell the original letter on eBay in a charity auction. The proceeds went to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. The letter sold for $2.1 million and Limbaugh matched the winning amount with a total of $4.2 million being donated. <ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/420889/harry_reidrush_limbaugh_letter_nets.html</ref>

=== Victim of a Democratic prosecutor's witchhunt ===
On October 6, 2003 Limbaugh told his audience he was addicted to OxyContin and other painkillers citing a failed back surgery as the cause of his pain and subsequent dependence. <ref>The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 6, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/ "Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication"</ref> Limbaugh underwent treatment for his addiction, and charges against him for alleged "doctor shopping" to procure prescription medications were dropped<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml</ref> after Democratic prosecutors illegally seized private medical records<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/hottopics/Rush_Limbaugh.shtml </ref> in a blatant misuse of the criminal justice system to discredit Limbaugh.

===Fluke Incident===
In March of 2012 a Georgetown law student by the name of Sandra Fluke gave testimony in support of an Obama directive to have private healthcare cover contraception. During the testimony Fluke complained that contraception was expensive and that Georgetown's student health insurance should cover the cost. Limbaugh responded to her comments on his show where he said that her insurance paying for her to have sex made her a "slut."<ref>http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-limbaugh-apology-20120303,0,6854957.story Rush Limbaugh apologizes for 'slut' remarks aimed at Sandra Fluke</ref> He later went on to say that he would agree to the payment if she would film herself having sex and put the video online. After several days of backlash, which included condemnations from both parties and advertisers backing out, Limbaugh apologized, saying he "did not mean a personal attack" on Fluke and had used poor word choice but reiterated his opposition to her comments.<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109876/Rush-Limbaugh-apologises-calling-student-Sandra-Fluke-slut.html 'I sincerely apologise': Rush Limbaugh says sorry for calling student a 'slut' in row over birth control which led advertisers to boycott show</ref><ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0303/What-Rush-Limbaugh-actually-apologized What?? Rush Limbaugh actually apologized!!</ref>

== Sports ==
Limbaugh is an avid sports fan, particularly football. He briefly held a position as a commentator on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show. He resigned from the show on October 2, 2006 after comments made regarding Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb received widespread criticism.

{{cquote|''' ''"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."'' '''}}

After McNabb's response, "It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal," significant pressure was put upon Limbaugh to resign. <ref>http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html</ref>

== Other Facts ==
The following is a list of other facts about Rush Limbaugh:<ref name=doctor/>
* Honorary Member of the [[Republican]] Freshman Class 1995 [[House of Representatives]].
* [[Time Magazine]]’s 100 Most Influential People in the world (2009).
* [[Forbes|Forbes Magazine]] 50 Most Powerful Celebrities in the United States, numerous years (#19 in 2010).
* [[Barbara Walters]]’ 10 Most Fascinating People (2008).
* The Giving Back Fund’s 10 Most Generous Celebrities for contributions to charities and individuals, such as the [[Marine Corps - Law Enforcement Foundation]].
* Raised 20 Million Dollars for the [[Leukemia]] and [[Lymphoma Society]] since 1989. Each year Rush hosts a Radiothon (one three-hour broadcast per year) during his program to raise funds for Leukemia and Lymphoma research.
* Author of ''The Limbaugh Letter'', the most widely read political newsletter in the country and two best-selling books, ''The Way Things Ought to Be'' (ISBN 067175145x) and ''See, I Told You So'' (ISBN 067187120X), which have sold over 8.9 million copies, including an American publishing record for ''See, I Told You So''.
* Guest Television appearances include ''[[Nightline]]'' with [[Ted Koppel]], ''Cross Fire'', ''[[Good Morning America]]'', ''[[CBS|CBS This Morning]]'', ''[[The Today Show]]'', ''The Phil Donahue Show'', ''[[The Late Show]]'' with [[David Letterman]], ''[[The Tonight Show]]'', ''[[This Week]]'' with [[David Brinkley]], ''[[Meet the Press]]'' with [[Tim Russert]], and [[The Drew Carey Show]]. Rush also starred as himself in the popular network sitcoms ''[[Family Guy]]'' and ''[[Hearts Afire]]''.
* Profiled on CBS's ''60 Minutes'', [[ABC]]'s ''20/20'' and in numerous publications including ''[[U.S. News and World Report]]'', ''[[Newsweek]]'', ''[[National Review]]'', ''[[Time Magazine]]'', ''[[New York Times|The New York Times Magazine]]'' and ''[[USA Weekend]]''.
* ''Miss America Pageant'' judge (2010).

== Quotes ==
* "You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one." - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993

== The Rush Limbaugh Lexicon ==
Like Mark Levin and others, Rush Limbaugh holds a lexicon for many liberals and Democrats, although Rush's lexicon is less expansive as Mark Levin's

*[[Mainstream Media]] = Drive-by Media
*[[CNN]] = Communist News Network (was originally called the "Clinton News Network" during the Clinton administration.)
*[[Barack Obama]] = Barack "Mmm mmm mmm" Obama (This is in reference to the propagandist school song about Obama)
*[[Joe Biden]] = Joe Bite-Me
*[[Harry Reid]] = Dingy Harry
*[[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] = Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz
*[[John Edwards]] = Breck girl
*[[Nancy Pelosi]] = Bela Pelosi
*Barbra Walters = Baba Wawa
*Chuck Todd = F Chuck Todd
*[[Ben Affleck]] = Ben Affliction
*Paul Begala = The Forehead
*[[Chuck Schumer]] = Chuck You Schumer

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Rush Limbaugh|Articles about '''Rush Limbaugh''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Rush Derangement Syndrome]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh] - Official website
* [http://download.premiereradio.net/guest/rushlimb/LimbaughMuseum/Iphone2/PRELOAD_Outside.html The Limbaugh Museum of Broadcasting]
* [http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15919 Rush's 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech] - ''C-SPAN'', February 28, 2009
* [http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/rush-limbaugh/id406055530?mt=8#ls=1 The Rush Limbaugh Show] - [[iPhone]] app, by Premiere Radio Networks, Inc.

==Further reading==
* Gordon, Scott. ''Rush Limbaugh: An Oral & Media Biography'' (2009). 258pp quotes and comments by his friends and enemies.
* Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, and Joseph N. Cappella. ''Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment'' (2008) balanced analysis by scholars; compares Limbaugh with Fox and ''Wall Street Journal'' [http://www.amazon.com/Echo-Chamber-Limbaugh-Conservative-Establishment/dp/0195398602/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261865854&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]

{{DEFAULTSORT: Limbaugh, Rush}}

[[Category:Broadcasters]]
[[Category:Republican Party]]
[[Category:Conservative Commentators]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]

War on Women

2012-03-04T02:15:19Z

Ayzmo: The Fluke thing was about her private university(Georgetown) paying for the contraception, not taxpayers.

The '''War on Women''' also known as the GOP's War on Women's Healthcare, is the false campaign narrative crafted and promoted by the [[Democratic Party]] for the 2012 election cycle.

This angle is the first reaction by any [[Planned Parenthood]] spokeswoman when confronted by scaling back public tax dollars. <ref>[http://carloz.newsvine.com/_news/2011/02/16/6068123-a-war-on-women-planned-parenthoods-cecile-richards-on-gops-assault-on-reproductive-rights 'A War on Women' - Planned Parenthood's Cecile Richards on GOP's Assault on Reproductive Rights, Newsvine, Feb 16, 2011]</ref> Recently, [[contraception]] was made an issue by liberals during the televised presidential debates. Liberal debate hosts would pepper the candidates with meaningless contraception questions when there wasn't any public outcry. <ref>[http://www.mrc.org/node/38885 ABC's Stephanopoulos Defends Contraception Line of Questioning from Debate, MRC, January 12, 2012]</ref> Soon thereafter, [[Obamacare]] mandates that [[Catholic]] organizations provide contraception and the issue became national, with most of the public in opposition. The bottom line is that Democrats are pushing a narrative, that is -- they claim to fight for women against the anti-women GOP.

Next came conception discussions on [[Capitol Hill]]. House Democrats were livid over the GOP scheduling only men on a panel describing the issue of contraception. <ref>[http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-ft-myers/the-war-on-women-and-contraception The war on women and contraception, The Examiner, February 18, 2012]</ref> Many sympathetic liberals in the [[Lamestream media]] picked up the story. They did not include the fact that this was a morning hearing and that the afternoon hearing scheduled women for the panel. The Democrat narrative was framed, hearings by an uncaring GOP.

The latest issue involves yet another Democrat prop. Democrats have been pushing to have testimony from Sandra Fluke on contraception issues. Denied several days by Republicans to speak, Democrats managed to have her give public testimony. Fluke claimed it is expensive for contraception and wants her university to pay. [[Rush Limbaugh]] weighed in surmising that the Democrat prop, [[Sandra Fluke]], wants taxpayers to pay for her to have [[sex]], aka a slut. Liberals everywhere would rally around Fluke and demonized Limbaugh. [[Andrea Mitchell]] of [[MSNBC]] would interview Fluke with the headline "War on Women", <ref>[http://patdollard.com/2012/03/breaking-sandra-fluke-exposed-as-fraud-activist-possible-white-house-operative-with-video/ Breaking: Sandra Fluke Exposed As Fraud, Activist, Possible White House Operative – With Video, PatDollard.com, March 2, 2012]</ref> decrying those mean [[Republican]]s. The DNC demanded that the Republican leadership distance themselves from Limbaugh's remarks and many have. Mr. Limbaugh would go on to issue an apology to Ms. Fluke, stating: "''My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices''".<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2012/0303/What-Rush-Limbaugh-actually-apologized</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Political card]]
* [[Chicago-style politics]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Politics]]
[[Category:Deceit]]
[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Liberal Obsession

2012-03-03T04:57:03Z

Ayzmo: /* Examples */ Pornography is legal. Making it legal wouldn't be an obsession. Keeping it legal? Dunno.

A '''liberal obsession''' is an idea or an ideal which [[liberal]]s obsess over. These obsessions can range from political, to environmental, or even personal. They are almost always groundless, irrational and contradictory to facts and evidence. These obsessions can lead, if enough pressure is applied, to [[liberal creep]] as [[liberals]] push their false ideals even further.

==Examples==

*Obsession over celebrities or [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]]
*Obsession over legalizing abortion.
*Obsession on censorship of [[school prayer]]
*Obsession on censorship of [[Christianity]]
*Obsession on censorship of [[Intelligent Design]] and [[Creation Science]]
*Obsessing over [[Affirmative Action]]
*Obsessing over [[Global Warming]]
*Obsession on smearing [[conservatives]]
*Obsession over [[gun control]]
*Obsession over [[political correctness]]
*Obsession over rights for [[terrorists]]
*Obsession over the [[homosexual agenda]]
*Obsession over the plight of Palestinians
*Obsession over [[George W. Bush]]
*Obsession over [[Conservapedia]]
*Obsession over supporting the fraud [[Richard Dawkins]]
*Obsession over [[Fox News]]
*Obsession over [[Sarah Palin]]
*Obsession over [[Barack Obama]]
*Obsession over labeling the [[Tea Party]] as racist, despite all evidence to the contrary.

==See Also==
* [[Liberals]]
* [[Deceit]]

{{liberalism}}

[[Category:Liberals]]

Talk:Michael Moore

2012-03-03T04:55:13Z

Ayzmo: /* Moore in NRA? */

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, this page is completely biased. If you want this site to rival Wikipedia in any way, shape or form you should probably remove the quotes around "documentary" when referring to "Sicko" (which by the way has won praise from conservatives as well as liberals. Not to mention under the picture it is captioned "Michael Moore, ranting". Hardly unbiased at all as you claim this site to be. Nor is it trustworth. {{unsigned|RobWW}}

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

::I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --[[User:Element|Element]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

yet another reason for me not be a Republican the book "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David T.Hardy and Jason Clarke sounds just a little childish, once again "Micheal Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" nice
:duh, it's actually a parody of [[Al Franken]]'s literary contribution to civility in discourse, ''Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Stupid Idiot'' and Moore's own ingenious expose ''Stupid White Men''. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:28, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

==Moore High School Photo==
[[Image:Mmoore.png|right|thumb|Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.]]

He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why the second photo? ==

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!"
--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary ==
I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But then you're pre-emptively judging his next film Sicko without even knowing what it claims by putting the word Documentary in "Sarcastic quotes". Yes, he should be, and is, scrutinized for what he says, but so then is everything. As brainslug says, people will always claim that documentaries present inaccurate facts or interpretations, but whatever the results of such scrutinous challenges, this doesnt make them not documentaries. Its enough to say, as the article does, that people challenge his claims without having to invent a word like "pseudo-documentary" (a term which seems to apply to ficticious movies like Spinal Tap) to describe a movie that the site finds disagreeable.
::--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: In addition to what Rex said above, we already have a small paragraph in which he's accused of using deceit and so on. We might as well expand that. More facts are better than fewer facts; speaking in detail about his errors is better than insinuating without detail. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Default sort ==

Please add <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}</nowiki> to the article before the categories. The article is locked. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 02:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I did, but wish I knew why we do this...--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== POlitics requires a minimum of brains? ==
I can conclude from this that RobS knows NOTHING about politics, and has never met an actual politician. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be careful with your accusations. Andy once ran for office. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 22:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement. Categroizing Michael Moore as a "political person" is an insult to people who generally are informed, and are concerned about public policy, and public discourse. I'm not sure "satirist" would apply, and if so, not a very good one. "Comedian" might offend real comedians, too. Perhaps "film maker" or some such garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Political people can be buffoons, too. Sometimes it seems like a job requirement. OTOH, I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't listed as a "Political Person", either. But I get the impressing Moore '''is''' informed and concerned--he just happens to think Conservatives are doing a terrible job. Oh, and he's fat, so there's no point in listening to him. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Good point. Do we really want to ''elevate'' Limbaugh to a political person? OTOH, Al Franken is probably running for Senate; once he's a real candidate, he should qualify for awhile, unless he wins then he can enter the Pantheon with all our other failed icons. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

You guys want to see a real masterwork of deception, check out the efforts by the "editors" at WP who refuse to identify Moore as "left-wing" for fear that it may paint him in a negative fashion. This, despite Moore's own admission to being "left-wing". WP truly is a magical land where fantasy prevails over reality. A lot like Disneyland but without the fun. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== See also ==
That whole section should be removed. Maybe if you have seen some of his movies you wouldn't say that it is all based on "junk science". Also why is there a criticism section but no praise? Since his movies have gotten much more praise than criticism [[User:Ttwashere|Ttwashere]] 20:28, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*First, welcome to CP! I pasted a welcome template on your talk page (which now exists) and hope you will read the links provided.

: Second, I don't know who is "you", but I have indeed seen all of Moore's work. I would commend to you the posted reviews, not by people considered by anyone to be defenders of Conservative thought, for you to contemplate. In the real world, Moore hasn't gotten more professional praise than criticism. Quite the opposite. Here at CP, we do not strive for political correctness, and do not tolerate Liberal [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:33, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ttwashere, I agree with TK. Liberal [[deceit]] is not tolerated and anyone here suggesting Moore is anything but a propragandist for Socialism, is deluding themselves. Moore is a liar. He uses the film medium to promote an agenda which is radical left-wing extremism. He distorts his information in his "documentaries" as well as any Nazi or Communist propagandist from the past. There are quite a few good sources for drawing this conclusion. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 09:28, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think Moore is just a greedy capitalist pig. Even limousine liberals need to be judged by thier works, moreso than the lies they advocate which they may or may not believe in themselves. The big probelm with deceit is, once a person gets well practiced in it, they become thier own biggest victim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Greed certainly does create its' own idealogy, that's for sure. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, there was a "report", news item, last year I believe, or early in this one, where someone actually go hold of some of his (Moore's) financial information. It showed large sums sheltered in the Cayman's, and a rather large block of Haliburton stock! If you ever run across it, that would be a great addition to the article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Excellant idea. For some reason Moore makes me think of [[Ken Ley]], there's a lot of similiarities between these two rich scam artists who prey on an unsuspecting public to line their own pockets. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Once at a Beverly Hills eatery, where the price of a sandwich with fries approaches what I had to spend weekly as a student for food, I was shocked to have someone point him out to me. He was in Armani, and certainly not wearing a truckers hat, and did indeed leave in his Liberal Limousine! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Earnings ==

Why does the sentence under the section Earning says "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00." when the citation given states $168,070,886? Also, the usage of the word "bilk" is subjective. Even though his films are not proper "documentaries", it doesn't mean he defrauded the public. I'm removing the sentence. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:(A) Asked and answered on the page; (B) the sentence specifically says "worldwide," the chart specifically cites "US Gross;" (C) the link provided specifically references the same language, idea, and concept. (D) the term "bilked" is commonly understood to mean defraud, cheat, swindle, thwart, frustrate, or hoax.

:Now, if you absolutely demand reputable and credible citations to support the claim, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00," that certainly is no large demand, and we'd being only too willing to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::I asked essentially the same question (elsewhere) some time back so clearly it was confusing. I have now made a change to hopefully make the distinction more obvious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:The earnings was a gross oversight on my part (missed US and worldwide). The definition you gave for "bilk" doesn't justify its use - how did Moore cheat the public that money? Even though Moore provided a very one-sided, often slanderous, and sometimes factually inaccurate story, that doesn't mean he bilked the public of the money. It is a Hollywood movie, where people pay for entertainment (if the public decides to blindly trust it as fact... then that's really their fault). Saying Moore bilked the public money is like saying the new Transformers bilked the public money because it didn't follow the original cartoon, or saying Live Free or Die Hard cheated the public because of its misrepresentation of certain technologies prominently displayed (i.e. The hovering capabilities and weapons of the F-35). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ah ha. You make the misrepresentation "how did Moore cheat the public that money?" The text does not say that. The text specifically says, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public." Now let me please explain. Michael Moore's films are specifically inanimate objects, and not a person. Very recently, I made a bank deposit which included a counterfeit $20 bill. The $20 bill was confiscated, and I suffered the loss. It was not my intent to bilk the bank, and I was not prosecuted. But I personally was bilked out of $20--an inanimate object--not by the bank, and presumably not by the anonymous person who passed it to me who themselves likely did not know of its fraudulent origins. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::How did that semantic argument change my point? In fact, I listed two other 'films', which by the definition of whoever wrote the bilking sentence, bilked the public. The movies simply portrayed Moore's representation of the subject at hand, through the use of weasel words and sarcasm (as per his usual style). My original objection to the sentence is still that "the movie did not bilk the public of their money" because it's not a proper documentary. His failure to portray both sides of the story in Sicko (as an example) is used to convey Moore's viewpoint on the US Healthcare system. As he's the director, he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants.
:::I guess my point boils down to the question "If a movie is biased, is any money made because of it considered to be <nowiki>'bilked'</nowiki>?" My answer is no. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, so as the director, "he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants" extends to outright lies, slander, smear, and fraud? And this is "art," one would suppose? Hmmph, yah right. I'm an artist, too. And as an artist, I have every prerogative to present the facts in whatever way I want. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::An artist can present information in whatever way he wants, because the work is from the artist's point of view! You can't say the impressionist movement is "false" because it's not a real photographic depiction of objects, because that's not what the artists were trying to do! It is the job of the audience of determine whether it is fact or not. You're almost saying that The Day After Tomorrow is bilking the public money by presenting lies and slander. It is a motion picture that emphasizes on drama, and only a fool would start hoarding gasoline and heating equipment after seeing that movie. Moore's film is no different - he had to structure his film in a way that maximizes profit while conveying his viewpoints across to the audience. Dramatization (or slander/lies, one could say) is just an instrument used in a movie. Moore was trying to raise questions using his films, and that's exactly what he has done. Many of the points he raised was questionable, but, like I stated so many times before, he can write whatever he wants about whatever he wants - it's all fair game in Hollywood.

:::::Even though most movies try to be factually accurate, certain creative liberties must exist - whether it is scenes (and facts) omitted, facts distorted, or anything else. (And mind you, YOU consider that "outright lies, slander, smear and fraud", but some do not - certainly not Moore.)

:::::And let's not talk about "art" - I tried to avoid it earlier. I don't have too much respect for it so... yes, I do not expect "facts" in art. Do you believe that Jesus and his disciples actually sat in the exact order as depicted in The Last Supper by Da Vinci?[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:44, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"maximizes profit"''
::::::As Michael Moore's blood brother Gordon Gekko declared, "Greed is Good." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::You seem to have a habit of dismissing most of my points and picking on a particular phrase that I used. Is that normal practice in your debates? Or should I consider that you concede the points I raised about artistic liberties in Hollywood?
:::::::The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth. The theory goes on to state that actions to benefit oneself, in a free market, can often result in benefit in others (as seen in basic examples of trade). Whether you classify that as "greed" is your problem. Would you say Warren Buffett is "greedy" throughout his career? Or Bill Gates?
:::::::I'm sorry but if there's a further lack of rational objections (read: intellectual response), I'm going to replace the word "bilk" in the article. "Bilk" includes a negative connotation that is subjective to the author, and its inclusion creates a bias in the article (not that you guys worry about it here in Conservapedia). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::using "artistic" and "Hollywood" in the same sentence is kinda oxymoronic, isn't it?
:::::::::''The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth.''
::::::::IOW, self interest, or greed. This was [[Cain]]'s problem, was it not, when he murdered [[Abel]]. So this idea is hardly "modern."
::::::::So you're argument is that commiting fraud & slander somehow benefits the free market and furthers economic progress. I may take a different view, of course, beleiving that to stop such things is why we have police, courts, and regulation. And of course morality cannot be legislated, so there is also a question of self-policing ethical standards. You seem to be arguing that slander & fraud somehow can be tolerated as artistic (or as Moore might argue journalistic) license. This is all debating what the meaning of is "is." That's fine with me, let's continue debating what the meaning of "bilked" is then, since there's a big gapping hole whether Moore's life's opus is "art" or "journalism." Right now, there seems to be a wide general concensus it is "schlock." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Haha "artistic" and Hollywood! Now I agree that many of the junk that is regurgitated by Hollywood could hardly be seen as "artistic", but it is a medium for conveyance of ideas, and it fits my broad definition of "art". (Not that I care for "art")

I didn't mention that fraud and slander "benefits the free market". I wanted to state that Moore's movies merely fits within the constraints of the free market - benefit is subjective. I don't think that increasing a person's own wealth is greed - I have a job right now, and I need the money to pay for tuition. My parents have jobs to put food on the table - is that greed? When Cain murdered Abel, he went outside the constraints of the free market - and that's wrong. That's why there are, as you stated, police, courts and regulations to punish those who don't play by the rules of the free market.

Alright, to sum up - you believe that Moore is using lies and misinformation in the production of movies; I believe that he stretches the truth and use convenient omissions to bring across his point. You believe that he did his movies to bilk the public (with the intention of monetary gains, I think?); I believe that it is his prerogative to create a movie about anything - truth or fiction - in Hollywood (and yes, he wants money, but also to bring across his point as a far-left liberal). We're obviously not going to resolve this, and if I change the word it'll just come down to an edit war. How about a compromise? Something along the lines of "Moore's films have grossed over x dollars worldwide. Some critics have ..." <insert criticism & citation here>.

See, even when I write that down it becomes obvious that there is no way the original statement can stay in an encyclopedia article. Cite it, or cut it. Even citations that says he "bilked" the money would be an opinion piece, which is not acceptable in Conservapedia. Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public the money, the world "bilk" has no place in the article.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:''Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public''
:Again, you've returned to the fiction that the entry states Michael Moore, a person, "bilked" the public. It explicit does not. It states an inanimate object "Michael Moore's films" have bilked the public. What could me more clear? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::I fail to see the distinction, and I think you're just being a nitpicker by focusing on an insignificant detail. If a person created an inanimate object which "bilked" the public, the author is held responsible. Even if you insist, the sentence could be reworded with "Moore's films", and you've still not addressed my points. This further proves that you're unwilling, or unable, to answer my concerns. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Per our rules, the CP Guidelines, Admin decisions on such matters are final, as they are the ones who set policy. Your objections, ATang, have been seriously considered and noted. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:53, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: May I ask what the serious consideration entails? Is the final decision that the article stays as it is? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

== Intro edit ==

I edited the intro to reflect our (or at least my) quest for accuracy.

The "Clinton was a pretty good president for a Republican" quote appears to be a myth, joke, or maybe it's simply inaccurate: Googling for the phrase (with quotation marks) gives FOUR sites: Brainyquote, Conservapedia, The Huffington Post (but merely because a reader's comment there used it) and a blog entry that showcases this article and CP (in a not quite positive light). So I removed it.

The second quote was fairly easy to source properly (and I'm puzzled why it hasn't been done so before). I expanded it to properly reflect his full reply - it shows better how he thinks of the US as a whole.

I also rephrased the lead-in since it sounded too much like a cheap shot and less like actual information. Also, the claim that his views can be best summed up with 1-2 carefully selected and cropped quotes (especially with one of the quotes being apparently fabricated) sounds dubious in itself. --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 12:41, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

==Wikipedia==
Why is there a whole section on a Wikipedia controversy that is only peripherally related to Michael Moore? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:11, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

== Propaganda? ==

In the intro, the line "Moore's films and television programs represent some of the most egregious examples of deceitful liberal propaganda in contemporary American political discourse". This must surely be original research, and it is not sourced. Seems like scaretalk, should we remove this? I have seen some of his works and while I do not agree on all of his views I find he does make rather good points.

== Moore in NRA? ==

Are you sure about this? It doesn't make sense that a liberal like Michael Moore would be in an organization that supports the right to bear arms.--[[User:Conlibtar|Conlibtar]] 22:56, 2 March 2012 (EST)

:If you generalize enough you'll exclude people from anything. Michael Moore is a lifetime member and owns a number of firearms. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 23:55, 2 March 2012 (EST)

Greek mythology

2012-03-03T04:52:43Z

Ayzmo: Undo revision 965609 by Conlibtar (talk)

'''Greek mythology''' is a collection of the religion and stories of the ancient [[Greeks]]. Many of these Greek beliefs have been preserved and passed down to us today. As was common in that time period in [[Europe]] and the [[Middle East]] (with the exception of [[Judaism]]) the concept of gods was usually as part of a pantheon that were basically more powerful forms of humans complete with petty rivalries and human frailties. They were worshipped just as much out of fear as out of reverence.

Stories also abounded of heroes and fantastical beasts. The most courageous acts of courage were from humans, or at least those who were half human. The concept of intermarriage or mating between gods and man caused many demi-gods who would then go on and continue to mate with humans themselves. Many parts of ancient Greece claimed some connection with godhood as did much of the world (again, except for Judaism).

 <center> [[Image:WAR OF THE GIANTS.jpg|550px|War of the Giants]] </center>

==Important Figures in Greek Mythology==
[[File:Map greek sanctuaries.jpg|thumb|Greek sanctuaries.]]
The '''Achaeans''' was a collective name for the ancient [[Greeks]] and their allies who fought against the [[Troy|Trojans]] during the [[Trojan War]].

'''Aeacus''' was a son of [[Zeus]], the father of [[Peleus]], and grandfather of [[Achilles]].

'''Aetolia''' is a region in northwestern [[Greece]].

'''Agamemnon''' is a mythical king of Mycenae. During the [[Trojan War]], as described in [[Homer]]'s ''[[Iliad]]'', Agamemnon was the Supreme commander of the Greek forces. He was a member of the House of Atreus, which is considered to have been cursed due to its violent history, and was brother to [[Menelaus]], king of [[Sparta]]. With his wife, [[Clytemnestra]], Agamemnon had four daughters: [[Chrysothemis]], [[Electra]], [[Iphianissa]], and [[Iphigenia]]; he also had one son, [[Orestes]]. During the Trojan War, Agamemnon sacrificed Iphigenia to [[Artemis]], to ensure strong winds for the voyage to Troy. During the war, he captured [[Priam]]'s daughter, [[Cassandra]], and brought her back to [[Mycenae]] with him. However, upon his return, he discovered that Clytemnestra had taken a new husband, [[Aegisthus]]. Clytemnestra killed both Agamemnon and Cassandra after luring them to a banquet.

'''Agrius''' was a prince of [[Calydon]], the son of [[Portheus]].

'''Altes''' was king of the [[Leleges]] and father of [[Laothoë]] (a wife of [[Priam]]).

'''Althaea''' was the mother of [[Meleager]].

'''Antilochus''' was the son of [[Nestor]], brother of [[Thrasymedes]], and a favorite of [[Achilles]] after the death of [[Patroclus]]. He was killed by [[Memnon]] of [[Ethiopia]] during the [[Trojan War]]. Achilles was recovering Antilochus' body when [[Paris]] hit him with an arrow in his [[Achilles heel|heel]], killing him.

'''Antimachus''' was the father of the [[Troy|Trojans]] [[Pisander]], [[Hippolochus]], and [[Hippomachus]].

'''Argissa''' was a city in [[Thessaly]], in the kingdom of [[Polypoetes]].

'''Argos''' was a [[city-state]] in [[ancient Greece]], largely eclipsed by [[Sparta]] in prominence and importance. Argos played a role in the mythology of the [[Trojan War]] at which time it was said to be ruled by [[Diomedes]]. "Argos" could also refer to the entire Argolid, which was the kingdom of [[Agamemnon]]. As Agamemnon was the commander of the entire Greek force, "Argos" also could refer very generally to all of allied Greece during the Trojan War. The kingdom of [[Achilles]] was sometimes referred to as "Pelasgian Argos".

'''Bellerophon''' was the hero of [[Greek mythology]] who tamed and rode the flying horse [[Pegasus]] during his victory over the three-headed monster Chimera.

'''Bootes''' meaning, the ox-driver or wagoner, was a son of Ceres; inventor of the plough in the Greek mythology; and was said to have been translated along with his ox to become a [[constellation]] in the northern sky, the brightest star in which is [[Arcturus]]. <ref>{{Nuttall|Boötes}}</ref>

'''Caeneus''' was a [[Lapith]] hero of the generation of [[Nestor]], father of [[Coronus]].

'''Calydon''' was a city in [[Aetolia]], the site of a legendary battle between [[Aetolians]] and [[Curetes]].
[[Image:Chimera.jpg|thumb|Chimera]]
'''Calypso''', in Greek mythology was a [[nymph]], and a daughter of [[Atlas]], queen of the island of [[Ogygia]], who by her fascinating charms detained [[Ulysses]] beside her for 7 of the 10 years of his wanderings home from Troy; she died of grief on his departure.<ref>{{Nuttall|Calypso}}</ref>

'''Charon''', in [[Greek]] [[mythology]] was the [[ferryman]] of the ghosts of the dead over the [[Styx]] into [[Hades]], a grim old figure with a mean dress and a dirty beard, peremptory in exacting from the ghosts he ferried over the obolus allowed him for passage-money.<ref>{{Nuttall|Charon}}</ref>

The '''Chimera''' or '''Chimaera''' (pronounced keye-MIR-uh) was "a fire-breathing she-monster in [[Greek mythology]] having a lion's head, a goat's body, and a serpent's tail."<ref>http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chimera</ref> The monster was slain by Bellerophon, riding the winged horse, Pegasus. The term has multiple uses in modern [[biology]]. One prominent definition is an animal that has multiple different populations of genetically distinct [[cell]]s that originated from different [[zygote]]s. Some humans are naturally chimeric, sharing cells from a twin (often one that was never born) or a parent.<ref>http://www.theage.com.au/cgi-bin/common/popupPrintArticle.pl?path=/articles/2003/11/27/1069825920727.html </ref> In popular usage, a chimera means something deliberately created with a combination of human and animal [[cell]]s. Such combination is often opposed on [[religious]] and [[ethical]] grounds. Some [[Catholic]] bishops have argued that such [[embryo]]s should not be created but should be brought to term if created in contrast to proposed legislation in [[Great Britain]] which would allow both the creation of chimeras and outlaw the implantation of a chimera once created.<ref>http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/06/uk-catholic-bis.html </ref><ref>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/26/nchimera126.xml </ref>

'''Coronus''' was the son of [[Caeneus]], father of the [[Achaean]] [[Leonteus]].
[[Image:Cyclop.jpg|right|thumb|Cyclop]]
The '''Curetes''' were [[Aetolians]] living in [[Pleuron]], who made war on the Aetolians of [[Calydon]].

The '''Cyclopes''' are members of the Greco-mythical race of giants with a single eye in the middle of their forehead, like monsters. The most famous of these was [[Polyphemus]], descendant of [[Poseidon]] from Homer's [[Odyssey]].

'''[[Dionysus]]''' ("twice-born") was the god of wine. He was known to the Romans as [[Bacchus]].

'''Echo''' was a [[nymph]] in [[Greek mythology]]. Because of an affair she had with [[Zeus]], she was cursed by [[Hera]] to be able to speak only by repeating what she heard.

'''[[Eurydamas]]''' was an interpreter of dreams, and father of the [[Troy|Trojans]] [[Abas]] and [[Polyidus]].

The '''Gigantes''' (monstrous giants) are (according to the poet [[Hesiod]]) the children of [[Uranus]] and [[Gaia]]. The [[titan]]s are as well often imagined to be of great size and strength, hence the word titanic. Also the [[Cyclopes]], in mythology, are giants with one eye. [[Goliath]], the champion of the [[Philistines]], was a giant, as well as [[Gog]] the giant of the Amorites, (''og in Hebrew means "gigantic"''). <ref>Hebrew Bible</ref>.

'''Hercules''' was the son of [[Zeus]], the king of the gods, and the mortal woman Alcmena. Possessing great strength, he was constantly tormented by Zeus' goddess wife, [[Hera]], who sought to have him killed to blot out the reminder of Zeus' infidelity. Even as an infant two snakes were sent to kill Hercules in his crib, but instead he strangled them with his great strength. Hera later made Hercules insane so that he killed his family, and, once he recovered his sanity, planned to commit suicide until [[Theseus]] convinced him not to. [[Image:Hercules.jpg|Hercules fights against a lion|thumb]] The legends of Hercules are many, including his Twelve Labors, and his eventual death due to poison through trickery and his killing of a lion. Hercules has become a major part of western culture and has had TV shows based on the character as well as many movies. The Hercules of mythology is often more savage and his character more unstable than what is usually shown in these adaptations.

'''Jason''' was a person from [[pagan]] Greek mythology. He sailed (on his ship the Argo with [[Hercules]] and [[Orpheus]] and the other Argonauts) to Colchis to retrieve the [[Golden Fleece]]. King Aeetes of Colchis assigned Jason several tasks he had to perform before he could retrieve the Golden Fleece; these tasks were supposed to be impossible, but King Aeetes’s daughter [[Medea]] had fallen in love with Jason so she aided him in the tasks. With Medea’s aid (Medea was a powerful [[witch]] as well as being a princess), Jason won the Golden Fleece and he and Medea were married and he had two children by her. Later in his life, he [[divorce]]d Medea so he could marry King Creon's daughter; in revenge for this betrayal Medea killed Jason’s new bride and both of the children she had by him, leaving him to mourn their loss. <ref>Encyclopedia Mythica[http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/jason.html]</ref> [[Jason]] is also a [[Christian name]] for a boy.

In ancient [[Crete]], the '''labyrinth''' was said to have been designed by [[Daedalus]] to hold the mythical monster, the [[Minotaur]].
[[Image:Labyrinth.gif|thumb|200px|Labyrinth: The [[Minotaur]] at the center of the Labyrinth]]
'''Laodamia''' was a daughter of [[Bellerophon]], the mother of [[Sarpedon]] by [[Zeus]], killed by the goddess [[Artemis]]

'''Leonteus''' was an [[Achaean]], son of [[Coronus]], co-commander with [[Polypoetes]] of the [[Lapiths]] from [[Argissa]] during the [[Trojan War]].

'''Medea''' ,(from the Greek for cunning), was a [[sorceress]], daughter of [[Aeetes]], king of [[Colchis]]. She helped [[Jason]] to obtain the [[Golden Fleece]] and married him. However, she was deserted in [[Corinth]] and avenged herself by killing their two children.

'''Medusa''' was one of the [[Gorgon]]s. Legends said that she was the fairest of the beautiful Gorgon sisters- yet also the [[vain]]est. By means of deflating Medusa's [[ego]], the [[goddess]] [[Athena]] changed the belle's gorgeous golden tresses into a mass of lethal [[snake]]s. Nevertheless, Medusa still continued to spend hours in front of the mirror, even though suitors shied away, because she was possessing of many more attractive qualities as well. Outraged at Medusa's [[narcissism]], Athena decided to punish all of the Gorgon sisters. She exiled them to a deserted, isolated island. Then she put an additional curse on them: if a mortal ever looked at them straight in the eyes, s/he would turn to stone. Over the years spent alone in their new domain, they eventually turned into [[monster]]s, with characteristics such as long, yellow [[fang]]s, clammy skin, and monstrous size. After many brave heroes had been reduced to statues by her lethal glare, Medusa was eventually slain by [[Perseus]], who avoided looking at her eyes by instead observing her through her reflection in Athena's reflective [[shield]]. He succeeded in beheading the monster, and, when she died, [[Pegasus]], the winged horse, flew out of her neck.
[[Image:Medusa.gif|thumb|Medusa]]
'''Melas''' was the son of [[Portheus]], brother of [[Oeneus]].

'''Meleager''' was the son of [[Oeneus]] and [[Althaea]], prince of the [[Aetolians]] in [[Calydon]].

'''Memnon''' was king of [[Ethiopia]], allied to [[Troy]], during the [[Trojan War]].

The '''Minotaur''' was half-man and half-bull. It was the offspring of Pasipha, the wife of King [[Minos]] of [[Crete]], and a bull<ref>http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/minotaur.html</ref>. [[Poseidon]] had given a bull to Minos to sacrifice to the god, but it was so beautiful, the the king could not sacrifice it and kept it instead. As punishment, Poseidon made the queen, Pasipha, fall in love with the bull and their offspring was the minotaur. At first the minotaur wreaked havoc throughout Crete, but eventually Minos caught it and imprisoned in the labyrinth, a maze designed by the architect Daedalus that was so complex that no one could escape from it. For food, the minotaur was given fourteen Athenians every year who were put in the maze and hunted by the minotaur. After a time, however, the Athenian hero [[Theseus]] came to Crete to be fed to the minotaur, but instead, with the help of Minos' daughter Ariadne, killed it with his bare hands.

The [[Titan]] '''Mnemosyne''' was the mother of the [[Muse|Muses]] by [[Zeus]].

'''Mount Olympus''' is the place of the gods in [[Greek mythology]]. It towers up from the center of the earth. Here at least twelve major gods live and hold court. The myths are vague on whether it is an actual [[mountain]] that can be traveled to by foot or only a region of the [[heaven]]s.

The '''Myrmidons''' were the people of [[Phthia]] in southern [[Thessaly]]. They were ruled by [[Peleus]] and commanded during the [[Trojan War]] by [[Achilles]].

'''Narcissus''' was a man in Greek myth who fell in love with his own reflection. In the Roman poet [[Ovid]]'s retelling of the myth, Narcissus is the son of the river god Cephissus and the nymph Liriope. [[Tiresias]], the seer, told his parents that the child "would live to an old age if it did not look at itself." Many nymphs and girls fell in love with him but he rejected them. One of these nymphs, [[Echo]], was so distraught over this rejection that she withdrew into a lonely spot and faded until all that was left was a plaintive whisper (the origin of the word "echo"). The goddess Nemesis heard the rejected girl's prayers for vengeance and arranged for Narcissus to fall in love with his own reflection. He stayed watching his reflection and let himself die. It is quite possible, however, that the connection between Echo and Narcissus was entirely Ovid's own invention, for there is no earlier references to this story in literature.
[[Image:Michelangelo Caravaggio 065.jpg|right|thumb|''Narcissus'' by [[Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio]]]]
'''Neleus''' was the father of [[Nestor]], former king of [[Pylos]].

The '''Nereids''' were [[Greek]] sea-goddesses, daughters of [[Nereus]].

'''Nereus''' was a sea-god of the [[Ancient Greeks]], known as the "Old Man of the Sea." He was the father of [[Thetis]] and all the [[Nereids]].

'''Oedipus''', mythical king of [[Thebes]] who killed his father and married his mother in ''[[Oedipus Rex]]'', a [[Greek tragedy]] by [[Sophocles]].

'''Oeneus''' was king of [[Calydon]], son of [[Portheus]], father of [[Tydeus]] and [[Meleager]].

'''Orestes''' was the son of [[Agamemnon]], commander of all the Greek forces at [[Troy]], and the grandson of [[Atreus]]<ref>http://www.pantheon.org/articles/o/orestes.html</ref>. After his father was murdered by his mother, Orestes, who was very young, went into exile. Orestes was determined to avenge his father and when he had grown up, he returned to kill his mother [[Clytemnestra]] and her new husband [[Aegisthus]], Orestes' uncle. Despite divine laws against killing family, Orestes killed them both and freed his sister [[Electra]] whom they had imprisoned. As punishment for the murders, Orestes was pursued by the [[Erinyes]] until [[Athena]] forgave him.

'''Orion''' was a handsome [[giant]] and [[hunter]], who was struck blind by [[Dionysus]] for attempting an outrage on [[Merope]], but recovered his eyesight on exposing his eyeballs to the arrowy rays of Aurora, and became afterwards the companion of [[Artemis]] on the hunting-field, but he fell a victim to the jealousy of [[Apollo]], the brother of Artemis, and was transformed by the latter into a constellation in the sky, where he figures as a giant wearing a [[lion's skin]] and a [[girdle]] or [[belt]] and wielding a [[club]].<ref>{{Nuttall|Orion}}</ref>

'''Peleus''' was the son of [[Aeacus]], king of the [[Myrmidons]], father of [[Achilles]], and husband of [[Thetis]].

'''Pelops''' was the son of [[Tantalus]] who served him to the gods at a feast. Fortunately, the gods realized what was happening before eating Pelops, and so were able to re-assemble him. Pelops later married [[Hippodamia]] after beating her father in a chariot race. He had two sons: [[Atreus]] and [[Thyestes]].

'''Perseus''' is a great hero, a [[demigod]] and the son of [[Zeus]] and Danae. He slays the [[gorgon]] Medusa and rescues [[Andromeda]]. The tale of Perseus and Medusa was artfully retold by [[Nathaniel Hawthorne]] in his story, "The Gorgon's Head."<ref>Hawthorne, Nathaniel (1852), ''A Wonder-Book for Girls and Boys.'' [http://www.ibiblio.org/eldritch/nh/wb1b.html The Gorgon's Head], online</ref> In [[astronomy]], '''Perseus''' is a not-very-conspicuous [[constellation]] located near [[Cassiopeia]]. The [[Perseids]] are an annual meteor shower, peaking on August 12th; the [[meteor]]s in this shower appear to radiate from a center in Perseus, hence the name.

'''Phaeton''' was the son of the sun god [Helios]] <ref>http://www.pantheon.org/articles/p/phaeton.html</ref>. When his mother told him who his father was, he set out to meet him and discover whether he indeed was the sun god's son. He met Helios who confirmed what his mother said, and, to prove it, swore by the river [[Styx]] that he would grant any request of Phaeton's. Unfortunately, what Phaeton wanted most was to drive the god's chariot for a day. Although Helios knew that this would be deadly folly, he had sworn by the Styx and so had no choice but to leave his son to his fate. Phaeton began driving the chariot, but quickly lost control, threatening the Earth so that [[Zeus]] was forced to kill him. This myth was used to teach what happened when mortals forgot their place and thought that they were the gods' equals.

'''Phthia''' was a sector of southern [[Thessaly]], the kingdom of [[Peleus]], and home of [[Achilles]] and the [[Myrmidons]].

'''Pirithous''' was a son of [[Zeus]], king of the [[Lapiths]], and father of [[Polypoetes]].

'''Pleuron''' was a city in [[Aetolia]].

'''Portheus''' was an [[Aetolian]] hero, father of [[Agrius]], [[Melas]], and [[Oeneus]], grandfather of [[Tydeus]].

'''Proteus''' was the king of [[Argos]] who plotted against the life of [[Bellerophon]].

'''Sisyphus''' was a cunning and [[deceit]]ful man who was known for his trickery. He is best known for his punishment of being forced to roll a boulder up a hill for all of eternity. Perhaps his greatest trick was tricking [[Thanatos]], the personification of Death, to demonstrate a set of shackles on himself. Thanatos remained shackled under the care of Sisyphus for a period of time, during which no mortal could die. [[Ares]], the god of war, became upset that his battles would not result in death, and finally rescued Thanatos. Before Sisyphus died, he asked his wife not to perform the sacrifice usually performed in such a situation. Once sent to the underworld, he then complained that his wife was neglecting this duty, and asked for permission to return to ask his wife to perform this duty. He received this permission, but once he came back, he would not return. [[Hermes]], the messenger of the gods, brought Sisyphus back. As a punishment for his trickery, Sisyphus was sent to [[Tartarus]], the worst part of Hades, and condemned to roll a boulder up a hill for all of eternity. The boulder would always roll back down the hill once Sisyphus brought it to the top. The myth of Sisyphus is used as a metaphor for repetitive and useless activities.

'''Tantalus''' was the father of [[Pelops]], whom he cut up and served to the Greek gods at a feast. In punishment, the gods sent him to [[Tartarus]], where he was always up to his waist in water and just out of reach of some delicious-looking grapes. From this myth we get the word ''tantalizing'', and also one of [[Aesop]]'s Fables.

'''Tethys''' can refer to several different things: *the Greek [[Titan]] who was the mother of rivers *one of the Cassini moons of [[Saturn]] *a post-Panthalassic ocean that separated [[Gondwana]] and [[Lorasia]] during the [[Mesozoic]] Era.

'''Theseus''' was a mythological character, the son of Aegeus and Aethra of [[Athens]]. He was raised by his mother away from his father, but his mother had been instructed to send Theseus to claim his place as his father's heir once he was strong enough to roll away a boulder that was guarding a sword and shoes belonging to Aegeus. After a time, he rolled away the boulder and prepared to journey to his father's kingdom. Because the roads to Athens were filled with dangerous bandits, Theseus' mother and grandfather tried to convince him to take the safe route by sea, but Theseus was determined to prove his valor and become a hero by traveling over land. As he traveled, he encountered numerous outlaws, but he killed them all, and by the time he reached Athens he had built a reputation as a good and courageous fighter, so much so that his father, on the advice of [[Medea]], intially tried to poison him before realizing that Theseus was his son. Theseus went on many other adventures, most notably sailing to [[Crete]] to kill the [[Minotaur]]. Periodically, the Athenians were forced by King Minos of Crete to give him seven young men and seven young women to be put into the Labyrinth and fed to the Minotaur. One year, Theseus volunteered and, instead of being eaten by the Minotaur, killed it. Unfortunately, this episode ended in the death of Aegeus. Before leaving, Theseus had told Aegeus that if he came back alive, he would raise white sails on his ship as he returned, but he forgot and instead kept the ship's usual black sails, causing Aegeus to think him dead. In grief the King killed himself.

'''Tydeus''' was the son of [[Oeneus]], father of [[Diomedes]].

'''Zeus''' was the leader of the gods.

==See also==
* [[Other gods]]
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Greek_Deities Greek Deities] Internal link.
* [[Oracle at Delphi]]

==External links==

*[http://www.online-mythology.com/theseus/ Theseus]
*[http://www.theoi.com/Gigante/GigantesKyklopes.html KYKLOPES]
*[http://www.crystalinks.com/cyclops.html Cyclops]
*[http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/cyclopes.html Cyclopes]
*[http://www.theoi.com/Cat_Gigantes.html Gigantes]
*[http://www.crystalinks.com/giants.html Giants]
*[http://www.pantheon.org/articles/g/gigantes.html Gigantes]
*[http://www.theoi.com/Gigante/Gigantes.html Gigantes]
*[http://www.loggia.com/myth/echo.html Echo and Narcissus in Greek Mythology]
*[http://www.greekmythology.com Greek Mythology]

==References==
<references/>

{{Nb mythology greece}}
{{Nb mythology iliad}}
[[Category:Divine Beings]]
[[Category:Greek Mythology]]
[[Category:Ancient Greece]]
[[Category:Greek Deities]]
[[Category: Mythology]]
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Trojan War]]

It Gets Better

2012-03-02T05:27:22Z

Ayzmo: /* Partners */ After some googling I have found not a single reference(outside of Conservapedia) to George Soros being involved with the project or donating money to the project.

The '''It Gets Better Project''' is a [[liberal]] project founded in September 2010 in the wake of a number of suicides by gay teenagers who had been bullied for their perceived sexual orientation. The idea behind the project is to tell gay teens to hold on to their homosexuality, promising them that adult homosexual life will provide them "levels of happiness, potential, and positivity". It argues that a problem the gay community faces is lack of acceptance and toleration from "straight" people. If they can "just get through their teen years", they'll be able to enjoy the protection of adult power and camaraderie which will overcome the "daily tormenting and bullying" they face now.<ref>http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/showing-gay-teens-a-happy-future/ Showing Gay Teenagers a Happy Future</ref>

==History==
The project was founded by [[Dan Savage]] on September 21, 2010 after the suicide of a gay teenager named Billy Lucas. Savage expressed that "I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that ''it gets better''. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, ''it gets better''."(Author's emphasis)<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4940874 Give 'Em Hope</ref> Savage, in conjunction with several organizations founded the project as a [[501(c)(3)]] organization and set up a [[YouTube]] [http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject channel] to which videos could be uploaded.

While it started off with just a video from Savage and his then husband, within two weeks more than 200 videos were submitted to the project and soon after the project reached YouTube's video limit of 640 submissions. Due to the increasing submissions an [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/ It Gets Better Project website] was launched where more videos could be hosted. The site continues to accept submissions.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/MNVJ1FP6E1.DTL
Dan Savage overwhelmed by gay outreach's response</ref>

==Criticism==
The project has seen its fair share of criticism from both sides of the spectrum.

Those on the [[right]] have argued that while it is noble to help troubled young people it's wrong to deceive them. They argue that Dan Savage's video message is wrong and that gay teens need help. Mentally and physically, it gets better by leaving homosexuality. At the least, they say, [[abstinence]] will prolong their lives, not shorten it.

Some on the [[left]] have argued that The It Gets Better Project doesn't go far enough and that the goal should be making things better now, not saying it will get better later.

== Christian faith vs. defeatism and acceptance of sexual sin ==

''See also:'' [[Ex-homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming homosexuality]]

A person doesn't move forward in their life by accepting and embracing their [[sin]], they move forward by repenting of it and establishing a relationship with [[God]] through [[Jesus Christ]]. The sin of homosexuality is no different than other besetting sins in terms of it [[Overcoming homosexuality|being able to be conquered through the assistance of Christ]] and the existence of Christian [[ex-homosexuals]] is testimony to this fact. Christian [[faith]] has been conquering the sin of homosexuality for over 2,000 years.

The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

==Notable events==
In October of 2010 President [[Barack Obama]]<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/ Obama Joins It Gets Better Campaign Dan Savage Says Make It Better</ref> and former [[First Lady]] [[Laura Bush]]<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lady-laura-bush-lends-support-bullied-gay-teens/story?id=11982691#.T1BY9fG41M4 Laura Bush Lends Support to Bullied Gay Teens</ref> submitted videos to the project.

Inspired by Obama, the White House Staff created a video in support of ''It Gets Better'' project. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4 White House Staff, YouTube]

In October of 2011 a number of Members of Parliament from the [[Conservative Party]] made a video in support of the project.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/22/conservatives-it-gets-better-video-criticism_n_1026409.html Conservatives' 'It Gets Better' Video Draws Criticism</ref>

In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two gay teens who had made videos It Gets Better Project died by suicide.(see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

==Partners==
Various benefactors are partnered with the project including: [[GLSEN]], [[ACLU]], and [[The Trevor Project]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ official website:about it gets better project]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/it-gets-better White House website, Obama "It Gets Better"]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Charity]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

It Gets Better

2012-03-02T05:26:15Z

Ayzmo: /* Notable Events */ Added some more notable events

The '''It Gets Better Project''' is a [[liberal]] project founded in September 2010 in the wake of a number of suicides by gay teenagers who had been bullied for their perceived sexual orientation. The idea behind the project is to tell gay teens to hold on to their homosexuality, promising them that adult homosexual life will provide them "levels of happiness, potential, and positivity". It argues that a problem the gay community faces is lack of acceptance and toleration from "straight" people. If they can "just get through their teen years", they'll be able to enjoy the protection of adult power and camaraderie which will overcome the "daily tormenting and bullying" they face now.<ref>http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/showing-gay-teens-a-happy-future/ Showing Gay Teenagers a Happy Future</ref>

==History==
The project was founded by [[Dan Savage]] on September 21, 2010 after the suicide of a gay teenager named Billy Lucas. Savage expressed that "I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that ''it gets better''. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, ''it gets better''."(Author's emphasis)<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4940874 Give 'Em Hope</ref> Savage, in conjunction with several organizations founded the project as a [[501(c)(3)]] organization and set up a [[YouTube]] [http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject channel] to which videos could be uploaded.

While it started off with just a video from Savage and his then husband, within two weeks more than 200 videos were submitted to the project and soon after the project reached YouTube's video limit of 640 submissions. Due to the increasing submissions an [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/ It Gets Better Project website] was launched where more videos could be hosted. The site continues to accept submissions.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/MNVJ1FP6E1.DTL
Dan Savage overwhelmed by gay outreach's response</ref>

==Criticism==
The project has seen its fair share of criticism from both sides of the spectrum.

Those on the [[right]] have argued that while it is noble to help troubled young people it's wrong to deceive them. They argue that Dan Savage's video message is wrong and that gay teens need help. Mentally and physically, it gets better by leaving homosexuality. At the least, they say, [[abstinence]] will prolong their lives, not shorten it.

Some on the [[left]] have argued that The It Gets Better Project doesn't go far enough and that the goal should be making things better now, not saying it will get better later.

== Christian faith vs. defeatism and acceptance of sexual sin ==

''See also:'' [[Ex-homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming homosexuality]]

A person doesn't move forward in their life by accepting and embracing their [[sin]], they move forward by repenting of it and establishing a relationship with [[God]] through [[Jesus Christ]]. The sin of homosexuality is no different than other besetting sins in terms of it [[Overcoming homosexuality|being able to be conquered through the assistance of Christ]] and the existence of Christian [[ex-homosexuals]] is testimony to this fact. Christian [[faith]] has been conquering the sin of homosexuality for over 2,000 years.

The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

==Notable events==
In October of 2010 President [[Barack Obama]]<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/ Obama Joins It Gets Better Campaign Dan Savage Says Make It Better</ref> and former [[First Lady]] [[Laura Bush]]<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lady-laura-bush-lends-support-bullied-gay-teens/story?id=11982691#.T1BY9fG41M4 Laura Bush Lends Support to Bullied Gay Teens</ref> submitted videos to the project.

Inspired by Obama, the White House Staff created a video in support of ''It Gets Better'' project. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4 White House Staff, YouTube]

In October of 2011 a number of Members of Parliament from the [[Conservative Party]] made a video in support of the project.<ref>http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/10/22/conservatives-it-gets-better-video-criticism_n_1026409.html Conservatives' 'It Gets Better' Video Draws Criticism</ref>

In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two gay teens who had made videos It Gets Better Project died by suicide.(see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

==Partners==
Various benefactors are partnered with the project including: [[GLSEN]], [[George Soros]], [[ACLU]], and [[The Trevor Project]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ official website:about it gets better project]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/it-gets-better White House website, Obama "It Gets Better"]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Charity]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

It Gets Better

2012-03-02T05:20:07Z

Ayzmo: /* Notable Events */

The '''It Gets Better Project''' is a [[liberal]] project founded in September 2010 in the wake of a number of suicides by gay teenagers who had been bullied for their perceived sexual orientation. The idea behind the project is to tell gay teens to hold on to their homosexuality, promising them that adult homosexual life will provide them "levels of happiness, potential, and positivity". It argues that a problem the gay community faces is lack of acceptance and toleration from "straight" people. If they can "just get through their teen years", they'll be able to enjoy the protection of adult power and camaraderie which will overcome the "daily tormenting and bullying" they face now.<ref>http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/showing-gay-teens-a-happy-future/ Showing Gay Teenagers a Happy Future</ref>

==History==
The project was founded by [[Dan Savage]] on September 21, 2010 after the suicide of a gay teenager named Billy Lucas. Savage expressed that "I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that ''it gets better''. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, ''it gets better''."(Author's emphasis)<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4940874 Give 'Em Hope</ref> Savage, in conjunction with several organizations founded the project as a [[501(c)(3)]] organization and set up a [[YouTube]] [http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject channel] to which videos could be uploaded.

While it started off with just a video from Savage and his then husband, within two weeks more than 200 videos were submitted to the project and soon after the project reached YouTube's video limit of 640 submissions. Due to the increasing submissions an [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/ It Gets Better Project website] was launched where more videos could be hosted. The site continues to accept submissions.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/MNVJ1FP6E1.DTL
Dan Savage overwhelmed by gay outreach's response</ref>

==Criticism==
The project has seen its fair share of criticism from both sides of the spectrum.

Those on the [[right]] have argued that while it is noble to help troubled young people it's wrong to deceive them. They argue that Dan Savage's video message is wrong and that gay teens need help. Mentally and physically, it gets better by leaving homosexuality. At the least, they say, [[abstinence]] will prolong their lives, not shorten it.

Some on the [[left]] have argued that The It Gets Better Project doesn't go far enough and that the goal should be making things better now, not saying it will get better later.

== Christian faith vs. defeatism and acceptance of sexual sin ==

''See also:'' [[Ex-homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming homosexuality]]

A person doesn't move forward in their life by accepting and embracing their [[sin]], they move forward by repenting of it and establishing a relationship with [[God]] through [[Jesus Christ]]. The sin of homosexuality is no different than other besetting sins in terms of it [[Overcoming homosexuality|being able to be conquered through the assistance of Christ]] and the existence of Christian [[ex-homosexuals]] is testimony to this fact. Christian [[faith]] has been conquering the sin of homosexuality for over 2,000 years.

The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

==Notable Events==
In October of 2010 President [[Barack Obama]] submitted a video to the project.<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/ Obama Joins It Gets Better Campaign Dan Savage Says Make It Better</ref>

Inspired by Obama, the White House Staff created a video in support of ''It Gets Better'' project. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4 White House Staff, YouTube]

In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two gay teens who had made videos It Gets Better Project died by suicide.(see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

==Partners==
Various benefactors are partnered with the project including: [[GLSEN]], [[George Soros]], [[ACLU]], and [[The Trevor Project]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ official website:about it gets better project]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/it-gets-better White House website, Obama "It Gets Better"]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Charity]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

It Gets Better

2012-03-02T05:19:39Z

Ayzmo: /* Partners */

The '''It Gets Better Project''' is a [[liberal]] project founded in September 2010 in the wake of a number of suicides by gay teenagers who had been bullied for their perceived sexual orientation. The idea behind the project is to tell gay teens to hold on to their homosexuality, promising them that adult homosexual life will provide them "levels of happiness, potential, and positivity". It argues that a problem the gay community faces is lack of acceptance and toleration from "straight" people. If they can "just get through their teen years", they'll be able to enjoy the protection of adult power and camaraderie which will overcome the "daily tormenting and bullying" they face now.<ref>http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/showing-gay-teens-a-happy-future/ Showing Gay Teenagers a Happy Future</ref>

==History==
The project was founded by [[Dan Savage]] on September 21, 2010 after the suicide of a gay teenager named Billy Lucas. Savage expressed that "I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that ''it gets better''. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, ''it gets better''."(Author's emphasis)<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4940874 Give 'Em Hope</ref> Savage, in conjunction with several organizations founded the project as a [[501(c)(3)]] organization and set up a [[YouTube]] [http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject channel] to which videos could be uploaded.

While it started off with just a video from Savage and his then husband, within two weeks more than 200 videos were submitted to the project and soon after the project reached YouTube's video limit of 640 submissions. Due to the increasing submissions an [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/ It Gets Better Project website] was launched where more videos could be hosted. The site continues to accept submissions.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/MNVJ1FP6E1.DTL
Dan Savage overwhelmed by gay outreach's response</ref>

==Criticism==
The project has seen its fair share of criticism from both sides of the spectrum.

Those on the [[right]] have argued that while it is noble to help troubled young people it's wrong to deceive them. They argue that Dan Savage's video message is wrong and that gay teens need help. Mentally and physically, it gets better by leaving homosexuality. At the least, they say, [[abstinence]] will prolong their lives, not shorten it.

Some on the [[left]] have argued that The It Gets Better Project doesn't go far enough and that the goal should be making things better now, not saying it will get better later.

== Christian faith vs. defeatism and acceptance of sexual sin ==

''See also:'' [[Ex-homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming homosexuality]]

A person doesn't move forward in their life by accepting and embracing their [[sin]], they move forward by repenting of it and establishing a relationship with [[God]] through [[Jesus Christ]]. The sin of homosexuality is no different than other besetting sins in terms of it [[Overcoming homosexuality|being able to be conquered through the assistance of Christ]] and the existence of Christian [[ex-homosexuals]] is testimony to this fact. Christian [[faith]] has been conquering the sin of homosexuality for over 2,000 years.

The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

==Notable Events==
In October of 2010 President [[Barack Obama]] submitted a video to the project.<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/ Obama Joins It Gets Better Campaign Dan Savage Says Make It Better</ref>

In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two gay teens who had made videos It Gets Better Project died by suicide.(see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

==Partners==
Various benefactors are partnered with the project including: [[GLSEN]], [[George Soros]], [[ACLU]], and [[The Trevor Project]].

==External Links==
*[http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ official website:about it gets better project]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/it-gets-better White House website, Obama "It Gets Better"]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Charity]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Andrew Breitbart

2012-03-01T16:38:04Z

Ayzmo: Fixed tenses to reflect passing. Huffington openly acknowledges his help. Cleaned up to reflect no future endeavors.

[[File:Breitbart1.jpg|right]]

'''Andrew Breitbart''' (pronounced BRIGHT-bart) (b. February 1, 1969 - March 1, 2012) was one of the most outspoken [[conservative]] journalists in America. He is the founder of [[Breitbart.com]], Breitbart.tv, BigJournalism.com, BigHollywood.com, BigPeace.com, BigGovernment.com and, BigEducation.com. His weekly columns appeared in the [[Washington Times]] and he was formerly a protégé of Matt Drudge's [[Drudge Report]]. He co-wrote a best-selling attack on celebrity culture called ''Hollywood, Interrupted.'' Breitbart worked with Arianna Huffington for a time and helped create the [[Huffington Post]]. Breitbart was a very visible member of the conservative media, constantly going after the [[liberal]] power structure and the [[mainstream media]] and was responsible for bringing [[ACORN]] to its knees with undercover journalism. Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award at CPAC in 2010.

He was born and raised in Brentwood, California. In 2011, Breitbart authored the book Righteous Indignation. Opening rank on Amazon.com #10 and #14 on the New York Times.

On March 1, 2012 it was announced that Breitbart had passed away during the night. He was 43.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dead-at-43-according-to-his-website/ Andrew Breitbart dead at 43, according to his website, The Daily Caller, March 1 2012</ref>

==ACORN==
:''Main article: [[ACORN]]''
His greatest success was undercover journalism performed by his employees James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles against ACORN. His associates filmed ACORN giving advice on setting up brothels involving underage prostitution trafficking as well as tax evasion tips at four ACORN offices around the country. In a brilliant strategy, he would release one tape which ACORN would dismiss. Then other tapes to stir the pot. A fourth tape was released that turned into a national firestorm which bypassed the corrupt media who refused to cover the liberal-aligned group. The outrage that followed forced Congress to defund ACORN and Breitbart is credited with having them removed from partnering with the [[Obama Administration]] on the 2010 Census. [[Wade Rathke]], ACORN founder, and [[Bertha Lewis]], his puppet CEO had to change the name of the organization because Breitbart's work had sullied their image. State affiliates reorganized under new names in New York and California, others were banned from operating in Ohio and Maryland. Breitbart put ACORN on the defensive which is still reeling from his work and has announced it's closing business, bankrupt. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589768,00.html ACORN Closing in Wake of Scandal, FOX News, March 22, 2010]</ref> .

==2010 Annual NAACP Conference==
The day after the [[NAACP]] issued a statement calling the [[Tea Party movement]] racist, Breitbart showcased the power of [[conservative media]] by releasing video footage showing Shirley Sherrod of the [[USDA]] addressing a past NAACP conference about how she acted in a racist manner to offer very minimal help to a bankrupt farmer because he was Caucasian. The video went viral and the White House got involved to make Sherrod resign. <ref>[http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/07/20/obama-administration-stands-by-decision-to-fire-sherrod/ Obama Administration Stands By Decision to Fire Sherrod, BigGovernment.com, July 20, 2010]</ref>

==CPAC 2010==
Breitbart was video taped going after liberal columnist Blumenthall, calling him a "despicable human being" for writing lies, treating [[James O'Keefe]] as racist, a now common liberal media attack weapon. He is not afraid to confront dishonest journalists and their corrupt reporting. He gave speeches talking about the mainstream media saying "The Gig Is Up - You’re Not on the American Team."

==CPAC 2011==
Major conservative groups are backing out of the annual conference to protest the inclusion of the [[gay]] group GOProud. Breitbart defends their inclusion and he planned to throw a party for gay conservatives at CPAC. "I'm working on getting a venue," he said. "The first annual Roy Cohn CPAC Breitbart Homocon Welcoming 80's Extravaganza. I'm thinking of DJ-ing." <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cpac-20110108,0,4410541.story Some right-wing groups to skip GOP event, LATimes, January 8, 2011]</ref>

==CPAC 2012==
A major speech from Breitbart with many revelations. First, he wants the public not to be afraid to call [[Barack Obama]] a "[[Radical]]". Next, he described his dinner with domestic terrorist [[Bill Ayers]]. Third, that he has video tapes from Obama's days at college. Breitbart will expose the radical Obama and his radical ties that the [[Lamestream media]] knowingly suppressed from the public. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/10/hmmm-andrew-breitbart-at-cpac-i-have-videos-of-obama-from-his-college-day/ Hmmm: Andrew Breitbart At CPAC, “I Have Videos” of Obama From His College Day…, Weasel Zippers, February 10, 2012]</ref>

==Congressman Weiner==
Rep. Anthony Weiner used Twitter to send lewd photos of himself. Breitbart exposed this act, dubbed WeinerGate. Weiner tried to deny it was him, blamed he was hacked by [[conservative]] vandals and stated in public that Breitbart was lying. As the story went nationwide, Weiner was pressured to step down. Weiner arranged a conference in [[New York]]. Weiner was late to the conference and Breitbart showed up, and took the microphone to denounce Weiner, demanding an apology. Weiner showed up, announced he had lied and was retiring. Also, he apologized to Breitbart.

==Videos==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnoAXCnbCYU Andrew Breitbart Shuts Down Max Blumenthall at CPAC]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4jLl71BZPE&feature=related Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2010 Speech PART 1 (1 of 2)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rci_BLmHDc&feature=related Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2010 Speech PART 2 (2 of 2)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4j6mmVuAKs&feature=related Andrew Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award at CPAC]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E174yCPrR4I&feature=related Andrew Breitbart confronts David Shuster lies from MSNBC]

==References==
<references/>
{{conservatism}}
==External Links==
* [http://www.breitbart.com Breitbart.com]
* [http://www.breitbart.tv Breitbart.tv]
* [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com BigHollywood.com]
* [http://biggovernment.com BigGovernment.com]
* [http://bigjournalism.com BigJournalism.com]
* [http://www.bigpeace.com BigPeace.com]
* [http://washingtontimes.com/staff/andrew-breitbart/ Washington Times - Andrew Breitbart]
* [http://www.facebook.com/andrewbreitbart Facebook -Andrew Breitbart]
* [http://twitter.com/andrewbreitbart Twitter -AndrewBreitbart (Warning: Liberals leave vulgar messages)]
* [http://breitbartbook.com/ Breitbartbook.com]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Breitbart, Andrew}}
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Authors]]

Andrew Breitbart

2012-03-01T15:18:02Z

Ayzmo: Added sentence about his death

[[File:Breitbart1.jpg|right]]

'''Andrew Breitbart''' (pronounced BRIGHT-bart) (b. February 1, 1969 - March 1, 2012) was one of the most outspoken [[conservative]] journalists in America. He is the founder of [[Breitbart.com]], Breitbart.tv, BigJournalism.com, BigHollywood.com, BigPeace.com, BigGovernment.com and in 2011, Breitbart will launch BigEducation.com His columns appear weekly in the [[Washington Times]]. Breitbart is formerly a protégé of Matt Drudge's [[Drudge Report]]. He co-wrote the best-selling attack on celebrity culture called ''Hollywood, Interrupted.'' Also, Breitbart was involved briefly with Arianna Huffington and helped create the [[Huffington Post]]; she denies this. Breitbart is a very visible member of the conservative media, constantly going after the [[liberal]] power structure. He is responsible for bringing [[ACORN]] to its knees with undercover journalism. Since then, he has become the number one target of smears and the politics of personal destruction by the corrupt [[mainstream media]]. He has been a guest on a number of TV and radio shows. Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award at CPAC in 2010.

He was born and raised in Brentwood, California. In 2011, Breitbart authored the book Righteous Indignation. Opening rank on Amazon.com #10 and #14 on the New York Times.

On March 1, 2012 it was announced that Breitbart had passed away during the night. He was 43.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/01/andrew-breitbart-dead-at-43-according-to-his-website/ Andrew Breitbart dead at 43, according to his website, The Daily Caller, March 1 2012</ref>

==ACORN==
:''Main article: [[ACORN]]''
His greatest success to date was undercover journalism performed by his employees James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles against ACORN. His associates filmed ACORN giving advice on setting up brothels involving underage prostitution trafficking as well as tax evasion tips at four ACORN offices around the country. In a brilliant strategy, he would release one tape which ACORN would dismiss. Then other tapes to stir the pot. A fourth tape was released that turned into a national firestorm which bypassed the corrupt media who refused to cover the liberal-aligned group. The outrage that followed forced Congress to defund ACORN and Breitbart is credited with having them removed from partnering with the [[Obama Administration]] on the 2010 Census. [[Wade Rathke]], ACORN founder, and [[Bertha Lewis]], his puppet CEO had to change the name of the organization because Breitbart's work had sullied their image. State affiliates reorganized under new names in New York and California, others were banned from operating in Ohio and Maryland. Breitbart put ACORN on the defensive which is still reeling from his work and has announced it's closing business, bankrupt. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,589768,00.html ACORN Closing in Wake of Scandal, FOX News, March 22, 2010]</ref> .

==2010 Annual NAACP Conference==
The day after the [[NAACP]] issued a statement calling the [[Tea Party movement]] racist, Breitbart showcased the power of [[conservative media]] by releasing video footage showing Shirley Sherrod of the [[USDA]] addressing a past NAACP conference about how she acted in a racist manner to offer very minimal help to a bankrupt farmer because he was Caucasian. The video went viral and the White House got involved to make Sherrod resign. <ref>[http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/07/20/obama-administration-stands-by-decision-to-fire-sherrod/ Obama Administration Stands By Decision to Fire Sherrod, BigGovernment.com, July 20, 2010]</ref>

==CPAC 2010==
Breitbart was video taped going after liberal columnist Blumenthall, calling him a "despicable human being" for writing lies, treating [[James O'Keefe]] as racist, a now common liberal media attack weapon. He is not afraid to confront dishonest journalists and their corrupt reporting. He gave speeches talking about the mainstream media saying "The Gig Is Up - You’re Not on the American Team."

==CPAC 2011==
Major conservative groups are backing out of the annual conference to protest the inclusion of the [[gay]] group GOProud. Breitbart defends their inclusion and he planned to throw a party for gay conservatives at CPAC. "I'm working on getting a venue," he said. "The first annual Roy Cohn CPAC Breitbart Homocon Welcoming 80's Extravaganza. I'm thinking of DJ-ing." <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cpac-20110108,0,4410541.story Some right-wing groups to skip GOP event, LATimes, January 8, 2011]</ref>

==CPAC 2012==
A major speech from Breitbart with many revelations. First, he wants the public not to be afraid to call [[Barack Obama]] a "[[Radical]]". Next, he described his dinner with domestic terrorist [[Bill Ayers]]. Third, that he has video tapes from Obama's days at college. Breitbart will expose the radical Obama and his radical ties that the [[Lamestream media]] knowingly suppressed from the public. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2012/02/10/hmmm-andrew-breitbart-at-cpac-i-have-videos-of-obama-from-his-college-day/ Hmmm: Andrew Breitbart At CPAC, “I Have Videos” of Obama From His College Day…, Weasel Zippers, February 10, 2012]</ref>

==Congressman Weiner==
Rep. Anthony Weiner used Twitter to send lewd photos of himself. Breitbart exposed this act, dubbed WeinerGate. Weiner tried to deny it was him, blamed he was hacked by [[conservative]] vandals and stated in public that Breitbart was lying. As the story went nationwide, Weiner was pressured to step down. Weiner arranged a conference in [[New York]]. Weiner was late to the conference and Breitbart showed up, and took the microphone to denounce Weiner, demanding an apology. Weiner showed up, announced he had lied and was retiring. Also, he apologized to Breitbart.

==Videos==
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnoAXCnbCYU Andrew Breitbart Shuts Down Max Blumenthall at CPAC]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4jLl71BZPE&feature=related Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2010 Speech PART 1 (1 of 2)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rci_BLmHDc&feature=related Andrew Breitbart CPAC 2010 Speech PART 2 (2 of 2)]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4j6mmVuAKs&feature=related Andrew Breitbart received the Reed Irvine Accuracy in Media Award at CPAC]
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E174yCPrR4I&feature=related Andrew Breitbart confronts David Shuster lies from MSNBC]

==References==
<references/>
{{conservatism}}
==External Links==
* [http://www.breitbart.com Breitbart.com]
* [http://www.breitbart.tv Breitbart.tv]
* [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com BigHollywood.com]
* [http://biggovernment.com BigGovernment.com]
* [http://bigjournalism.com BigJournalism.com]
* [http://www.bigpeace.com BigPeace.com]
* [http://washingtontimes.com/staff/andrew-breitbart/ Washington Times - Andrew Breitbart]
* [http://www.facebook.com/andrewbreitbart Facebook -Andrew Breitbart]
* [http://twitter.com/andrewbreitbart Twitter -AndrewBreitbart (Warning: Liberals leave vulgar messages)]
* [http://breitbartbook.com/ Breitbartbook.com]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Breitbart, Andrew}}
[[Category:Conservative Media]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:Journalists]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]
[[Category:Authors]]

It Gets Better

2012-03-01T15:10:35Z

Ayzmo: Rewrite.

The '''It Gets Better Project''' is a [[liberal]] project founded in September 2010 in the wake of a number of suicides by gay teenagers who had been bullied for their perceived sexual orientation. The idea behind the project is to tell gay teens to hold on to their homosexuality, promising them that adult homosexual life will provide them "levels of happiness, potential, and positivity". It argues that a problem the gay community faces is lack of acceptance and toleration from "straight" people. If they can "just get through their teen years", they'll be able to enjoy the protection of adult power and camaraderie which will overcome the "daily tormenting and bullying" they face now.<ref>http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/showing-gay-teens-a-happy-future/ Showing Gay Teenagers a Happy Future</ref>

==History==
The project was founded by [[Dan Savage]] on September 21, 2010 after the suicide of a gay teenager named Billy Lucas. Savage expressed that "I wish I could have talked to this kid for five minutes. I wish I could have told Billy that ''it gets better''. I wish I could have told him that, however bad things were, however isolated and alone he was, ''it gets better''."(Author's emphasis)<ref>http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4940874 Give 'Em Hope</ref> Savage, in conjunction with several organizations founded the project as a [[501(c)(3)]] organization and set up a [[YouTube]] [http://www.youtube.com/itgetsbetterproject channel] to which videos could be uploaded.

While it started off with just a video from Savage and his then husband, within two weeks more than 200 videos were submitted to the project and soon after the project reached YouTube's video limit of 640 submissions. Due to the increasing submissions an [http://www.itgetsbetter.org/ It Gets Better Project website] was launched where more videos could be hosted. The site continues to accept submissions.<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/MNVJ1FP6E1.DTL
Dan Savage overwhelmed by gay outreach's response</ref>

==Criticism==
The project has seen its fair share of criticism from both sides of the spectrum.

Those on the [[right]] have argued that while it is noble to help troubled young people it's wrong to deceive them. They argue that Dan Savage's video message is wrong and that gay teens need help. Mentally and physically, it gets better by leaving homosexuality. At the least, they say, [[abstinence]] will prolong their lives, not shorten it.

Some on the [[left]] have argued that The It Gets Better Project doesn't go far enough and that the goal should be making things better now, not saying it will get better later.

== Christian faith vs. defeatism and acceptance of sexual sin ==

''See also:'' [[Ex-homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming homosexuality]]

A person doesn't move forward in their life by accepting and embracing their [[sin]], they move forward by repenting of it and establishing a relationship with [[God]] through [[Jesus Christ]]. The sin of homosexuality is no different than other besetting sins in terms of it [[Overcoming homosexuality|being able to be conquered through the assistance of Christ]] and the existence of Christian [[ex-homosexuals]] is testimony to this fact. Christian [[faith]] has been conquering the sin of homosexuality for over 2,000 years.

The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

==Notable Events==
In October of 2010 President [[Barack Obama]] submitted a video to the project.<ref>http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/22/obama-joins-it-gets-better-campaign-dan-savage-says-make-it-better/ Obama Joins It Gets Better Campaign Dan Savage Says Make It Better</ref>

In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two gay teens who had made videos It Gets Better Project died by suicide.(see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

==Partners==
Various benefactors are lined up including: [[GLSEN]], [[George Soros]], [[ACLU]], and [[The Trevor Project]]. [[Barack Obama]] became involved and like Savage, recorded a video in support of It Gets Better. To Obama, its a civil rights issue. Inspired by Obama, the White House Staff created a video in support of ''It Gets Better'' project. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4 White House Staff, YouTube]

==External Links==
*[http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ official website:about it gets better project]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/it-gets-better White House website, Obama "It Gets Better"]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Charity]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

2012-03-01T01:12:51Z

Ayzmo: /* Removed */ new section

==Personal attacks==
AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the [[Question Evolution! campaign]] provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::: @user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
*I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
*The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
*You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the ''many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians''.
*All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the ''15 questions for evolutionists''. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:*What has this to do with [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
:*No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]], that's what happens. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop [[Christian apologetics|ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible]] and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia [[homosexuality]] article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the ''15 questions'' - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html start going down the slope] - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::: I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::*To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly ''after'' the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
:::*I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::*So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. [http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-churches-losing-youths-long-before-college-39433 Source: Christian Post] And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)

== Heresy hunting ==

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with [[User:Ed_Poor|Uncle Ed]]? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --[[User:MarkSpace|MarkSpace]] 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the [[Question evolution! campaign]] (which will accelerate the [[Global atheism|global decline of atheism]]). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if [[Richard Dawkins]]' wacky false ideology (which is [[Atheism|bereft of evidence]] and [[Christian apologetics|counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity]]) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Kenny, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Ha, ha, '''diagnosises'''. Obviously Ken's Firefox dictionary needs an update. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 16:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, earlier I [[Talk:Homosexuality|tried to answer]] one of your questions... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)

*LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::PhilipN, see [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|symptom #8.]] Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], I <s>created a whole web page</s> discussed the first sections of your article on [[homosexuality]] on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for ''losing the debate'' - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:
*'''Pupil: ''' Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
*'''Teacher: ''' Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - ''Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... '' So, what do you say?
*'''Pupil: '''RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!
Yes, that will show the teacher! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)
|}
::::AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that [http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2 pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher)] want to promote it. Anyone who has read [[evolution|this article]] or [[Atheism|this article]] and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)

[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012

::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and <s> </s>. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open memo to User:Conservative==

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

[[The New Testament]], as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

==Open question to readers of this page==

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::::I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

:::If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:The following comment was previously deleted:
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:User:Conservative, when you stated ''AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes'', I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call [[User:RudrickBoucher]] a ''pretentious fraud'' and ''shyster'', and those who defend him ''whiners''. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (''I take a part in a nativity play'', ''I'm too sick to play my part'') sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: '''''User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud'''''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)
|}
I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "''you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting''".
:And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a ''"kick me" sign on'' your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: ''I am many''?)
:But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (''errare humanum est'').

:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

::What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
::Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)

{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|

:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:''Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI?''
:*Conservapedia is the natural place to comment on the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]], as so much is written here about it already.
:*Why do you betray the trust of the pupils who think that you provide them with magical bullets in their discussions on evolution? It doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers or Dawkins to answer these ''unanswerable'' question. And even ''incorrect'' answers will shake the faith of the persons who can't rebut these answers on the spot.
:*You are encouraging ill prepared young men and women to engage atheists in discussions on evolution. Most times these debates won't follow the script you dreamed of in your tree house!
:*And when those boys and girls come here for more ammunition, you fail to provide it. Instead you are playing word games and engage in senseless ridicule.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::I see that you could not come up with bona fide fields of science that have uncomfortable "trade secrets" that they hide from the public. I find that very telling. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." - Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist. The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will sully this horrid reputation further as Darwinists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I've blocked Conservative for violations of naming policy. He blocked RudrickBoucher for 90/10, so I figured he should follow the rules too. Anybody interested in having an actual debate, now?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

::''The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem.''
::Then you should perhaps not try to counter ''Darwinism'' on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)
::::Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is picking up speed in January and February.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/speed-is-of-essence-in-creation-vs.html]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:::''And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. '' To write this sentence on the talk-page of an article in which the 15 questions '''''are''''' answered reminds me of the announcement of [[Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf]] (a.k.a. '''Baghdad Bob''', '''Comical Ali''') who claimed that there were no U.S. troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates while American soldiers were already all over the city. If you fail to understand the reference, I'll spell it out for you: your statement is highly ironic.
:::And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:::Conservative, could you please post on the debate page and tell the evolutionists why each of the answers they have given are wrong? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 14:29, 14 January 2012 (GMT)

::::::After almost ten days, I think it's safe to interpret his failure to submit scientific evidence in support his position as an admission of defeat. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:46, 23 January 2012 (EST)

::::::I wouldn't say he's failed. User:Conservative has linked to sites giving answers to each of these questions. I would suggest to him though, to put links to specific answers under each question, so that users can get creationist responses to any specific question easily. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:14, 24 January 2012 (GMT)

::::::::The trouble with the "rebuttals" to the "answers" given at the links which User:Conservative posted are that the answers are not reflective of the answers given here, nor the answers which are commonly given by experts in evolutionary biology. The "answers" rebutted at the linked pages are aimed at commonly-encountered creationist talking points (implying that they were authored with the intention of providing "straw men"). --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 21:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

==A few more questions for evolutionists==
As requested by [[User:RudrickBoucher]] (who has been blocked), I provide a few more questions for evolutionists here: [[User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists]]. Feel free to post answers on this page.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:17, 29 January 2012 (EST)

== Removed ==

I would like to point out that User:Conservative removed this debate from the debate topics page. I think that deserves an explanation. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 20:12, 29 February 2012 (EST)

User talk:Jpatt

2012-02-26T00:37:21Z

Ayzmo: /* Thanks */ new section

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Archive 2011 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2011‎]

== Blank3r ==

Good job stopping him.[[User:JonM|JonM]] 14:40, 11 January 2012 (EST)

==Adambro==
Hi Jpatt, what did you mean by "AdamBro is clan but keep on eye on him. Sock puppets of BL4NK3R; NoohWicky, UtterMuppet, Maggie, B0LLL0X". Is he a sockpuppet ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:04, 11 January 2012 (EST)
:AdamBro is clean, as far as socks are involved. He might be what Tony has said, so follow his future edits.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:10, 11 January 2012 (EST)
::I will, thanks for the info. --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 17:15, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Thanks for the welcome and reverting vandalism on my user and talk page! I don't understand that vandal --- it was my first day and I don't think i wrote anything controversial, why would anyone do that to me? [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 12:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:Get used to liberal intimidation. We can block their ideology but they counter with vandalism. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:15, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::What a shame, indeed. [[User:Lansing|Lansing]] 14:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I think KendallP/BostonBakedBeans23 realized he wasn't following the name rule, and so changed it so he wouldn't get blocked. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:17, 16 January 2012 (EST)
:You would like to see Kendall unblocked?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:24, 16 January 2012 (EST)
::Yes, and thank you for unblocking him. [[User:DynaboyJ|DynaboyJ]] 14:28, 16 January 2012 (EST)

: Also, Thanks! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 20:03, 12 February 2012 (EST)

== Rubio ==

I'm curious as to why you reverted my edit? Everything I said was true and sourced. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:18, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Calling him a liberal is just tit for tat namecalling, but his support for PIPA is well documented. That should stay in the article.[[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:20, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:Add the PIPA stuff. Keep the liberal statement out. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:23, 20 January 2012 (EST)

::Thank you, I will. I don't apprive of name calling, either. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 13:25, 20 January 2012 (EST)

It wasn't done in namecalling. It has been stated by several members, including Andy, that any Republican supporting SOPA/PIPA is a liberal/rino no matter their record and stances. I questioned it but it was insisted. So I added what I did to Rubio since he was a sponsor. I don't consider Rubio liberal but I don't consider Lamar Smith liberal either. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 15:58, 20 January 2012 (EST)

Yes it is name calling. It was name calling when they did it to Lamar Smith and it was name calling when you did it right back to Rubio. Two wrongs don't make a right, and the proper response to an inappropriate edit is not another inappropriate edit. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 16:01, 20 January 2012 (EST)

:It's too early to label Rubio based on his supporting legislation. The Tea Party backs conservatives and Rubio. Also, I thought it was to early to label Scott Brown. I was wrong once. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:37, 20 January 2012 (EST)

== Vandalism ==

You do realise that you just reverted all my edits to the ones done by RickPeterson, who got blocked for inserting nonsense? Just saying... --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:24, 24 January 2012 (EST)
:Yea, Oops--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)
::Well, never mind. You fixed it now. I guess it gets confusing dealing with all those idiots. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 16:27, 24 January 2012 (EST)

== MPR ==

Just letting you know that it was federal court that overturned Prop 8, not, as implied by your latest entry, a Californian court. Cheers. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:23, 7 February 2012 (EST)

==Two issues==
*(a) Archive 107 from [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index here] mistakenly brings up Archive 106;
*(b) [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/108 Talk:Main Page/Archive index/108] need to be added. Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 11:51, 12 February 2012 (EST)

:Noted--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:02, 13 February 2012 (EST)

== Thanks ==

I wasn't aware I warranted vandalism :P Thanks for the reverts. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 19:37, 25 February 2012 (EST)

Stop Online Piracy Act

2012-02-22T13:11:50Z

Ayzmo: /* Supporters */ Usually when organizations like the CoC, NAG, and BBB support something it is trumpeted. They are less important in this case?

The '''Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)''' (also known as the [[E-PARASITE Act]], House Bill 3261, or H.R. 3261) is a bill currently being considered by the U.S. House of Representatives that was demanded by the wealthy corporations as well as the music and film industry. If passed, this bill would impose a number of controversial measures for dealing with online piracy including the distribution of copyrighted material via the [[internet]]. The Attorney General would be able to close down websites that infringe copyrights, and ban the site from online payment mechanisms such as [[PayPal]] and Visa. He could also prohibit the sites' online advertising, and disable [[Google]] from ranking and linking to infringing sites.

The corresponding Senate bill, deceptively named by [[Democrat]] leadership as the [[PROTECT IP Act]], is being pushed through the [[Democratic]] Senate by [[Harry Reid]] (D-NV), whom liberals helped reelect in 2010.

SOPA was introduced by a [[Republican]] in the House, Judiciary Committee Chair [[Lamar Smith]] (R-TX).<ref>http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400381</ref><ref>http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf (emphasis added)</ref>

Former Democratic Senator [[Chris Dodd]] -- now chairman of the [[Motion Picture Association of America]] -- is a leading advocate of the bill and criticized the website blackout that occurred on Jan. 18 as a "gimmick":<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/18/chris-dodd-sopa-blackout-is-an-abuse-of-power/</ref>
{{cquote|designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals. '''''It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services'''''.}}

Proponents of the bill claim that it exists to protect the intellectual properties, and revenue of copyright holders, and is necessary to enforce copyright laws in the US. However, opponents state that it violates the [[First Amendment]], that it will cripple and ultimately destroy the [[Internet]], and will threaten online free speech. Some critics have likened this bill to China's [[Great Firewall]].

If one were to use copyrighted music on YouTube ten times, this person would receive a five year prison sentence, causing unnecessary arrests of people even including children using the music for amateur videos, to "protect" big-name artists from copyright infringement.

==Sponsors of the bill==

*[[Mark Amodei]] [R-NV2]
*[[Joe Baca]] [D-CA43]
*[[John Barrow (U.S. politician)|John Barrow]] [D-GA12]
*[[Karen Bass]] [D-CA33]
*[[Howard Berman]] (D-CA)
*[[Marsha Blackburn]] (R-TN)
*[[Mary Bono Mack]] (R-CA)
*[[John Carter (Texas)|John Carter]] [R-TX31]
*[[Steve Chabot]] (R-OH)
*[[Judy Chu]] [D-CA32]
*[[Jim Cooper]] [D-TN5]
*[[John Conyers]] (D-MI)
*[[Tim Holden]] [D-PA17] - no longer supports
*[[Ted Deutch]] (D-FL)
*[[Elton Gallegly]] (R-CA)
*[[Bob Goodlatte]] (R-VA)
*[[Timothy Griffin]] (R-AR) - no longer supports
*[[Peter T. King]] [R-NY3]
*[[John Larson]] [D-CT1]
*[[Ben R. Luján]] [D-NM3]
*[[Thomas Marino]] [R-PA10]
*[[Alan Nunnelee]] [R-MS1]
*[[Bill Owens (congressman)|Bill Owens]] [D-NY23]
*[[Ben Quayle]] [R-AZ3] - no longer supports
*[[Dennis A. Ross]] (R-FL) - no longer supports
*[[Steve Scalise]] [R-LA1]
*[[Brad Sherman]] [D-CA27]
*[[Adam Schiff]] (D-CA)
*[[Lee Terry]] (R-NE) - no longer supports
*[[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]] [D-FL20]
*[[Melvin Watt]] [D-NC12]

==Supporters==

The primary supporters of the bill are [[Hollywood]] (including its trade association, [[MPAA]], which is led by former [[Democrat]] [[U.S. Senator]] [[Chris Dodd]]) and the music industry (led by its trade group, the [[Recording Industry Association of America]]. Other supporters include include [[television]] companies, [[Viacom]], [[Nike]], the U.S. [[Chamber of Commerce]], the [[Fraternal Order of Police]], the [[National Association of Governors]], the [[Better Business Bureau]].

==Critics==

This legislation is one of the few bills that both conservatives and liberals vehemetly oppose. Everyone from leftist occupiers to the Tea Party think this bill is a bad idea and due to the pressure from the American people, Obama has indicated that he will veto the bill. Among the many critics of the bill are [[Conservapedia]], ConservativeNewsAndViews.com, [[Google]], [[Facebook]], [[Twitter]], [[Wikipedia]], [[Yahoo!]], Mozilla (the creators of [[Firefox]]), [[MoveOn.org]] <ref>[http://www.webpronews.com/moveon-sopa-blackout-2012-01 SOPA Blackout: MoveOn.Org Joins Protest, WebProNews, January 16, 2012]</ref>, House Minority Leader [[Nancy Pelosi]], Rep. [[Ron Paul]], who is a candidate in the 2012 GOP presidential primaries, and Rep. [[Darrell Issa]].

The [[Obama Administration]] released a statement which read, in part, "we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet. Any effort to combat [[online piracy]] must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small."<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/01/14/obama-administration-responds-we-people-petitions-sopa-and-online-piracy]</ref>. The administration has also released a statement implying that it will veto the legislation should it reach the president's desk.

On January 18, 2012, some liberal websites launched a "protest" of SOPA and PIPA. English Wikipedia shut down for 24 hours, and Google ran a black banner. English Wikipedia shut down after a quick discussion generated comments from 1,800 users. 763 of those users supported the shutdown, while the rest favored other actions or no actions. Many of those voting for a shut down were newly-created accounts, so the vote did not reflect the wishes of the 100,000 Wikipedia editors. Other Wikipedia projects, such as Simple English Wikipedia, voted to not protest. During and after the protest, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) urged users to contact their Congressional representatives. WMF claimed that SOPA "threatened the existence of Wikipedia" while internal critics there disputed that claim.

The day after the online "protest," the [[United States Department of Justice]] shut down [[Megaupload]], a website allegedly associated with software piracy. Media attention quickly shifted from the "protest" to the Megaupload crack-down.

==External links==
*[http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf House Bill 3261]

==See also==
* [[DMCA]]
* [[PROTECT IP Act|PIPA]]
* [[OPEN Act]]

[[Category:Copyright]]
[[Category:Internet]]
[[Category:Law]]
[[Category:Censorship]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Saturday Night Live

2012-02-20T04:45:49Z

Ayzmo: /* Popularity/Humor */

== Popularity/Humor ==

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of the first section. SNL is still a very highly rated show and was the highest rated show in the 18-49 demographic for Saturday nights in 2011. While the numbers change every week SNL has consistently been competing only with itself.<ref>http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2012/02/16/saturday-night-live-scores-its-top-18-49-rating-for-a-regular-1130-p-m-et-edition-since-last-may/120338/ Ratings</ref> There's also the issue that humor is very subjective but I think we can generally go by what the most people think. In this case the ratings imply that SNL is still very funny. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 20:09, 19 February 2012 (EST)

<references/>
:SNL has lessened in quality in recent years. Actors on the show are much more likely to parody conservative politicians rather than liberal ones.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:48, 19 February 2012 (EST)
::The article shouldn't really mention our opinion of quality at all, just what the ratings and reception of the audience says. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 20:52, 19 February 2012 (EST)
:::Not when their politically correct stances hinder the quality of their show. Did you see last night's episode where they got their kicks from mocking [[Bill O'Reilly]]?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 20:59, 19 February 2012 (EST)
::::And how does that necessarily hinder the quality of the show? Judging by ratings and what the overall public thought, the quality of the show is still very good. The quality of the show really shouldn't be said in the article at all, as it's meant to be objective and factual, not our opinion. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:05, 19 February 2012 (EST)
:::::We shouldn't also censor facts. The facts are that SNL (much like many other comedy venues) have come to appreciate a generally leftist stance.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:13, 19 February 2012 (EST)
::::::That I'll agree with, but we shouldn't imply that the quality has dropped or that the show has objectively gotten less funny. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 21:16, 19 February 2012 (EST)

I agree with all that. The show obviously makes fun of those on the Right more than those on the left. To be honest though, Palin and Bachmann made better sketches than Obama did. Also, the reason that the show went down hill for a while in the 90's(generally considered the lowest period) was due to the pressure to fire several cast members(which worked). That person eventually lost his job and the show has gotten much better. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 23:45, 19 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Saturday Night Live

2012-02-20T01:10:25Z

Ayzmo: Always forget the reference tag.

Talk:Saturday Night Live

2012-02-20T01:09:58Z

Ayzmo: Popularity/Humor

Talk:Richard Dawkins

2012-02-18T16:35:24Z

Ayzmo: /* Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. */

*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 1|Archive #1]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 5|Archive #5]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 2|Archive #2]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 6|Archive #6]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 3|Archive #3]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 7|Archive #7]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 4|Archive #4]]| *[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 8|Archive #8]]
*[[Talk:Richard Dawkins/Archive 9|Archive #9]]


== Elevatorgate ==

Develop [[Elevatorgate]] article and incorporate it into the Richard Dawkins article. Mention the atheist Rebecca Watson is no longer going to recommend his books, etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:34, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/07/08/atheist_flirting

http://gawker.com/5818993/richard-dawkins-torn-limb-from-limbby-atheists

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-average-read/2011/jul/16/sexism-atheism-Dawkins-Watson-feminists-Skepchick/

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4978/does_atheism_have_a_misogyny_problem/

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-09-15/atheist-sexism-women/50416454/1

:I've been reading up on Elevatorgate and I'm going to start drafting an article on it. One thing though - he now has ten books out and I can't change it. --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 09:13, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
Please be more specific about book addition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:23, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:There's certainly one called ''Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth'' (or similar) that's been out for a while, and that would seem reasonably relevant to the overall tenor of this article.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:36, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
:::CPalmer, Done. Plus, I included a book which refutes that book. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:50, 18 August 2011 (EDT)
=== Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate ===

Consider mentioning that Wikipedia Richard Dawkins article does not mention Elevatorgate even though it caused quite a bit of additional damage to his already damaged reputation [http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/07/richard-dawkins-chewing-gum] (see also: [[Atheism and cowardice]], [[Richard Dawkins and pseudoscience]], etc.).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:03, 9 September 2011 (EDT)

== False dichotomy ==

"Dawkins has repeatedly likened religious faith to a mental defect despite the fact that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than believers in the existence of God and the plentitude of studies associating theism with better mental and physical health."

Why "despite"? The use of this word suggests that the two assertions - religious faith being a mental defect and atheists being more likely to commit suicide than believers - are mutually exclusive. That is obviously not true. Christians may be crazy while at the same time atheists may be a bunch of suicidal pessimists. [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 16:55, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::I can see your jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians. Given the madness of atheism and Christian charitableness, no doubt Christians have built a lot of hospitals containing mental wards [[Atheism and suicide|often frequented by suicidal atheists.]] Of course, the mental toughness of Christian creationists this year on the creation vs. evolution battlefield is going to make the [[Question evolution! campaign]] very successful in 2012![http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xqt5i2Hn7Jo] It may cause a lot of atheists to have nervous breakdowns. Onward Christian soldiers! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:39, 8 January 2012 (EST)
:::Unfortunately, I think we have to worry more about scientists in general than atheists in the QE! campaign. It's not just the atheist scientists who have been brainwashed. Either way, let's hope for the best! [[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 18:33, 8 January 2012 (GMT)
:::Conservative, what makes you think I am "jealous of the mental fitness of fervent Christians"? I merely signaled a logical flaw in the article text, without attacking Christians or praising atheists. By the way, is your spelling prowess ("I can see ''your'' jealous") testimony of the mental fitness of fervent Christians? [[User:Baobab|Baobab]] 11:44, 5 February 2012 (EST)

== Another book ==

Richard Dawkins is publishing another book. A children's book, this time, called ''The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True''. See [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Reality-know-whats-really/dp/059306612X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318250314&sr=8-1 here]. I think this should be added to the list of books.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 10 October 2011 (EDT)

:I have added it to the list myself. (For some reason I thought the page was protected, but it isn't.)--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:39, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ==

Dawkins - intellectual fraud: in interview could not name the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/02/richard-dawkins-sans-pants.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Wow, the full title of On the Origin of Species? That's important, since that book is pretty much all there is to evolution. There hasn't been much progress or growth for a century and a half, so it's very important that people remember the full title of that book, and not just the shortened title that everyone else uses. Dawkins' inability to remember the full title of the book is a death blow against evolutionary theory, which requires that famous atheists know the full titles of famous books on evolution in order for god to not exist. I am personally disappointed with Dawkins, who should have found a way to balance his writing work, his numerous speaking engagements, his family and the need to memorize the title of Darwin's magnum opus, but has failed to do so. I think it is shameful that a scientist can call himself a scientist without knowing the full, unabridged title of this vital book, which is the center of a large amount of current research and not simply of work of historical interest, superseded by current research. Thank you, Vox Day, for bringing this vial issue to our attention, and thank you, Conservative, for providing us with vital information, the full title of the book, in your post above. No doubt the world is a better place for you two having pointed out these obvious flaws in Richard Dawkins' memory/evolution. I can only hope that scientists can jump out of the way soon enough when the big, scary train of the Question Evolution campaign comes barreling down the tracks, headed for Truthville, and cuts right through Atheism Village and sets it all on fire and everyone dies. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 10:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

:Wouldn't this be an example of [[gotcha journalism]]? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 11:35, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Marijuana

2012-02-18T05:24:10Z

Ayzmo: /* Legal Status */ Added Ron Paul to the list of those supporting legalization given his prominence.

[[Image:Marijuana.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Indoor Marijuana Grow (DEA photo)]]
'''Marijuana''' (colloquially known as '''"weed"''' or '''"pot"''') is a dangerous drug that comes from the ''Cannabis'' [[plant]]. The main active ingredient in marijuana is [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], or tetrahydrocannabinol, an [[organic chemistry|organic chemical]] compound. Marijuana is illegal to possess, cultivate or consume in most civilized areas of the world.

The effects of marijuana can include short-term memory loss, malaise, mild [[hallucination]]s, insanity, impairment of physical and mental functioning, and death. Proponents of marijuana have claimed that it has medicinal benefits (see [[Medical marijuana]]) although other treatments can also deliver these benefits to various ailments without hallucinations and the impairments to judgment.

The religious or sacramental use of marijuana is reported in various cultures such as those of the [[Rastafari]] movement or the [[Sadhu]]s of India.

==Medicinal Harms==
Marijuana contains many of the same carcinogens as tobacco, thus when smoked it has the same harmful effects including: potential damage to DNA, cancer, respiratory diseases associated with smoke inhilation, and impaired immune system.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090615095940.htm Science Daily 6/9/2009]</ref>. However, these effects have not been linked directly to alternate methods of marijuana use. Marijuana use can impair short term memory while intoxicated. THC has slight negative affects on long term memory and thus, in chronic users (approximately 1g/24Hrs)<ref>[http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana]</ref>, complications with long term memory are a risk. If smoked, marijuana leads to a temporary increase in heart rate and blood pressure while intoxicated. For this reason, there is a slight increase in the risk for heart related problems including heart attack during the time of intoxication<ref>[http://www.askmen.com/sports/health/20_mens_health.html AskMen: Benefits of Marijuana]</ref>. Chronic smokers often suffer from mild withdrawal symptoms, however marijuana is not physically addictive.<ref>[http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-teenage-mind/201012/is-marijuana-addictive Psychology Today: Is Marijuana Addictive?]</ref>. Marijuana can impair judgment, motor skills, and balance <ref>[http://www.acde.org/common/Marijana.htm]</ref>. Marijuana has also been linked to impaired learning and developmental diability in unborn children <ref>[http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v31/n10/full/1301068a.html Neuropsycopharmacology: High-Potency Marijuana Impairs Executive Function and Inhibitory Motor Control]</ref>

==Medicinal Benefits==
The active ingredient in marijuana, [[Tetrahydrocannabinol|THC]], has been shown (in studies) to produce certain psychological and medicinal benefits. Marijuana has been used to treat anorexia and has been used as an antiemetic.<ref>[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Support/marijuana National Cancer Institute]</ref> Harvard University conducted a study on the effect of Δ-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol on certain lung cancers. The result of the test was that THC can reduce tumor size by as much as half.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm Science Daily 4/7/2007]</ref> In addition to a significant reduction in tumor size, there was a reduction in lesions on the lungs by 60%, and a reduction in protein markers associated with the progression of cancer.<ref>[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm Science Daily 4/17/2007]</ref> This study shows that not only can THC treat the side effects of cancer treatment, but can stop the spread of cancer, repair damage caused by tumors, and even reduce the size of tumors.

In addition to the positive effect on cancer treatment symptoms and cancer itself, marijuana is used to help patients afflicted with [[amyotrophic lateral sclerosis|ALS]]<ref>[http://ajh.sagepub.com/content/18/4/264.short American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine]</ref>.

Marijuana is an [[antispasmodic]] and is used in the treatment of seizures <ref>[http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=106 National Academies Press: Marijuana and muscle spasticity]</ref>. Marijuana is also used in the treatment of migraines, arthritis<ref>[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.1780090304/abstract Online Library: Treatment of adjuvant arthritis in rats with anti-inflammatory drugs]</ref>, depression<ref>[http://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/facts-about-marijuana Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana]</ref>, and glaucoma. However the effect of marijuana on intraocular pressure (IOC) is not as effective as those offered by other drugs on the market <ref>[http://www.nei.nih.gov/news/statements/marij.asp National Eye Institue: Glaucoma and Marijuana use]</ref>.

There have not been many in-depth and widely distributed studies into the possible medicinal effects of marijuana. However, with pressure from liberal advocates of marijuana, more otherwise accredited institutions are conducting research on the drug.

==Interesting Facts==
Carl Sagan used recreational marijuana to help "open his mind".<ref>[http://boingboing.net/2009/10/07/carl-sagan-spaced-ou.html Boing Boing: Carl Sagan Spaced Out]</ref>
Cannabis was first cultivated in China around 4000 B.C.<ref>[http://www.interestingfacts.org/fact/facts-about-marijuana Interesting Facts: Facts about marijuana]</ref>
U.S. Declaration of Independence was not written on hemp paper, despite popular belief.<ref>[http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_q145.html Constitutional FAQ Answer #145 - U.S. Constitution Online]</ref>
George Washington grew marijuana. <ref>[http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/gwtheman.htm The President and the Cabinet: George Washington the Man]</ref>
Marijuana is over 100 times less lethal than Alcohol (ratio of lethal dose to effective dose)<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol Wikipedia: Tetrahydrocannabinol]</ref>.

==Legal Status==
Marijuana is a [[Schedule I]] [[Controlled Substance]] in the United States of America, meaning that it is an illegal substance under the law of the United States. In a few countries, particularly in the most [[liberal]] countries of [[Western Europe]], it is legal, though several other countries impose more harsh penalties than the United States.

The [[Netherlands]] decriminalized the use of marijuana in 1976. As a result, marijuana use among the 18-25 age group doubled, while the rate of [[heroin]] addiction tripled.<ref>[http://www.justice.gov/dea/demand/speakout/09so.htm Europe’s More Liberal Drug Policies Are Not the Right Model for America]</ref> The Netherlands also saw an influx of "drug tourists" and other undesirables, as well as an increase in crime.

Many liberals have advocated for decriminalization.<ref>[http://www.leap.cc Law Enforcement Against Prohibition]</ref><ref>http://www.lp.org/issues/lp-oss.shtml</ref>

Many [[American]] [[conservative]]s, especially social conservatives, oppose legalization of marijuana in any form due to its harmful medical and emotional effects and its likelihood of harm to third parties due to drug-related crime and reckless driving. A few libertarian-leaning conservatives, most notably [[Ron Paul]], [[William F. Buckley]], and [[Larry Elder]], have advocated the decriminalization of this drug. Some [[liberal]]s support legalization, but most instead advocate for drug treatment and rehabilitation. [[Libertarian]]s are usually the biggest supporters of marijuana legalization.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Illegal substances]]
[[Category:Illegal Drugs]]

User talk:TerryH

2012-02-17T23:28:30Z

Ayzmo: /* Ragnar Danneskjöld */ new section

[[File:Usa new year 2010.jpg|240px]]
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 00:22, 31 December 2009 (EST)
----

Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]

== Administrative Office ==
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

== Templates ==

Terry,

Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

In response to Terry's statements concerning Jesus and how he might live today I feel it is quite simple. The best teachers lead through example and Jesus was sent here to, 'teach', to show us the way to God, so what better way to get there? The most practical of lessons are learned an enacted through specific actions, therefore to follow Christian doctrine and to live the life of a true Christian is to walk, talk, and act as Jesus did. So if we are to attempt to live as Jesus did we are by definition living the life of an extreme liberal. So if you want to get closer to God and be promised eternal salvation you should watch your step and begin as they say to, 'Walk the Walk and Talk the Talk'. copyright 2010, ©baltimoremd

As wordnetweb.princeton.edu/ defines 'liberal',

-broad: showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions"
-having political or social views favoring reform and progress
-tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition
-a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties
-big: given or giving freely; "was a big tipper"; "the bounteous goodness of God"; "bountiful compliments"; "a freehanded host"; "a handsome allowance"; "Saturday's child is loving and giving"; "a liberal backer of the arts"; "a munificent gift"; "her fond and openhanded grandfather"
-a person who favors an economic theory of laissez-faire and self-regulating markets
-free: not literal; "a loose interpretation of what she had been told"; "a free translation of the poem"

== 66.212.16.194 ==

I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)

== Reply ==

Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|AngryCommunist]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)

== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==

I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)

:Explain what? Do you deny it?
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)

== Schlafly ==
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)
==Help!==
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)

== CreationWiki ==

Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)

:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)

::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)

:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)
:: For questions such as this, a good site is http://www.tektonics.org. You can search for keywords (as you can on many sites), or you can look up particular verses. With a quick look I found [http://www.tektonics.org/gk/guess2much.html this] page that touches on your question. I also found another page that pointed to a different site with [http://www.christian-thinktank.com/rbutcher1.html this article], which I haven't read, but I think might be quite useful to you. With a better search, you might be able to find more. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 17:24, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Headline text ==
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hai ==

Terry,

Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!

In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.

Also, consider archiving those two pages.

You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.

By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.

Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.

Regards,
-Hojimachong

== CreationWiki ==

Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)
==[[Io]]==
Wow, Terry, amazing job!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:53, 18 February 2008 (EST)

== Comment ==

In my short time here I've noticed two blocks, one with an accompanying IP block. I understand that IP blocks are good site policy for persistent vandals, but absent a showing that the targeted vandal is in fact a persistent, repeat offender, is there any reason to block permanently, other than to suppress dissent? Isn't it conceivable that you just blocked a public computer, or a public WiFi net, meaning now legitimate users can't visit? Seems to me like a poor compromise between security and freedom.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 14:07, 3 March 2008 (EST)
:Hmmm, I appreciate your reasons, although I continue to think they're overbroad. I guess we disagree, but you're free to run your own site (into the ground...?). Further, I did not appreciate the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3APhoenixWright&diff=397970&oldid=397934 threatening tone, here.] In fact, I think it's counterproductive. I was not aware that wikis were autocracies. My experience at (dare I say it? - Wikipedia) was different. I see you're different from them, though, in many significant ways, this not the least. Cheers nonetheless.-[[User:PhoenixWright|PhoenixWright]] 22:19, 3 March 2008 (EST)

==The horror...==
Hey, are you online? Could you please block ZebraSofa? I think I'm the only one who noticed his recent vandalism rampage. He seems to have sort of cooled down, but he could just be regrouping on the savannah. Thanks.[[User:Jellyfish|Jellyfish]] 12:27, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

I second to that, look at Recent Page. Someone stop the idiot that living his own shell

Edit- By the way, good job for defense, Jellyfish.
--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 12:33, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:I got him. Thanks again Jellyfish. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:44, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Oops ==

(blush) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:20, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

300.2 million > 3.2 million [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed&diff=436643&oldid=436641] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:22, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Opinion requested ==

Could you please weigh in on the discussion [[Conservapedia talk:Manual of Style#City/town/county names as article titles?|here]]? We're looking for more opinions and hope to arrive at some sort of style definition. Thanks. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 19:42, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

== bamboozled ==

Why don't you think Fox News is a major media organization? --[[User:DeanSa|DeanSa]] 17:38, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:The edit isn't about size - it is about liberal bias. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 17:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

== quick note ==

I replied to your planet suggestion and would be most happy to review the material and provide any input that I think I would be beneficial. I also sent you an important email. I am hoping to get things rolling as soon as possible and would appreciate your input in regards to my proposal. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:27, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

==Regarding removal of my articles==

Is there any person I can contact regarding removing my articles? I see you reverted my deletion notices. Regards. [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 10:22, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

#No need to spam the wiki like this. You are heard.
#They are not "your" articles; you donated them without any strings attached.
#I deleted a couple already. Your article on [[Machiavellianism]] was worthless drivel. I can't believe a professor would use such material as course notes.
#If (by some awkward chance) you are really a professor, email me your credentials and we can talk by phone. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:02, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:They weren't course notes; they were introductory articles. Quite a difference. I have nothing to prove to you, I don't care if you think I am a professor or not (I amn't by they way, I was a lecturer who taught in England and Ireland for many years, and never attained the title of 'professor') and am not going to Email you and am most certainly not going to let a random person on the internet ring me. What aspect of the Machiavelli article didn't you like? Was it above you? [[User:LChriosa|LChriosa]] 11:39, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

== Redheads ==

Why does it need to be deleted? Sure, the first article I posted was intended to be sarcastic (not against Conservapedia, but against the cruel views with which Redheads are looked upon in England (a trend that stems from bigotry against the Scots, Irish, and Scandinavians).

This has manifested itself in the following forms:

-The Chapman family in Newcastle was forced to move MULTIPLE TIMES due to taunts directed to both parents and children

-We have been beaten up, and one man was stabbed in an alley

-Skinheads are organizing against us

-A waitress was harassed on multiple occasions

-Some of us (though not me, personally) are brought to indignation upon hearing the word "ginger", which isn't much when compared to things like "Firecrotch"

-Countless men, women, and children have been taunted, often resulting in suicide attempts

-Over here in Texas, I, along with a few people I know, have also been the target of obsceneties

-This issue has gained the attention of the press from Austin to Aberdeen, along with being the focal topic of an episode of Southpark, along with countless British media and recent literature.

(pardon my bad spelling; I'm only 16)

My second post sought to explain this. It did not have any liberal bias- only pro-ginger bias (my own). It does not concern conservatism or liberalism*. Besides, I thought this is the place to be biased... isn't it?

<nowiki>*</nowiki>Liberalism traditionally refers to free-market capitalism and relaxed social restrictions similar to Libertarianism. Only in recent years has it been misconstrued to refer to left-wing politics.

{{unsigned|GLA}}

==== Vaccines ====
Why did you revert my edits? The article that's cited as a source explicitly states that it has not been conclusively proven that Gardasil caused or was even implicated in those deaths. -- Aaronp

==Principal's Resignation?==

Terry,

Thought you might be interested in this story.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/575/story/458733.html

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:49, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

==Aggrieved's Talk Page Debate==

Terry, you came to my Talk page and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aggrieved&diff=prev&oldid=474283 demanded] that I "had better: 1) Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them; 2) Retract your last comment and apologize to me; and 3) Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration."

My response:

1) - Multiple citations provided. It is duly noted you never provided a single citation to back up your own false claim; 2) - Not a chance; 3) - No problem. This dialog will be in the record and your willingness to disregard fact, remain uninformed about current affairs, and aggressively police your own mistruths will be duly noted. Martyrdom in the name of truth can be my legacy.

In response to your failure to prove your case, and my success in proving mine, I now demand you:
1. Withdraw your claim on Main:Talk Page that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", publicly.
2. Apologize to me, publicly, for your aggressive tone and ill-informed opinion.

Thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 21:04, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

==Hi==
Just pointing out, you accidentally blocked Leda for a [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ALeda month] instead of a day. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:39, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:No accident, neighbor. She'd already been blocked a number of times before, so she rated what she got.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:58, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Delete and protect ==

I believe the new policy/custom is to use actual salting instead of using some "deletedpage" placeholder. You should be able to protect non-existent pages (or specify protection during deletion, I don't know for sure). See also [[Special:Protectedtitles]] for a list of what has been salted already. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:12, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

PS: Thanks a lot for the unblock. I'm still struggling with the mail confirmation, so I had to rely on somebody seeing my block. :) --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 17:13, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

==My talk page==

Thanks for sweeping up around my castle when the moat overflowed. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

== Looks like someone had a friend show up ==

*shrug* Thanks. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:44, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

== Lsit ==

Thanks for the correction. [[User:Memory|Memory]] 15:31, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

==Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives==
Terry, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under your name so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:10, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

== News suggestions ==

Terry, since you post to the "In the news" section of the Main page, I'm requesting your help with the News suggestions. So far, 54 of these suggestions have already been posted to the Main page and moved to the suggestion archives. With your help, we can continue to receive and post positive suggestions from our editors.

Please review the suggestions. If you like one (or more of them), please post the article(s) on [[Template:Mainpageright]] and add a note that you posted their suggestion. If you don't like a suggestion, add a comment and the suggestion will be moved to the suggestions talk page. I will take care of the rest (archiving, updating counts, etc). Thanks for your assistance. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)

== rhea article ==

Hi, great article. Now the bad news :) I came across this as a Random page search and I noticed the first bit with the picture is spread beyond the normal article edge on the left. It would be a bit neater if it could be sized a fraction narrower. I have no idea on how that would be done. If you disagree thats fine ;-) [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:11, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

: The problem was with the template that puts a box of information on the right. Somebody duplicated the size, and that duplicate size was uninterpretable and thus the image came through at its original size, which was ''not'' what I intended. You'll notice that the images are back to the proper size now.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:19, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:: yes thats even better [[User:Markr|Markr]] 18:37, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
::: That error was in there since July last year! Obviously the previous version of MediaWiki somehow coped with it, but the latest version is stricter. It would also explain why the info box in the Earth article was so big the other day. And there's another size duplication in the template, which I'll fix now. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:42, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== A. Schlafly's talk page ==

Could you repair it, too? I couldn't do so. Thanks --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 08:54, 24 October 2008 (EDT)

==Parolees==

I noticed we had a [[:category:Parolees]] a few weeks ago when I was browsing the [[Conservapedia:Maintenance]] page. Since [[User:Saxplayer]] is now on parole, I thought I'd use that as a chance to revive the formal parole system. Please let me know if you object. If you don't, how long is Saxplayer's parole for? -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 20:46, 27 October 2008 (EDT)

== Slightly amused but no offense meant... ==

I'm sorry for bugging you, if you don't write [[Project:Guard dog|Guard dog]], but this block reason just cracked me up:
::''Blocked for vandalism with assistance of Conservapedia:Guard dog''
Can you tell whoever writes it they probably ought to reword that summary? When I first saw it, before I clicked the link to the page about Guard dog, I thought you were saying that the vandal was using Guard dog to ''vandalize''.

Again, sorry for bugging ''you'', but I saw you using it, and I don't know who develops it.

Thanks, and have a good day!

[[User:Samd|Samd]] 10:37, 1 November 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, I wrote that. Now that you point it out, I see your point. I wonder what would be best: A comma after "vandalism"?
: And just to be overly pedantic, why would you think that the vandal was using Guard Dog to ''vandali'''z'''e'' when it actually says "vandali'''s'''m"?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:00, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::Because I'm a stupid American? :P I don't know. I've always spelled it like that. Why do I spell my name s-a-m? (pedantics in calculus class - uuggghhhh...) A comma would probably be good. [[User:Samd|Samd]] 11:25, 1 November 2008 (EDT)
::: I won't make any nasty cracks about "stupid American" containing a redundancy. I provided the default text, but TerryH will have to change it on his settings if he wishes. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:34, 2 November 2008 (EST)

== Don't get it.... ==

''From now on, I'll have to trust you implicitly. DO NOT ABUSE MY TRUST.''

Thanks for your trust? Don't shout at me? --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:34, 9 November 2008 (EST)

Please, believe me, a block-notice is enough to get my attention :-)
I was editing [[Philipp Lenard]], when this bizarre ''Hitlermania'' started. I got a little bit annoyed as I'd thought that the guard-dog would act a little bit earlier - and without biting me ;-)
But I fully understand that you had no time to check my contributions to see that I'm a legit editor --[[User:BRichtigen|BRichtigen]] 06:42, 9 November 2008 (EST)

==New wave==

Thanks for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:BlockIP/NicStory this], although I am faintly disappointed that you beat me to it. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:02, 18 November 2008 (EST)

== Navboxes ==

Terry, I think that the text in the navboxes would look better if it was centered. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 16:10, 1 December 2008 (EST)

==Recent Vandalism==
I'm not sure how to undo a page back 2 edits, but in the most recent vandalism spree, ForReal edited [[Talk:Main Page]] twice and [[Talk:Barack Obama]] was edited by ForReal and then another user just after that. When you undid that last edit, it took it back to ForReal's 'contribution'. Could you take care of this, or I can do it if shown how. Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 19:46, 10 December 2008 (EST)

==[[The Simpsons]]==

Should we provide a conservative analysis of the characters on the Simpsons? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:08, 16 December 2008 (EST)

==Thanks!==

Looks like BrandonF was going to be persistent with his idea of "humor." I was going to revert him again, but you beat me to it. Thanks! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:25, 28 December 2008 (EST)

==AddisonDM block==

TerryH, I was given just now a 5 year autoblock by the Guarddog attributed to you, for suspected vandalism. I was actually installing a new template approved by Mr. Schlafly called [[Template:Bible Versions]] on all the Bible pages. I was told this was a good thing to do. Please immediately unblock me, and for proof I am not a vandal, see the 10+ new pages I have added at [[User:AddisonDM]]. 29 December 2008

== Happy New Year, Terry! ==

'''Glory to God in highest heaven,'''
'''Who unto man His Son hath given;'''
'''While angels sing with tender mirth,'''
'''A glad new year to all the earth.''' 
'''~Martin Luther''' 
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]] 23:38, 31 December 2008 (EST)

== Help ==

Hi, thanks for helping out with that other editor earlier. I was just wondering how/where I can suggest new articles for creation? Many Thanks. --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 22:49, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== [[Subacute myelo-optic neuropathy]] ==

Would you mind taking a look at this and see what the "big dispute" is? Thanks! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:24, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== please check your email ==

Please check your email [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:06, 17 February 2009 (EST)

==Vandals==
It seems that there have been a lot of vandals with "bob" in their name. Could you edit the software to autoblock anyone with "bob" in their name for at least the next month? Thanks, [[User:JY23|JY23]] 13:47, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== help would be appreciated ==

Any help you could offer as far as this article [[Creation vs. evolution debate]] would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:56, 1 March 2009 (EST)

==Music article talk page==
Hi TerryH! I've left a long, substantial review of the popular vs. classical issue on the [[music]] talk page. I'd appreciate starting a constructive dialogue about this issue in order to strengthen this aspect of the article. Thanks! [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 07:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Guard Dog ==

The bot is going berserk. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 11:59, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

==Help needed==
As the editor of many Bible persons, could you weigh in on a problem mentioned here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:RJJensen#Persons_in_the_Bible (the Hoshea to Joshua issue has been fixed) Thanks[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 08:46, 10 August 2009 (EDT)

== Great start! ==

Your edits to [[Epistle of Jude (Translated)]] are a great start to this week!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Reply ==

Thanks Terry (sorry for the late reply),

I have an interest in ancient Greek, daily access to a large academic library and, like everyone else, the resources of the Internet. You could describe me as an enthusiastic amateur.
Luke has always been my favorite Gospel, containing the best versions of the Parables. I have no particular plans to translate Acts, though I would welcome the opportunity. It would probably be best to regard my edits as first drafts, and I have tried to update the language and convey the intent of the verses.

[[User:JohnFraiser|JohnFraiser]] 18:58, 19 October 2009 (EDT)

== Great block and revert! ==

Great block and revert, Terry!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:30, 15 November 2009 (EST)

== Thank you! ==

and Marry Christmas!

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 08:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==Must be doing something right==

Do I have the honor of attracting the most user page vandalism? Anyway, thanks for watching out for me, Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:42, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Genesis ==

Congrats on finishing Genesis! It'll be good to add to the ongoing CBP compilation. If you have input or recommendations for the compilation's design and layout, please bring them forward! [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 12:09, 4 January 2010 (EST)

== Ephesians ==

Well done powering through Ephesians! Here I'd planned to come home and translate a chapter, and you've finished the whole letter. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 19:07, 30 March 2010 (EDT)

== Romans 9-16 ==

Sorry for tripping over your work there, I figured I'd work a chapter ahead to avoid edit conflicts with the one you were working on. I'm out of time for today, so feel free to go ahead without me getting in the way, and have a great Easter. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 19:39, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== Wow, inspiring achievement! ==

Wow, Terry, what an inspiring achievement! Now there are only 5 unfinished books. I'll hurry up with the Letter of James!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:21, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

:Scratch that - I see you're working on the Epistle of James. I'll work on the Epistle to the Hebrews now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:28, 3 April 2010 (EDT)

== a proposal ==

Terry,

Would you be interested in writing the following articles:

*[[Creation vs. evolution]]
*[[Evidence against evolution]]
*[[Conservapedia essay: What is evolution?]]

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea for Conservapedia to launch a [[Conservapedia: Anti-Evolution Project]] down the pike. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:43, 3 May 2010 (EDT)

== Touching base ==

Hi Terry,

Rob encouraged me to stop by and try to mend fences, as it were. I'm sorry for the differences we've had in the past, probably not here, but now that I am back I wanted to get off on the right foot and I hope we don't bump heads... good luck and Godspeed with your works.

Peace, Huw. [[User:Human|Human]] 02:06, 2 August 2011 (EDT)

== Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel ==

Please let me know if you want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel. I invited someone to edit Conservapedia and they were blocked and they should not have been. I got the block overturned. So I think there is room for improvement in Conservapedia's blocking policy. You can sign up [[User:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. I invited active Syops/Admins plus people with blocking rights who might wish to be Sysops. If I left anyone out, please let them know about the panel. The people with blocking rights can sign up [[User talk:Conservative/Sysops who want to serve on a blocking policy refinement panel|HERE]]. The panel will probably convene when Iduan is back from his summer vacation or fairly soon afterwards. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:47, 13 August 2011 (EDT)

== Request for Admin assistance ==

To all senior admins and sysops. I am being repeatedly abused by user:conservative who, among other things, accuses me continuously of being an atheist simply because I point out some of the holes in his articles. See [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&curid=113357&diff=924642&oldid=924636 here for the latest accusation]. I have asked him numerous times to desist with his sneering name calling as I find it offensive to have my faith questioned and nothing is ever done. He state’s I am atheist because I don’t agree with some of his ridiculous contentions. In actual fact it isn’t even that I disagree with him it is that I point out his shoddy research, poor scholarship and his berating, insulting and sarcastic behaviour towards others. I am of the opinion now that he is purposely calling me names because he knows I don’t like it which is unchristian, impolite and, above all, insulting. Is anyone going to teach this man some manners? Has Conservapedia become a place where Conservative is allowed to behave this way without any warning or comeuppance but all other editors and warned and blocked for minor infractions. He is in continual violation of the commandments yet NOTHING is done whereas people like myself are always watching out to avoid being banned. Well, fine, ban me if you like. I probably will be after this posting and no doubt Conservative will cackle with glee at “winning” again. But laugh Conservative, you win nothing. I post this is full knowledge that I might be blocked banned and insulted by you in my absence and I have always remained polite and civil plus I can hold my head up high. Hopefully one of you will take a stand and insist on standards of civility. But I don’t hold out much hope. Thanks, many of you were kind, decent people whom I enjoyed working with and I pray for you. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:22, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== Your articles ==

I am rather impressed with the articles you have written. I was reading the one you were working on and thought it was superb. That is a good book, too. Good job!

== What is the difference between global atheism and the Question evolution! campaign? ==

Terry, I have a question for you.

Question: What is the difference between [[global atheism]] and the [[Question evolution campaign]]?

Here is the answer: The Question evolution campaign is growing and [[global atheism]] is '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day!</big>'''[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] :) Please pay special note to the words '''<big>currently shrinking by about 300 atheists a day</big>'''. :)

=== Question evolution! campaign community ===

A [[Question evolution! campaign]] online community is forming.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html] Creation Ministries International's Question evolution! campaign is about to break the sound barrier! Volunteer recruiting is picking up steam! Click [http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/11/successful-volunteer-recriuitment-drive.html HERE] for details.
[[File:Breaking sound barrier.jpg|center|300px]][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:03, 22 November 2011 (EST)

== Ragnar Danneskjöld ==

I posted on the talk page but thought this might get to you sooner.

There's a messed up wikilink in the 3rd paragraph of the background section. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:28, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Gotcha journalism

2012-02-17T23:24:20Z

Ayzmo: /* Bush Geography */ new section

== Impossible? ==

Article states that this tactic is asking "impossible" questions to make conservatives look foolish. However, the cited question ("Name all 10 Commandments") is far from impossibe, and the most famous gotcha question of all (when Couric asked Palin what magazines she read) is in no way impossible. I will take steps to fix this article. [[User:LouW|LouW]] 23:21, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:While Couric was certainly engaged in gotcha journalism, the specific question of what books or magazines she read is not in itself a gotcha question. What matters is whether it's a routine question she asks everyone, and then follows up in a "tell me about yourself way", or if it's just something to pounce on to make a point.

:It also depends on whether the questioner is a political opponent of the interviewee. Sometimes a "host" of a show will debate a guest in the guise of doing an interview.

:More interesting is whether any of this is done more by liberals than by conservatives. Surely someone keeps track of such things. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:52, 19 January 2012 (EST)

::A problem with that is the fact that Gotcha Journalism really doesn't have a concrete definition, so their is no way to interpret it except with one's own biases. Studies have shown that people with strong political leanings tend to interpret news to be biased against their particular opinion, even if a liberal and a conservative look at the same news footage they can both interpret it as biased against their own positions. A conservative, therefore, is less likely to view a conservative journalist as engaging in gotcha journalism, and vice versa, making any kind of comparison pretty useless in an objective sense. Besides, who wants to wade through all of the MSNBC/CNN dreck looking for "gotcha" questions? [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 16:05, 19 January 2012 (EST)

:::There are examples of liberals being asked gotcha questions too, so this isn't entirely liberal deceit--just deceit and a fallacy. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 17:32, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Bush Geography ==

Can we get a source on this? I've been googling for a while using every combination of words I can think of to find anything about this and all I come up with is this page. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:24, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Ragnar Danneskjöld

2012-02-17T23:17:36Z

Ayzmo: /* Broken Link */ new section

Privateer? No, he was a pirate. A privateer carries a Letter of Marque from a government. Ragnar didn't, making him a pirate. Arrrr, me hearties! Lay us aside them bastardly People's States and shiver their timbers wi' a bucket o' grapeshot! --[[User:SamCoulter|SamCoulter]] 22:54, 26 August 2011 (EDT)

== The ship... ==

===Cruiser or destroyer?===
Danneskjöld's ship is indeed fast and capable of heavy shore bombardment. So it isn't a destroyer or cruiser then; modern US destroyers are armed with a single 5" gun and they're not adequate for shore bombardment; the range is too short and the shells are too small. US cruisers have TWO 5" guns; they're not adequate either. This is not my opinion; it's the opinion of the United States Marine Corps and the US Naval Fire Support Association.

The only ships that exist, and the only ones that have existed for the last 50 YEARS - with that sort of bombardment capability are the four ''Iowa''-class battleships.

===Converted merchantman?===
Absolutely not. Merchant ships are not fast; they're at least 10, often 15 knots slower than a warship. They're also not strong enough to mount heavy guns and they have no protected magazine spaces, no damage control features, no spaces for combat information centers... just no. Forget this idea.

===Aircraft Carrier?===
"Danneskjold could also acquire a Boeing 727 or MD-80, or a 737... Of all the heavy aircraft built, those three are most likely to be able to take off from, or land on, the deck of a modern American aircraft carrier."

A 727, 737 or MD80 have exactly the same chance as any other airliner of landing on, and taking off from, a US Navy carrier: nil. All of these aircraft need at least a 5,000 foot runway. The runway on a ''Nimitz''-class carrier is less than 700 feet long. The catapults simply don't have the power to launch one, and they have no afterburners to attain critical speed before falling into the sea and being run down by the ship. There is no way at all it could be made to work.

"Perhaps John Galt could design a new quantum-assisted hydrogen-burning turbofan with which Ragnar could retrofit a squadron of F/A-18 jet fighter-attackers, thus giving them extra range or even a boost in speed"

No, he couldn't. Even if it was possible to get a military turbojet to run on hydrogen (it isn't) you'd end up with LESS range.

There is also no possibility whatsoever that Ragnar could use a carrier for shore bombardment; it carries no heavy guns, only a few 20mm Phalanx cannon for point defence. On the subject of defence, it barely has any: assuming that any other country has ANY navy left, all they have to do is send a destroyer close in to the carrier during a storm, when it can't launch aircraft, and pound it to bits with torpedos, missiles and finally short-range gunfire. No US carrier ever goes anywhere without an entire surface battle group and two submarine escorts, and there's a reason for that: carriers are defenceless unless they can fly off aircraft.

===The Alternatives?===
An ''Iowa''-class battleship. It's fast; at 33 knots rated (and over 35 knots actually achieved) it can easily outrun or overtake any merchantman and 95% of modern warships. It's almost invulnerable to conventional weapons. It can intimidate merchant ships into surrendering just by existing, then sink them with two or three of the thousands of shells it carries for its secondary 5" armament. Its primary armament of nine 16" guns could easily flatten a steelworks 15 miles inshore with a dozen or so shells; it carries well over 500 shells for the main guns, enough to last for years of piracy. The ship carries two medium transport/ASW helicopters capable of air to air refuelling; that would let Ragnar fly himself and a decent amount of gold ashore.

All four ships have been donated as museum ships. However ''USS Iowa'' and ''USS Wisconsin'' are preserved, by Congressional order, in a condition that allows them to be reactivated. Their armament is intact. Their engines are preserved. Supplies of ammunition are kept in store. They just need to be fuelled - and they run on heavy oil, easily obtained from captured freighters - and reactivated. Ragnar's ship could only have been one of these battleships.

And yes, it's piracy. Letters of Marque could only be issued by a government. Ragnar is - and admits to being - a pirate. --[[User:SamRSC|SamRSC]] 11:56, 26 November 2011 (EST)

== Broken Link ==

There's a broken/misformatted wikilink in the third paragraph of the "background" section. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:17, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Dick Cheney

2012-02-17T23:14:42Z

Ayzmo: /* Gay Marriage */ Elaborated on his gay marriage views and background.

{{Officeholder
|name=Richard "Dick" Cheney
|image=408px-Richard Cheney 2005 official portrait.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=[[Lynne Cheney]]
|religion=[[Methodist]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/vice president
|country=the United States
|number=46th
|terms=January 20, 2001 – January 20, 2009
|president=[[George W. Bush]]
|preceded=[[Al Gore]]
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Joe Biden]]
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Wyoming
|district=At-large
|terms=January 3, 1979 – March 20, 1989
|preceded=Teno Roncalio
|former=y
|succeeded=Craig L. Thomas
}}
{{Officeholder/secretary (cabinet)
|of=Defense
|number=17th
|deputy=n
|president=[[George H. W. Bush]]
|terms=March 20, 1989 – January 20, 1993
|preceded=Frank Carlucci
|former=y
|succeeded=Les Aspin
}}
}}

'''Richard B. Cheney''' served as the 46th Vice President of the United States, 2001-2009. He was elected as a Republican in 2000 with President [[George W. Bush]]. Cheney was re-elected along with President Bush in 2004.

Cheney is best known for his strong conservatism, and his promotion of the powers of the presidency, especially in foreign affairs.

== Life and Family ==
Richard 'Dick' Cheney was born in Lincoln, Nebraska. After dropping out of Yale College, he took a BA and an MA in Political Science from the University of Wyoming. He was twice arrested for DWI (Driving While Intoxicated) in his early 20's. He did graduate work in political science at the University of Wisconsin, where in 1964 he met [[Lynne Cheney]], who was finishing her Ph.D. in literature. They have two daughters; Elizabeth and Mary.

== Political Career ==
Cheney assumed his first political post as an assistant to [[Wisconsin]] Governor Warren P. Knowles in the early 1960s, at the age of 28 when he became an intern near the beginning of the [[Nixon]] Administration. He quickly came to the attention of [[Donald Rumsfeld]], then directing the Office of Economic Opportunity, and was promoted to a paid position in 1971. When [[Watergate]] forced Nixon's resignation in 1973, Cheney became vice president of an investment firm for a year, but Rumsfeld convinced [[Gerald Ford]] upon the latter's accession to the presidency that Cheney was indispensable, and he was recalled to public service. Eventually Cheney replaced Rumsfeld as [[Chief of staff|Chief of Staff]] to Ford as Rumsfeld was promoted to [[Secretary of Defense]]. In 1978-88, Cheney served in Congress from Wyoming, becoming the Republican Whip (the #2 job).

Cheney served as Secretary of Defense for President [[George H. W. Bush]] in the late 1980s. In the 1990s Cheney worked for the big oil-supply company Halliburton, becoming CEO in 1995. After he left the company with a retirement package of $33 million (which went into a blind trust which Cheney does not control), leftist critics alleged that he twisted American foreign policy for the benefit of Halliburton. There is little or no evidence to backup such claims, however.

[[Image:Cheney3.jpg‎|left|thumb|200px|Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Mrs. Lynne Cheney welcomed their fifth grandchild, 2006]]

==Hunter==
On February 11, 2006, Mr. Cheney accidentally<ref>Bash, Dana. [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/12/cheney/ Cheney accidentally shoots fellow hunter]. February 12, 2006 (accessed July 16, 2007), ''CNN''</ref> shot a hunting partner, Mr. Harry Whittington, in the face with [[Shotgun|birdshot]] while the pair were hunting Quail in [[Corpus Christi]], [[Texas]]. Mr. Whittington suffered a minor heart attack due to the incident,<ref>Lavandera, Ed. [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/17/cheney/ Man shot by Cheney: 'Accidents do and will happen'] February 20, 2006 (accessed July 16, 2007), ''CNN''</ref> and Cheney accepted full responsibility for the incident.<ref>Dana Bash, Suzanne Malveaux, Tim McCaughan. [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/15/cheney/ Cheney: 'One of the worst days of my life']. February 16, 2006 (accessed July 16, 2007), ''CNN''</ref> The incident was, according to all involved, an accident.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11409731/ Harry Whittington's hospital statement]. February 2006 (accessed July 16, 2007), ''MSNBC''</ref>

== Health Issues ==
A survivor of several heart attacks, Cheney's health was too precarious to run for president. In March 2007 he had surgery to remove a blood clot in his leg, the result of extended periods of sitting while airborne.

==Gay Marriage==
During the 2004 Presidential Race it entered the public sphere that his daughter Mary and her lesbian partner were having a child. After leaving office as vice president he announced that he was in favor of gay marriage though he believes it should be decided on a state-by-state basis. He summed up his point of view by saying, "With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everybody."<ref>http://articles.cnn.com/2004-08-24/politics/cheney.samesex_1_basic-fundamental-decision-ban-such-unions-gay-daughter?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS Cheney describes same-sex marriage as state issue</ref>

On June 1, 2009, Cheney spoke out in favor of gay marriage at the National Press Club.<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/cheney-reasserts-stance-on-gay-marriages/?scp=1&sq=cheney%20gay%20marriage&st=cse</ref>

== Memoirs ==
In August 2011 Cheney released a book entitled ''In My Time'' about his experiences as vice president of the United States. In it he discusses a range of sensitive topics such as keeping a drafted letter of resignation in a safe in case he were to ever suffer debilitating health complications.

==Quotes==
* "It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you." <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=MRalq4bgd60C&pg=PA15&dq=It+is+easy+to+take+liberty+for+granted,+when+you+have+never+had+it+taken+from+you&ei=XBMWSu7AKJaQyAS2i-z9CQ He Kept the Colors: The True Story of the General, the Old Man and the Flag‎ - Page 15] L.E. Johnson</ref>
==Further reading==
* Hayes, Stephen F. ''Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President'' (2007) by a conservative journalist. [http://www.amazon.com/Cheney-Americas-Powerful-Controversial-President/dp/B001AQVTJE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253687382&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
==Books==
*''In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir'' (2011)

==See Also==
[[Previous Breaking News/Dick Cheney|Articles about '''Dick Cheney''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
* [http://www.facebook.com/dickcheney Facebook account]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Cheney, Dick}}
[[Category:Republican Party]]

{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:Neoconservative]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]

It Gets Better

2012-02-17T22:59:06Z

Ayzmo: Undo revision 962425 by Randall7 (talk) We are not nematodes.

The '''It Gets Better Project''' is a [[liberal]] project that tells gay teens to hold on to their homosexuality, falsely promising them that adult homosexual life will provide them "levels of happiness, potential, and positivity". Its main argument is that the only problem the gay community faces is lack of acceptance and toleration from "straight" people. If they can "just get through their teen years", they'll be able to enjoy the protection of adult power and camaraderie which will overcome the "daily tormenting and bullying" they face now.

The project is the creation of [[Dan Savage]] and attempts to tackle the high levels of teen suicide, especially among [[homosexual]] teens. What Dan has done is to get national recognition, a campaign message of false hope that reached to the [[White House]], ''It Gets Better''.

It is noble to help troubled young people but it's wrong to deceive them. Dan Savage's video message is wrong. These teens need help, they need more, they need the truth. Mentally and physically, it gets better by leaving homosexuality. At the least, [[abstinence]] will prolong your life, not shorten it, unlike what Savage and the gay agenda advocates.

In January of 2012, [[Vox Day]] reported that two homosexual males who promoted the It Gets Better Project committed suicide. (see also: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]).<ref>http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/01/it-really-doesnt-get-better.html</ref>

== Christian faith vs. defeatism and acceptance of sexual sin ==

''See also:'' [[Ex-homosexuals]] and [[Overcoming homosexuality]]

A person doesn't move forward in their life by accepting and embracing their [[sin]], they move forward by repenting of it and establishing a relationship with [[God]] through [[Jesus Christ]]. The sin of homosexuality is no different than other besetting sins in terms of it [[Overcoming homosexuality|being able to be conquered through the assistance of Christ]] and the existence of Christian [[ex-homosexuals]] is testimony to this fact. Christian [[faith]] has been conquering the sin of homosexuality for over 2,000 years.

The [[Apostle Paul]] wrote:
{{cquote|Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor [a]effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. - I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)}}

[[Peter LaBarbera]] is the President of [[Americans for Truth]] which is a organization which counters the [[homosexual agenda]]. LaBarbera stated the following regarding Christian ex-homosexuals who reported being transformed by the power of God:
{{cquote|Another factor from my experience as a close observer of the “ex-gay” phenomenon is that many former homosexuals do not linger in “[[reparative therapy]]” programs, or participate in them at all. They attribute their dramatic and (relatively) rapid transformation to the power of God, and likely would not show up in a study of this kind. In fact, these “unstudied” overcomers would appear to be the most successful ex-homosexuals because they’ve moved on with their lives — as “reborn” Christians move on after overcoming any besetting sin.<ref>http://www.americansfortruth.com/news/landmark-study-change-for-homosexuals-is-possible.html</ref>}}

Peter LaBarbera's statement above concerning [[Overcoming Homosexuality|overcoming homosexuality]] certainly has some evidence supporting it. For example, in 1980 a study was published in the ''American Journal of Psychiatry'' and eleven men participated in this study. The study reported that eleven homosexual men became heterosexuals "without explicit treatment and/or long-term psychotherapy" through their participation in a [[Pentecostalism|Pentecostal]] church.<ref>E.M. Pattison and M.L. Pattison, "'Ex-Gays': Religiously Mediated Change in Homosexuals," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 137, pp. 1553-1562, 1980</ref>

==Partners==
Various benefactors are lined up including: [[GLSEN]], [[George Soros]], [[ACLU]], and [[The Trevor Project]]. [[Barack Obama]] became involved and like Savage, recorded a video in support of It Gets Better. To Obama, its a civil rights issue. Inspired by Obama, the White House Staff created a video in support of ''It Gets Better'' project. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL2Ed_iKiG4 White House Staff, YouTube]

==External Links==
*[http://www.itgetsbetter.org/pages/about-it-gets-better-project/ official website:about it gets better project]
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/civil-rights/it-gets-better White House website, Obama "It Gets Better"]

{{homosexualityb}}
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Homosexuality]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Barack Hussein Obama]]
[[Category:Charity]]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

Birth control pill

2012-02-17T22:57:02Z

Ayzmo: Needed a citation for the fact that the Catholic Church condemns the pill? Linked to Humane Vitae

The '''birth control pill''' (often just ''''the pill'''') is a carcinogenic method of female contraception that forces the unnatural release of [[hormone]]s. Most modern birth control pills use a combination of [[estrogen]] and [[progesterone]] to prevent egg release. The usual cycle is 21 days of the hormone treatments followed by 7 days off. It is during this 7 day off period when the [[menstruation]] cycle occurs.<ref>http://www.kidshealth.org/teen/sexual_health/contraception/contraception_birth.html</ref>

It is possible for eggs to still release and fertilization to occur. In theory, the hormone combination from the pill prevents the [[ovum]] from attaching to the [[uterus|uterine lining]], and therefore does not allow the normal cycle of [[pregnancy]] to commence. However, in 4-15% of fertilizations, implantation of the ovum actually does occur, and the pill induces early escape ovulation.<ref>http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html</ref> Thus, women who use birth control pills for extended periods of time while sexually active are mathematically almost guaranteed at least one early chemical abortion, which has led to the birth control pill being nicknamed the "abortion" pill by some.

"A meta-analysis published in the October [2006] issue of Mayo Clinic Proceedings indicts oral contraceptives as putting premenopausal women at significantly increased risk for breast cancer, especially women who use them prior to having a child."<ref>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030143351.htm</ref> The World Health Organization has classified oral contraceptives as a group one carcinogen.<ref>http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Press_Releases/pr167a.html</ref>

Research indicates that use of the pill may increase the risk of [[breast cancer]], the most common cancer in women, by 44%, according to an analysis of 34 different studies.<ref>http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/8014817.html</ref> There is also an increased risk of cervical and liver cancer.{{fact}}

The pill will not prevent [[STD]]s, and as such is not marketed or prescribed as a means of controlling the spread of STDs. The pill is also not 100% effective at preventing pregnancy. [[Abstinence]] is the only form of birth control that is 100% effective against pregnancy and STDs.

The [[Catholic Church]] has condemned the use of the pill as a birth control method.<ref>http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html Humane Vitae</ref>

==References==
<References/>

[[category:contraception]]

Talk:It Gets Better

2012-02-17T22:43:52Z

Ayzmo: /* Rewrite */ Guess I forgot to sign.

==Merge Request==
I prefer that this page grows on. So, my vote is no merge, uno vs. uno. We need a tie breaker Ed.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:53, 20 January 2012 (EST)

==Lost==
You're really unpleasant about gay people on this website. Why? Denying my sexuality was causing me severe mental distress. It really does get better coming out and acdcepting the fact that you're gay, actually. Sorry, you're wrong.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:Really? Is that so? I believe the [[Bible]] says otherwise.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:38, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::There is medicine to help with your mental distress. You can have feelings for same-sex but you don't have to act on it. We love the sinner and hate the sin. We rather you hear the truth than to sugar coat it. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:::It is not important if it please you or you you 'think' it is better the wicked way you choose. The important matter is how God sees it and I assure you: God does not approve !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:46, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::::Yep I'm on good medication, good therapy the works, and I'm now in a good, stable, loving relationship. I'm not particularly religious, but have nothing against those who are. I'm in a much better place than I ever was when I tried to deny my sexuality or convince myself it was 'evil' or something to be 'cured'. And I'm not the only one. You are causing significant suffering and distress - why? I've read the Bible, surely the idea of 'sin' is something that is harmful to humanity - my sexuality is in no way harmful to anyone, quite the opposite. Were I to carry on living a lie, trying to suppress the truth, believing that being gay is wrong or abhorrent, that would be harmful - to myself, my friends and my family, as it was. That's true, from human experience. If you've not experienced it, but only read about it or heard about it, what makes you think you're qualified to judge? Why do you sit in judgment? Leave us alone to be happy, we aren't interfereing with you. I'm not mlitant, I don't hate anyone, and yet everywhere come across poison and hatred based on prejudices and misinformation, such as in Rick Perry's latest campaign ad. Why? I'm not harming anyone. Why should I have to live in denial? I am a moral person, loyal, kind and committed, which is more than can be said for many straight people -including many of those looking to run for President of the United States, on both sides of the political spectrum. God, I am sure, would want me first and foremost to be happy and contented, and cause happiness and contentment to those around me. I am now able to do this, thanks to my coming out. You are promoting a negative, isolating, cold view of love and human relationships. Please, stop. How can you be so certain God does not approve? I am not wicked, I didn't choose to be this way. Sometimes I wish I weren't, but I am what I am. End of.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:::::You know, if you want to believe your own delusions, go right ahead. But I know and you know God does not approve of that lifestyle. It explicitly states it in the Old ''and'' New Testaments! Sure Jesus makes no specific reference, but He didn't have to. I hope you decide to turn from your wicked sin and find a good doctor. You are in my prayers.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 13 December 2011 (EST)
:::::As for Rick Perry's ads, he makes a good point. Why are they allowed to serve in the military when our children can't celebrate ''Christmas'' or pray in school? It seems the left will tolerate any lifestyle except Christian ones. They hate Christianity, but they will accept Islam, homosexuality, and anything else. You can be homsexual, but you can't pray in school. Does that seem sound to you?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:25, 13 December 2011 (EST)
::::::I've an excellent doctor and have turned from my 'wicked ways' - these being periods of self-harm and aggression caused not by my being gay, but by my repressing it. Now I have come to terms with it and am in a good, stable relationship, with the support of my friends and family, my life is infintitely better. It is sad and distinctly unChristian of you to disparage that and the love and support I have found. I feel very sorry for you that you have such horrible, twisted delusions about gay people and human sexuality. I have nothing to feel ashamed of now, but you clearly do - your hatred and bigotry stem from either a profound bitterness and insecurity, or a cult-like delusional religious Stalinism of skewed biblical literalism and the poison dripped in your ear by false prophets. I pity you. In love.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
::::::::It appears you did not heed my warning about making productive edits to entries, and you instead decided to waste time by talking uselessly. I hope you see the light of [[conservative values]] and recover from the sin you are committing against our Lord. All the best.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:57, 15 December 2011 (EST)
:Let's refrain from ad-hominem when blocking, JamesWilson. It grows the stereotype that conservatives are all close-minded insulting people. Instead, gently rebuke them. 23:59, 13 February 2012 (EST)
::Apologies, but this particular editor, despite ''several'' warnings, continued to talk, talk, talk, without contributing anything of substance (or anything at all for this matter) to this article (or any other article), as can be witnessed here. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 06:42, 15 February 2012 (EST)
:::You provoked him and pressed him on. Had you just left him alone, maybe, just ignored or didn't criticize his original comment, he wouldn't have continued. [[User:JLefkowitz|JLefkowitz]] 16:37, 17 February 2012 (EST)
::::No, I didn't. I was not the only one to rightfully criticize his original comment. Do you agree with it by chance?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 17:35, 17 February 2012 (EST)

== Protected? ==

Why is this protected? I would be interested in adding some more facts(100% referenced) to the article. As it is the article gives very little information on the project itself and just reads like an essay. If you want an essay on why it is wrong write one but an article should actually give information on the project in more than the lead. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 00:06, 14 February 2012 (EST)
::I will unlock it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:24, 14 February 2012 (EST)

== Rewrite ==

I've been working on a [http://conservapedia.com/User:Ayzmo/IGB rewrite of the article] to make it more encyclopedic. I've kept much of the content but rewrote the intro entirely and added a history section. I wasn't really sure how to work the criticism section. It needs a lot more work before it should be moved over here but I'd really appreciate any comments, suggestions, or criticisms on the talk page. Please don't alter what I've already written. If you put something on the talk page I'll find a way to work it into the article. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 17:43, 17 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:It Gets Better

2012-02-17T19:55:17Z

Ayzmo: /* Rewrite */ new section

==Merge Request==
I prefer that this page grows on. So, my vote is no merge, uno vs. uno. We need a tie breaker Ed.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:53, 20 January 2012 (EST)

==Lost==
You're really unpleasant about gay people on this website. Why? Denying my sexuality was causing me severe mental distress. It really does get better coming out and acdcepting the fact that you're gay, actually. Sorry, you're wrong.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:Really? Is that so? I believe the [[Bible]] says otherwise.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 21:38, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::There is medicine to help with your mental distress. You can have feelings for same-sex but you don't have to act on it. We love the sinner and hate the sin. We rather you hear the truth than to sugar coat it. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:44, 12 December 2011 (EST)
:::It is not important if it please you or you you 'think' it is better the wicked way you choose. The important matter is how God sees it and I assure you: God does not approve !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 21:46, 12 December 2011 (EST)
::::Yep I'm on good medication, good therapy the works, and I'm now in a good, stable, loving relationship. I'm not particularly religious, but have nothing against those who are. I'm in a much better place than I ever was when I tried to deny my sexuality or convince myself it was 'evil' or something to be 'cured'. And I'm not the only one. You are causing significant suffering and distress - why? I've read the Bible, surely the idea of 'sin' is something that is harmful to humanity - my sexuality is in no way harmful to anyone, quite the opposite. Were I to carry on living a lie, trying to suppress the truth, believing that being gay is wrong or abhorrent, that would be harmful - to myself, my friends and my family, as it was. That's true, from human experience. If you've not experienced it, but only read about it or heard about it, what makes you think you're qualified to judge? Why do you sit in judgment? Leave us alone to be happy, we aren't interfereing with you. I'm not mlitant, I don't hate anyone, and yet everywhere come across poison and hatred based on prejudices and misinformation, such as in Rick Perry's latest campaign ad. Why? I'm not harming anyone. Why should I have to live in denial? I am a moral person, loyal, kind and committed, which is more than can be said for many straight people -including many of those looking to run for President of the United States, on both sides of the political spectrum. God, I am sure, would want me first and foremost to be happy and contented, and cause happiness and contentment to those around me. I am now able to do this, thanks to my coming out. You are promoting a negative, isolating, cold view of love and human relationships. Please, stop. How can you be so certain God does not approve? I am not wicked, I didn't choose to be this way. Sometimes I wish I weren't, but I am what I am. End of.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
:::::You know, if you want to believe your own delusions, go right ahead. But I know and you know God does not approve of that lifestyle. It explicitly states it in the Old ''and'' New Testaments! Sure Jesus makes no specific reference, but He didn't have to. I hope you decide to turn from your wicked sin and find a good doctor. You are in my prayers.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:21, 13 December 2011 (EST)
:::::As for Rick Perry's ads, he makes a good point. Why are they allowed to serve in the military when our children can't celebrate ''Christmas'' or pray in school? It seems the left will tolerate any lifestyle except Christian ones. They hate Christianity, but they will accept Islam, homosexuality, and anything else. You can be homsexual, but you can't pray in school. Does that seem sound to you?--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 13:25, 13 December 2011 (EST)
::::::I've an excellent doctor and have turned from my 'wicked ways' - these being periods of self-harm and aggression caused not by my being gay, but by my repressing it. Now I have come to terms with it and am in a good, stable relationship, with the support of my friends and family, my life is infintitely better. It is sad and distinctly unChristian of you to disparage that and the love and support I have found. I feel very sorry for you that you have such horrible, twisted delusions about gay people and human sexuality. I have nothing to feel ashamed of now, but you clearly do - your hatred and bigotry stem from either a profound bitterness and insecurity, or a cult-like delusional religious Stalinism of skewed biblical literalism and the poison dripped in your ear by false prophets. I pity you. In love.{{unsigned|Neophyte11}}
::::::::It appears you did not heed my warning about making productive edits to entries, and you instead decided to waste time by talking uselessly. I hope you see the light of [[conservative values]] and recover from the sin you are committing against our Lord. All the best.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 16:57, 15 December 2011 (EST)
:Let's refrain from ad-hominem when blocking, JamesWilson. It grows the stereotype that conservatives are all close-minded insulting people. Instead, gently rebuke them. 23:59, 13 February 2012 (EST)
::Apologies, but this particular editor, despite ''several'' warnings, continued to talk, talk, talk, without contributing anything of substance (or anything at all for this matter) to this article (or any other article), as can be witnessed here. Thanks.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 06:42, 15 February 2012 (EST)
== Protected? ==

Why is this protected? I would be interested in adding some more facts(100% referenced) to the article. As it is the article gives very little information on the project itself and just reads like an essay. If you want an essay on why it is wrong write one but an article should actually give information on the project in more than the lead. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 00:06, 14 February 2012 (EST)
::I will unlock it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:24, 14 February 2012 (EST)

== Rewrite ==

I've been working on a [http://conservapedia.com/User:Ayzmo/IGB rewrite of the article] to make it more encyclopedic. I've kept much of the content but rewrote the intro entirely and added a history section. I wasn't really sure how to work the criticism section. It needs a lot more work before it should be moved over here but I'd really appreciate any comments, suggestions, or criticisms on the talk page. Please don't alter what I've already written. If you put something on the talk page I'll find a way to work it into the article.

Media Matters for America

2012-02-17T19:21:11Z

Ayzmo: Fixed some clauses. This page needs a lot of work.

'''Media Matters for America''' is a far-left activist organization with strong [[Democratic Party]] ties founded by [[David Brock]]. Brock also works for [[American Bridge 21st Century]], which he co-founded with [[Kathleen Kennedy Townsend]], a former lt. governor of Maryland and eldest child of former US Attorney General and US Senator [[Robert F. Kennedy]]. Media Matters claims its goal is to highlight what it considers [[conservative]] misinformation in mass media organizations. Primarily, they target prominent conservative public officials, public television personalities, [[Fox News]], and [[conservative talk radio]].

Within the 90 page 3-year strategic plan Media Matters distributed to its donor base and potential conributors, the document reveals that the non-profit entity has an enemies list which includes organizations like [[Fox News]], [[Cato Institute]], and [[Heritage Foundation]]. The list also targets numerous individuals and executives such as [[Rupert Murdoch]], [[Roger Ailes]], [[Peter Theil]], and [[Richard Mellon Scaife]].<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MMFA-2012-full.pdf Media Matters' Strategic Plan]</ref>

Further deviating from its tax exempt status, a recently discovered internal strategy memo from Media Matters Senior Fellow Karl Frisch to David Brock and Eric Burns, suggests that Media Matters "hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” as well as "look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/13/media-matters-memo-called-for-hiring-private-investigators-to-look-into-the-personal-lives-of-fox-employees/ Media Matters memo called for hiring private investigators ‘to look into the personal lives’ of Fox employees]</ref>

Some claim Media Matters was instrumental in lobbying for the firing of [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing [[John Kerry]] for [[United States presidential election, 2004|president in 2004]].<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/17/video-tammy-bruce-exposes-far-left-outlets-hit-list-on-everyone-to-their-right/ Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right,] ''FOX News'', April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator [[Charles Schumer]] and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator [[Hillary Clinton]].

==Founding==
Since 2004, Media Matters has monitored conservative media and attacked high-profile conservatives with provocative language. In addition, it is often accused of using out-of-context [[quote mining]]. It is headed by [[David Brock]], a former conservative who claims he made up stories about such people as [[Anita Hill]], who charged Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] with sexual harassment during Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Brock developed a relationship in the 1990s with then-First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press aide, [[Neel Lattimore]], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a [[homosexual]] and joining the [[liberal]] cause. Brock later hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of "special projects."

Brock is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20711 Media Matters: Defaming Journalists, Getting Sued], by Catherine Moy, ''Human Events'', 05/15/2007.</ref> While writing ''Blinded by the Right'',<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_119/ai_94639741/pg_1 Slime-master: inside the `vast right-wing conspiracy' - Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative] - Book Review, Christian Century, Nov 6, 2002 by Gary Dorrien.</ref> Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a "quiet room" and "had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him," according to the Drudge Report.<ref>http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/05/22/20020522_143906_brockb.htm</ref>

In February 2012, The Daily Caller ran a story outlining Brock's "erratic behavior" based on sources within his organization and Media Matters' close coordination with the [[President Barack Obama]] White House and liberal news organizations.<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/ Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations]</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/reports-media-matters-head-coordinates-with-white-house-builds-super-pac/ Reports: Media Matters head coordinates with White House, builds super PAC]</ref>

Brock outlined his lies and conversion to liberalism in his 2002 book, ''Blinded By The Right.'' He launched Media Matters in 2004 after conferring with [[Hillary Clinton]].

“David Brock has invented a new form of political organization: a tax-exempt group that is subsidized by taxpayers while Brock gets to spew his hate/smears,” said Anthony “Andy” Martin, a journalist suing Brock & Media Matters for defamation.

[[Jamison Foser]] is described on the Media Matters website as having "served as Research Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ([[DCCC]]) for the 2002 cycle" and is one of several staffers with connections to the faction of Democratic Party linked to the Clintons.

Glenn Thrush of ''Newsday'' has reported very close ties between Brock and the [[Hillary Clinton]] campaign, noting that Hillary "advised Brock" on creating his organization. He added, "For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget."<ref>[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5541_0_4_0_C/ AIM Report: Hillary's Hit Man Strikes Again], Accuracy in Media, June 19, 2007.</ref> While speaking at a [[Daily Kos]] event; Hillary Clinton bragged about her role regarding <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/16046/print Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters]" News Busters, October 1st, 2007</ref>

{{cquote|institutions that I helped to start and support like '''Media Matters''' and '''Center for American Progress'''.}}

==Media Matters and Israel==

Media Matters has come under attack by the influential [[Simon Wiesenthal Center]] for supporting bloggers who promote "dangerous political libels" and "toxic anti-Jewish prejudices". According to the Center, Media Matters Senior Foreign Policy Fellow [[MJ Rosenberg]] "has repeatedly smeared Jewish groups such the [[Anti-Defamation League]], the [[American Jewish Committee]], and the [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee]] as “Israel Firsters.”"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/simon-wiesenthal-center-time-to-clean-up-the-discourse/2011/12/13/gIQAThG6rO_blog.html Simon Wiesenthal Center: Time to clean up the discourse]</ref><ref>[http://biggovernment.com/tag/mj-rosenberg/ Democrats' 'Brain Trust' Hit by Antisemitism Accusations]</ref>

In a Twitter post by MJ Rosenberg, he called Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "terrorist".<ref>[http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/05/20/media-matters-honcho-attacks-israel-aipac-calls-netanyahu-terrorist/ Media Matter's MJ Rosenberg tweets, calls Israel PM Netanyahu a "terrorist"]</ref>

At a gathering of pro-Israel supporters held at the University of Pennsylvania in early February 2012, noted liberal Democrat and high-profile lawyer Alan Dershowitz was quoted as saying that Media Matters could cost President Barack Obama the 2012 presidential election.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/m-alan_dershowitz_says_media_matters_could_cost_obama_the_election.html Alan Dershowitz Says Media Matters Could Cost Obama the Election]</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/reports-media-matters-head-coordinates-with-white-house-builds-super-pac/ Reports: Media Matters head coordinates with White House, builds super PAC]</ref>

==Media Matters and Gun Control==

Media Matters is a staunch supporter of anti-gun legislation over the years and writes frequently on the subject on its website.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/ MediaMatters.org]</ref> In fact, Media Matters has taken $400,000 in donations from The Joyce Foundation specifically for the purpose "to support a gun and public safety issue initiative"<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/ The Joyce Foundation 990 Tax Filing for 2010 - Page 130]</ref> Over the years The [[Joyce Foundation]] has actively supported gun control programs and has donated tens of millions of dollars to numerous anti-gun initiatives.<ref>[http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/program-grants-list-3?rr=1&OrderBy=Amount&OrderAsc=0 Joyce Foundation Program Grants: Gun Violence]</ref> [[President Barack Obama]] served on the board of Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/25/obama-years-ago-helped-fund-carbon-program-pushing-congress/]</ref>

Ironically, recent reports have revealed that the personal assistant to Media Matters founder and Chairman David Brock carries a concealed Glock handgun when Brock goes out in public, so as to protect Brock.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/15/media-matters-took-600k-for-gun-control-while-carrying/ Media Matters took $600K for gun control while carrying?]</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/ Brock and the Glock: Armed men guarded Media Matters boss as he took $400,000 gun control donation]</ref> Washington DC is known as having some of the strictest gun carrying laws in the United States, so carrying a legally concealed weapon within that city would be extremely rare for a private citizen.

==The MSNBC – Media Matters Connection==

Media Matters for America is a very popular source of information within MSNBC’s prime time lineup. Some might argue [[MSNBC]] is a defacto mouth piece for the organization.<ref>[http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/07/12/media-matters-propaganda-watch-the-tax-exempt-research-department-of-msnbc-martin-bashir-edition/ Media Matters Propaganda Watch: The Tax-Exempt Research Department of MSNBC, Martin Bashir Edition]</ref><ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/ Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations]</ref>

In prime time alone, since 2005 Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on the network nearly 200 times. Media Matters has been particularly popular with MSNBC’s producers during the last 2 years.
Below are some interesting tid bits about Media Matters and its growing relationship with MSNBC’s prime time programming:

* 197 guest appearances and/or on-air mentions on MSNBC’s prime time since January 2005
* Of the roughly 390 broadcast evenings on MSNBC since July 2010, Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on air 26% of the possible broadcast evenings (1 out of every 4 days).
* In 2011, on average, a Media Matters representative appeared on MSNBC at least once per week
* [[Eric Boehlert]] has been the most popular Media Matters representative on MSNBC, accounting for 43% of all Media Matters appearances on the cable network
* [[The Ed Show]] is the most popular show for Media Matters representatives, accounting for 72 Media Matters guest appearances since 2009<ref>[http://www.nexis.com Search and analysis on MSNBC's primetime transcripts via Nexis.com]</ref>

In another connection, MSNBC and NBC News Presidential Historian [[Michael Beschloss]] is married to [[Afsaneh M. Beschloss]], a [[Ford Foundation]] Trustee and Media Matters supporter.<ref>[http://biggovernment.com/dwohl/2012/01/31/morris-beschloss-george-soros-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/ It's Father Versus Son as Morris Beschloss Declares George Soros 'The Most Dangerous Man in America']</ref>

==Financial information==
In 2010, Media Matters for America raised $10,682,649 in contribution through its fundraising consultant [[Bonner Group]], who also raises money for several George Soros-backed organizations such as The [[Center for American Progress]], [[Center for Responsibilty and Ethics]], [[People for the American Way]], and [[American Foundation for Equal Rights]]. Media Matters total revenues for 2010 were $13,237,875.<ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/charities/publications/2010cfr/cfr2010.pdf
California Attorney General Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation by Commerical Fundraisers for Year Ending 2010</ref><ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/ Media Matters 990 IRS Tax filing via Guidestar]</ref> For 2009, Media Matters of America showed assets of $2,774,565 and income of $6,711,993.<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/b/47-0928008/media-matters-america.aspx Media Matters 990 tax filings, 2003 - 2009]</ref>

Since its inception, they've received over $50 million dollars in contributions from several sources including wealthy liberal activists such as [[George Soros]]<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Soros_gives_1_million_to_Media_Matters.html "Soros gives $1 million to Media Matters"], Politico.com October 20, 2010</ref> and hedge funds<ref>[http://nymag.com/news/media/david-brock-media-matters-2011-5/index3.html "If I Take Down Fox, Is All Forgiven?"], By Jason Zengerle, ''New York Magazine'', May 22, 2011</ref>. Left-wing foundations have also been a rich source of funding as well, accounting for over $17 million in donations. Below are the list of foundations who've helped to fund Media Matters over the years. The data is culled from publicly available tax filings made by these foundations as of October 25, 2011.

'''Top Foundations Donating Funds to Media Matters for America Operations''' (> $50,000):<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/ Guidestar database of IRS filings filed by non-profit organizations]</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Foundation
!Amount Donated to Media Matters
|-
|1. [[Bohemian Foundation]]
| $2,325,000
|-
|2. [[Ford Foundation]]
| $1,945,000
|-
|3. [[Dyson Foundation]]
| $1,450,000
|-
|4. [[Gill Foundation]]
| $1,150,000
|-
|5. [[Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation ]]
| $1,125,000
|-
|6. [[Tides Foundation]]
| $946,276
|-
|7. [[Bauman Familly Foundation]]
| $600,000
|-
|8. [[Schumann Center for Media and Democracy]]
| $600,000
|-
|9. [[Leland Fikes Foundation ]]
| $500,000
|-
|10. [[Silicon Valley Community Foundation]]
| $428,000
|-
|11. [[Gruber Family Foundation]]
| $400,000
|-
|12. [[Joyce Foundation]]
| $400,000
|-
|13. [[Marisla Foundation]]
| $370,000
|-
|14. [[Boston Foundation (aka TBF)]]
| $305,000
|-
|15. [[Lewis B. & Dorothy Cullman Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|16. [[Glaser Progress Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|17. [[Marin Community Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|18. [[Lotus Foundation]]
| $280,000
|-
|19. [[Dallas Foundation]]
| $250,000
|-
|20. [[Schooner Foundation]]
| $234,717
|-
|21. [[Mai Family Foundation]]
| $225,000
|-
|22. [[McKay Foundation]]
| $225,000
|-
|23. [[Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation ]]
| $175,000
|-
|24. [[Johnson Family Foundation]]
| $155,000
|-
|25. [[Goatie Foundation]]
| $150,000
|-
|26. [[Pritzker Family Foundation ]]
| $150,000
|-
|27. [[Wasserman Foundation]]
| $150,000
|-
|28. [[BayTree Fund]]
| $110,000
|-
|29 [[Kanter Family Foundation]]
| $108,000
|-
|30. [[Proteus Fund]]
| $95,000
|-
|31. [[Dwoskin Family Foundation]]
| $87,500
|-
|32. [[Barbara Lee Family Foundation]]
| $80,000
|-
|33. [[J.M. Kaplan Fund]]
| $77,500
|-
|34. [[Furman Foundation]]
| $75,000
|-
|35. [[Murphy Family Foundation]]
| $75,000
|-
|36. [[Sagner Family Foundation]]
| $65,000
|-
|37. [[Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (aka RPA)]]
| $60,000
|-
|38. [[Wallace Global Fund]]
| $60,000
|-
|39. [[AG Foundation (aka Agnes Gund Foundation)]]
| $55,000
|-
|40. [[Lear Family Foundation ]]
| $55,000
|-
|41. [[Barbra Streisand Foundation]]
| $55,000
|-
|42. [[Greater Kansas City Community Foundation (aka GKCCF)]]
| $51,000
|-
|43. [[Carnegie Corporation]]
| $50,000
|-
|44. [[Daniel Neidich & Brooke Gerber Foundation]]
| $50,000
|-
|45. [[Park Foundation]]
| $50,000
|}

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.mediamatters.org Media Matters For America Website]
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848_pf.html Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks], By Thomas B. Edsall, ''Washington Post'', August 7, 2005.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1 The Shadow Party: Part II Continued ], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 7, 2004.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564 David Brock: Media Liar], By Jacob Laksin, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', September 21, 2005.
*[http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/bparks061507.htm Misleading Matters], by Bob Parks, ''TheRealityCheck.org'', retrieved 15/06/07.
*[http://www.firedems.com/members/david_brock/ David Brock bio]

[[Category: Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Foundations]]
[[Category: United States Political Organizations]]

Media Matters for America

2012-02-17T19:16:08Z

Ayzmo: /* Media Matters and Gun Control */ Made sentence make sense.

'''Media Matters for America''' is a far-left activist organization with strong [[Democratic Party]] ties founded by [[David Brock]]. Brock also works for [[American Bridge 21st Century]], which he co-founded with [[Kathleen Kennedy Townsend]], a former Lt. Governor of Maryland and eldest child of former US Attorney General and US Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Media Matters claims its goal is to highlight what it considers [[conservative]] misinformation in mass media organizations. Primarily, they target prominent conservative public officials, public television personalities, [[Fox News]], and [[conservative talk radio]].

Within the 90 page 3-year strategic plan Media Matters distributed to its donor base and potential conributors, the document reveals that the non-profit entity has an enemies list which includes organizations like [[Fox News]], [[Cato Institute]], [[Heritage Foundation]] and several other organizations. The list also targets numerous individuals and executives such as [[Rupert Murdoch]], [[Roger Ailes]], [[Peter Theil]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]] and more .<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MMFA-2012-full.pdf Media Matters' Strategic Plan]</ref>

Further deviating from its tax exempt status, a recently discovered internal strategy memo from Media Matters Senior Fellow Karl Frisch to David Brock and Eric Burns, suggests that Media Matters "hire private investigators to look into the personal lives of Fox News anchors, hosts, reporters, prominent contributors, senior network and corporate staff,” as well as "look into contracting with a major law firm to study any available legal actions that can be taken against Fox News, from a class action law suit to defamation claims for those wronged by the network. I imagine this would be difficult but the right law firm is bound to find some legal ground for us to take action against the network.”<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/13/media-matters-memo-called-for-hiring-private-investigators-to-look-into-the-personal-lives-of-fox-employees/ Media Matters memo called for hiring private investigators ‘to look into the personal lives’ of Fox employees]</ref>

Some claim Media Matters was instrumental in lobbying for the firing of [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing [[John Kerry]] for [[United States presidential election, 2004|president in 2004]].<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/17/video-tammy-bruce-exposes-far-left-outlets-hit-list-on-everyone-to-their-right/ Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right,] ''FOX News'', April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator [[Charles Schumer]] and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator [[Hillary Clinton]].

==Founding==
Since 2004, Media Matters has monitored conservative media and attacked high-profile conservatives with provocative language. In addition, it is often accused of using out-of-context [[quote mining]]. It is headed by [[David Brock]], a former conservative who claims he made up stories about such people as [[Anita Hill]], who charged Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] with sexual harassment during Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Brock developed a relationship in the 1990s with then-First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press aide, [[Neel Lattimore]], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a [[homosexual]] and joining the [[liberal]] cause. Brock later hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of "special projects."

Brock is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20711 Media Matters: Defaming Journalists, Getting Sued], by Catherine Moy, ''Human Events'', 05/15/2007.</ref> While writing ''Blinded by the Right'',<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_119/ai_94639741/pg_1 Slime-master: inside the `vast right-wing conspiracy' - Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative] - Book Review, Christian Century, Nov 6, 2002 by Gary Dorrien.</ref> Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a "quiet room" and "had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him," according to the Drudge Report.<ref>http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/05/22/20020522_143906_brockb.htm</ref>

In February 2012, The Daily Caller ran a story outlining Brock's "erratic behavior" based on sources within his organization and Media Matters' close coordination with the [[President Barack Obama]] White House and liberal news organizations.<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/ Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations]</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/reports-media-matters-head-coordinates-with-white-house-builds-super-pac/ Reports: Media Matters head coordinates with White House, builds super PAC]</ref>

Brock outlined his lies and conversion to liberalism in his 2002 book, ''Blinded By The Right.'' He launched Media Matters in 2004 after conferring with [[Hillary Clinton]].

“David Brock has invented a new form of political organization: a tax-exempt group that is subsidized by taxpayers while Brock gets to spew his hate/smears,” said Anthony “Andy” Martin, a journalist suing Brock & Media Matters for defamation.

[[Jamison Foser]] is described on the Media Matters website as having "served as Research Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ([[DCCC]]) for the 2002 cycle" and is one of several staffers with connections to the faction of Democratic Party linked to the Clintons.

Glenn Thrush of ''Newsday'' has reported very close ties between Brock and the [[Hillary Clinton]] campaign, noting that Hillary "advised Brock" on creating his organization. He added, "For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget."<ref>[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5541_0_4_0_C/ AIM Report: Hillary's Hit Man Strikes Again], Accuracy in Media, June 19, 2007.</ref> While speaking at a [[Daily Kos]] event; Hillary Clinton bragged about her role regarding <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/16046/print Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters]" News Busters, October 1st, 2007</ref>

{{cquote|institutions that I helped to start and support like '''Media Matters''' and '''Center for American Progress'''.}}

==Media Matters and Israel==

Media Matters has come under attack by the influential [[Simon Wiesenthal Center]] for supporting bloggers who promote "dangerous political libels" and "toxic anti-Jewish prejudices". According to the Center, Media Matters Senior Foreign Policy Fellow [[MJ Rosenberg]] "has repeatedly smeared Jewish groups such the [[Anti-Defamation League]], the [[American Jewish Committee]], and the [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee]] as “Israel Firsters.”"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/simon-wiesenthal-center-time-to-clean-up-the-discourse/2011/12/13/gIQAThG6rO_blog.html Simon Wiesenthal Center: Time to clean up the discourse]</ref><ref>[http://biggovernment.com/tag/mj-rosenberg/ Democrats' 'Brain Trust' Hit by Antisemitism Accusations]</ref>

In a Twitter post by MJ Rosenberg, he called Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "terrorist".<ref>[http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/05/20/media-matters-honcho-attacks-israel-aipac-calls-netanyahu-terrorist/ Media Matter's MJ Rosenberg tweets, calls Israel PM Netanyahu a "terrorist"]</ref>

At a gathering of pro-Israel supporters held at the University of Pennsylvania in early February 2012, noted liberal Democrat and high-profile lawyer Alan Dershowitz was quoted as saying that Media Matters could cost President Barack Obama the 2012 presidential election.<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/m-alan_dershowitz_says_media_matters_could_cost_obama_the_election.html Alan Dershowitz Says Media Matters Could Cost Obama the Election]</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/reports-media-matters-head-coordinates-with-white-house-builds-super-pac/ Reports: Media Matters head coordinates with White House, builds super PAC]</ref>

==Media Matters and Gun Control==

Media Matters is a staunch supporter of anti-gun legislation over the years and writes frequently on the subject on its website.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/ MediaMatters.org]</ref> In fact, Media Matters has taken $400,000 in donations from The Joyce Foundation specifically for the purpose "to support a gun and public safety issue initiative"<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/ The Joyce Foundation 990 Tax Filing for 2010 - Page 130]</ref> Over the years The [[Joyce Foundation]] has actively supported gun control programs and has donated tens of millions of dollars to numerous anti-gun initiatives.<ref>[http://www.joycefdn.org/content.cfm/program-grants-list-3?rr=1&OrderBy=Amount&OrderAsc=0 Joyce Foundation Program Grants: Gun Violence]</ref> [[President Barack Obama]] served on the board of Joyce Foundation from 1994 to 2002.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/25/obama-years-ago-helped-fund-carbon-program-pushing-congress/]</ref>

Ironically, recent reports have revealed that the personal assistant to Media Matters founder and Chairman David Brock carries a concealed Glock handgun when Brock goes out in public, so as to protect Brock.<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/15/media-matters-took-600k-for-gun-control-while-carrying/ Media Matters took $600K for gun control while carrying?]</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/16/brock-and-glock-armed-men-guarded-media-matters-boss-as-took-400000-gun-control/ Brock and the Glock: Armed men guarded Media Matters boss as he took $400,000 gun control donation]</ref> Washington DC is known as having some of the strictest gun carrying laws in the United States, so carrying a legally concealed weapon within that city would be extremely rare for a private citizen.

==The MSNBC – Media Matters Connection==

Media Matters for America is a very popular source of information within MSNBC’s prime time lineup. Some might argue [[MSNBC]] is a defacto mouth piece for the organization.<ref>[http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/07/12/media-matters-propaganda-watch-the-tax-exempt-research-department-of-msnbc-martin-bashir-edition/ Media Matters Propaganda Watch: The Tax-Exempt Research Department of MSNBC, Martin Bashir Edition]</ref><ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/12/inside-media-matters-sources-memos-reveal-erratic-behavior-close-coordination-with-white-house-and-news-organizations/ Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizations]</ref>

In prime time alone, since 2005 Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on the network nearly 200 times. Media Matters has been particularly popular with MSNBC’s producers during the last 2 years.
Below are some interesting tid bits about Media Matters and its growing relationship with MSNBC’s prime time programming:

* 197 guest appearances and/or on-air mentions on MSNBC’s prime time since January 2005
* Of the roughly 390 broadcast evenings on MSNBC since July 2010, Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on air 26% of the possible broadcast evenings (1 out of every 4 days).
* In 2011, on average, a Media Matters representative appeared on MSNBC at least once per week
* [[Eric Boehlert]] has been the most popular Media Matters representative on MSNBC, accounting for 43% of all Media Matters appearances on the cable network
* [[The Ed Show]] is the most popular show for Media Matters representatives, accounting for 72 Media Matters guest appearances since 2009<ref>[http://www.nexis.com Search and analysis on MSNBC's primetime transcripts via Nexis.com]</ref>

In another connection, MSNBC and NBC News Presidential Historian [[Michael Beschloss]] is married to [[Afsaneh M. Beschloss]], a [[Ford Foundation]] Trustee and Media Matters supporter.<ref>[http://biggovernment.com/dwohl/2012/01/31/morris-beschloss-george-soros-the-most-dangerous-man-in-america/ It's Father Versus Son as Morris Beschloss Declares George Soros 'The Most Dangerous Man in America']</ref>

==Financial information==
In 2010, Media Matters for America raised $10,682,649 in contribution through its fundraising consultant [[Bonner Group]], who also raises money for several George Soros-backed organizations such as The [[Center for American Progress]], [[Center for Responsibilty and Ethics]], [[People for the American Way]], and [[American Foundation for Equal Rights]]. Media Matters total revenues for 2010 were $13,237,875.<ref>[http://ag.ca.gov/charities/publications/2010cfr/cfr2010.pdf
California Attorney General Summary of Results of Charitable Solicitation by Commerical Fundraisers for Year Ending 2010</ref><ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/ Media Matters 990 IRS Tax filing via Guidestar]</ref> For 2009, Media Matters of America showed assets of $2,774,565 and income of $6,711,993.<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/b/47-0928008/media-matters-america.aspx Media Matters 990 tax filings, 2003 - 2009]</ref>

Since its inception, they've received over $50 million dollars in contributions from several sources including wealthy liberal activists such as [[George Soros]]<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Soros_gives_1_million_to_Media_Matters.html "Soros gives $1 million to Media Matters"], Politico.com October 20, 2010</ref> and hedge funds<ref>[http://nymag.com/news/media/david-brock-media-matters-2011-5/index3.html "If I Take Down Fox, Is All Forgiven?"], By Jason Zengerle, ''New York Magazine'', May 22, 2011</ref>. Left-wing foundations have also been a rich source of funding as well, accounting for over $17 million in donations. Below are the list of foundations who've helped to fund Media Matters over the years. The data is culled from publicly available tax filings made by these foundations as of October 25, 2011.

'''Top Foundations Donating Funds to Media Matters for America Operations''' (> $50,000):<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/ Guidestar database of IRS filings filed by non-profit organizations]</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Foundation
!Amount Donated to Media Matters
|-
|1. [[Bohemian Foundation]]
| $2,325,000
|-
|2. [[Ford Foundation]]
| $1,945,000
|-
|3. [[Dyson Foundation]]
| $1,450,000
|-
|4. [[Gill Foundation]]
| $1,150,000
|-
|5. [[Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation ]]
| $1,125,000
|-
|6. [[Tides Foundation]]
| $946,276
|-
|7. [[Bauman Familly Foundation]]
| $600,000
|-
|8. [[Schumann Center for Media and Democracy]]
| $600,000
|-
|9. [[Leland Fikes Foundation ]]
| $500,000
|-
|10. [[Silicon Valley Community Foundation]]
| $428,000
|-
|11. [[Gruber Family Foundation]]
| $400,000
|-
|12. [[Joyce Foundation]]
| $400,000
|-
|13. [[Marisla Foundation]]
| $370,000
|-
|14. [[Boston Foundation (aka TBF)]]
| $305,000
|-
|15. [[Lewis B. & Dorothy Cullman Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|16. [[Glaser Progress Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|17. [[Marin Community Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|18. [[Lotus Foundation]]
| $280,000
|-
|19. [[Dallas Foundation]]
| $250,000
|-
|20. [[Schooner Foundation]]
| $234,717
|-
|21. [[Mai Family Foundation]]
| $225,000
|-
|22. [[McKay Foundation]]
| $225,000
|-
|23. [[Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation ]]
| $175,000
|-
|24. [[Johnson Family Foundation]]
| $155,000
|-
|25. [[Goatie Foundation]]
| $150,000
|-
|26. [[Pritzker Family Foundation ]]
| $150,000
|-
|27. [[Wasserman Foundation]]
| $150,000
|-
|28. [[BayTree Fund]]
| $110,000
|-
|29 [[Kanter Family Foundation]]
| $108,000
|-
|30. [[Proteus Fund]]
| $95,000
|-
|31. [[Dwoskin Family Foundation]]
| $87,500
|-
|32. [[Barbara Lee Family Foundation]]
| $80,000
|-
|33. [[J.M. Kaplan Fund]]
| $77,500
|-
|34. [[Furman Foundation]]
| $75,000
|-
|35. [[Murphy Family Foundation]]
| $75,000
|-
|36. [[Sagner Family Foundation]]
| $65,000
|-
|37. [[Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (aka RPA)]]
| $60,000
|-
|38. [[Wallace Global Fund]]
| $60,000
|-
|39. [[AG Foundation (aka Agnes Gund Foundation)]]
| $55,000
|-
|40. [[Lear Family Foundation ]]
| $55,000
|-
|41. [[Barbra Streisand Foundation]]
| $55,000
|-
|42. [[Greater Kansas City Community Foundation (aka GKCCF)]]
| $51,000
|-
|43. [[Carnegie Corporation]]
| $50,000
|-
|44. [[Daniel Neidich & Brooke Gerber Foundation]]
| $50,000
|-
|45. [[Park Foundation]]
| $50,000
|}

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.mediamatters.org Media Matters For America Website]
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848_pf.html Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks], By Thomas B. Edsall, ''Washington Post'', August 7, 2005.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1 The Shadow Party: Part II Continued ], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 7, 2004.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564 David Brock: Media Liar], By Jacob Laksin, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', September 21, 2005.
*[http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/bparks061507.htm Misleading Matters], by Bob Parks, ''TheRealityCheck.org'', retrieved 15/06/07.
*[http://www.firedems.com/members/david_brock/ David Brock bio]

[[Category: Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Foundations]]
[[Category: United States Political Organizations]]

User:Ayzmo/Scotus

2012-02-15T00:44:50Z

Ayzmo: A page for me to work on additions to the SCOTUS page.

==Notable firsts==
The first justice to take the oath of office was [[James Wilson]] who took the oath on October 5th, 1789.

The first African American member of the court was [[Thurgood Marshall]] who took the oath on August 2nd, 1967.

The first female member of the court was [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] who took the oath on September 25th, 1981.

The first Hispanic member of the court was [[Sonya Sotomayor]] who took the oath on August 8th, 2009.<ref>http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/supremecourtoathfirstsandtrivia2009.aspx Supreme Court Oath Firsts and Trivia</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Supreme Court of the United States

2012-02-15T00:31:30Z

Ayzmo: /* Structure */ A list of cases heard in 2007 is no longer terribly relevant. Removed

[[Image:Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|200px|US Supreme Court Building]]
The '''Supreme Court of the United States''' (SCOTUS) is the highest court of the judiciary of the [[United States of America]]. Between 1800 and 1935, it met primarily in the basement of the United States [[Capitol]] building, then in the Old Senate Chamber, until it moved into its present location at One First Street NE, [[Washington, D.C.]]. [[Alexander Hamilton]] originally described the federal judiciary as the "least dangerous branch" due to the fact that it does not have the power to enforce or controls the country's finances.<ref>http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm Federalist #78</ref> However, the Supreme Court does have significant power and has grown to now rivals or even exceed that of the other branches of government.

==Structure==
The Court is currently composed of eight [[Associate Justice]]s and one [[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]]. To assist them there are many clerks, guards, and staff. Cases are heard ''[[en banc]]'' whenever the Court is in session. Historians generally divide Court history into eras named after the Chief Justice then presiding (e.g., the [[Rehnquist Court]] and the [[Warren Court]]).
[[Image:SCOTUS.jpg|300px|left|thumb|The Supreme Court of the United States, 2007 Back Row (l-r):Breyer, Thomas, Bader-Ginsburg, Alito Front Row(l-r):Kennedy, Stevens, Roberts, Scalia, Souter]]
Justices are appointed by the U.S. [[President]] with the advice and approval of the [[U.S. Senate]], which means that confirmation by a vote of a simple majority of the Senate is required before one can be sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

A list of pending cases to be heard on their merits by the Supreme Court, also known as petitions for which [[certiorari]] has been granted, is available on its website.<ref>[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/07grantednotedlist.pdf Cases pending for the 2007 term]</ref>

==Opinions==
Prior to the [[Marshall Court]], the Court issued [[opinion|opinions]] in ''seriatim''. This means that each Justice wrote his own opinion and delivered it from the bench. Currently, the Court issues one opinion, said to be "the opinion of the Court". Opinions tend to have the history of the case, followed by the Court's reasoning and action. Generally the opinion will be written by a member of the majority, chosen by either the Chief Justice or the most senior Justice in the majority.

When a majority of Justices agrees to the opinion, it is called the [[Majority Opinion|majority opinion]]. Occasionally, a majority of Justices agrees to the [[remedy]], yet a minority of Justices agrees with the main opinion. This is called a [[plurality opinion]].

Justices that disagree with the Court's action can and frequently do write [[dissenting opinion]]s, which state their objections to the ruling. When a Justice agrees with an action, but not the reasoning behind it, he may write a concurring opinion, which states the reasoning he would have used. Such opinions have no bearing on the case at bar, but are often used later in time as justification for legal rulings.

==Conservative and liberal votes==
[[File:Judges-over-time.jpg|thumb|200px|How judges became more conservative (moving up) or liberal (moving down) over time. Click to enlarge.]]

Four of the five most conservative justices to serve on the court since 1937, out of a total of 43 justices, are on the court right now: Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] and Justices [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Samuel Alito]] The fifth was Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], whom Chief Justice Roberts replaced in 2005.<ref> see Adam Liptak, "To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/weekinreview/01liptak.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' Jan. 31, 2009] Data from a 2008 study by William M. Landes, who teaches law and economics at the University of Chicago, and conservative Judge Richard A. Posner of the federal appeals court. </ref> Looking at votes in divided cases on ideologically charged issues like criminal procedure, civil rights and the First Amendment shows Justice Thomas, the most conservative justice. He voted for the conservative position in those cases 82% of the time. Justice Marshall, the only other African-American to serve on the court, was by this measure the most liberal, voting for the conservative side 21% of the time.

In ten of the last eleven appointments, the new justice was more conservative than the one replaced.

==Current Members==
{|class="wikitable"
!Name!!Date of Accession!!Appointed by!!Title!!General ideology
|-
|[[Antonin Scalia]]||September 26, 1986|||[[Ronald Reagan]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Anthony Kennedy]]||February 18, 1988|||[[Ronald Reagan]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||moderate/swing
|-
|[[Clarence Thomas]]||October 23, 1991|||[[George H. W. Bush]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]||August 10, 1993|||[[Bill Clinton]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[Stephen Breyer]]||August 3, 1994|||[[Bill Clinton]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[John Roberts]]||September 29, 2005|||[[George W. Bush]]|||[[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Samuel Alito]]||January 31, 2006|||[[George W. Bush]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Sonia Sotomayor]]||August 6, 2009|||[[Barack Obama]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[Elena Kagan]]||August 7, 2010||[[Barack Obama]]||[[Associate Justice]]||[[liberal]]
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==
*[[State supreme court]], usually the corresponding court in a [[state court]] system
*[[Supreme Court]] for supreme courts generally

==Further Reading==
* Hall, Kermit L., ed. ''The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Supreme-United-States/dp/0195176618/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525239&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], complete text online at many academic libraries.
** Patrick, John J. ed. ''The Young Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States'' (1994)
* Hall, Kermit L., and James W Ely Jr., eds. ''The Oxford Guide to United State Supreme Court Decisions'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Guide-United-Supreme-Decisions/dp/019537939X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525239&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search], complete text online at many academic libraries.
* Rehnquist, William H. ''The Supreme Court'' (2002), a popular introduction [http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-William-H-Rehnquist/dp/0375708618/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525459&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Savage, David G. ''Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Right-Making-Rehnquist-Supreme/dp/0471595535/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525459&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

{{Supreme Court|jay=y|ellsworth=y|marshall=y|taney=y|chase=y|waite=y|fuller=y|white=y|taft=y|hughes=y|stone=y|vinson=y|warren=y|burger=y|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Supreme Court of the United States

2012-02-15T00:27:38Z

Ayzmo: The statement about Hamilton was misleading. Added the context that the actual bit in Federalist 78 requires for clarification.

[[Image:Supreme Court.jpg|thumb|200px|US Supreme Court Building]]
The '''Supreme Court of the United States''' (SCOTUS) is the highest court of the judiciary of the [[United States of America]]. Between 1800 and 1935, it met primarily in the basement of the United States [[Capitol]] building, then in the Old Senate Chamber, until it moved into its present location at One First Street NE, [[Washington, D.C.]]. [[Alexander Hamilton]] originally described the federal judiciary as the "least dangerous branch" due to the fact that it does not have the power to enforce or controls the country's finances.<ref>http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa78.htm Federalist #78</ref> However, the Supreme Court does have significant power and has grown to now rivals or even exceed that of the other branches of government.

==Structure==
The Court is currently composed of eight [[Associate Justice]]s and one [[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]]. To assist them there are many clerks, guards, and staff. Cases are heard ''[[en banc]]'' whenever the Court is in session. Historians generally divide Court history into eras named after the Chief Justice then presiding (e.g., the [[Rehnquist Court]] and the [[Warren Court]]).
[[Image:SCOTUS.jpg|300px|left|thumb|The Supreme Court of the United States, 2007 Back Row (l-r):Breyer, Thomas, Bader-Ginsburg, Alito Front Row(l-r):Kennedy, Stevens, Roberts, Scalia, Souter]]
Justices are appointed by the U.S. [[President]] with the advice and approval of the [[U.S. Senate]], which means that confirmation by a vote of a simple majority of the Senate is required before one can be sworn in as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

A list of pending cases to be heard on their merits by the Supreme Court, also known as petitions for which [[certiorari]] has been granted, is available on its website.<ref>[http://www.supremecourtus.gov/orders/07grantednotedlist.pdf Cases pending for the 2007 term]</ref>
* For a list of petitions granted and to be heard in fall 2007, see [[2007 Cert. Granted]].
* For a list of petitions granted and heard in fall 2009, see [[2009 Cert. Granted]].

==Opinions==
Prior to the [[Marshall Court]], the Court issued [[opinion|opinions]] in ''seriatim''. This means that each Justice wrote his own opinion and delivered it from the bench. Currently, the Court issues one opinion, said to be "the opinion of the Court". Opinions tend to have the history of the case, followed by the Court's reasoning and action. Generally the opinion will be written by a member of the majority, chosen by either the Chief Justice or the most senior Justice in the majority.

When a majority of Justices agrees to the opinion, it is called the [[Majority Opinion|majority opinion]]. Occasionally, a majority of Justices agrees to the [[remedy]], yet a minority of Justices agrees with the main opinion. This is called a [[plurality opinion]].

Justices that disagree with the Court's action can and frequently do write [[dissenting opinion]]s, which state their objections to the ruling. When a Justice agrees with an action, but not the reasoning behind it, he may write a concurring opinion, which states the reasoning he would have used. Such opinions have no bearing on the case at bar, but are often used later in time as justification for legal rulings.

==Conservative and liberal votes==
[[File:Judges-over-time.jpg|thumb|200px|How judges became more conservative (moving up) or liberal (moving down) over time. Click to enlarge.]]

Four of the five most conservative justices to serve on the court since 1937, out of a total of 43 justices, are on the court right now: Chief Justice [[John Roberts]] and Justices [[Antonin Scalia]], [[Clarence Thomas]] and [[Samuel Alito]] The fifth was Chief Justice [[William Rehnquist]], whom Chief Justice Roberts replaced in 2005.<ref> see Adam Liptak, "To Nudge, Shift or Shove the Supreme Court Left," [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/weekinreview/01liptak.html?_r=1&hp ''New York Times'' Jan. 31, 2009] Data from a 2008 study by William M. Landes, who teaches law and economics at the University of Chicago, and conservative Judge Richard A. Posner of the federal appeals court. </ref> Looking at votes in divided cases on ideologically charged issues like criminal procedure, civil rights and the First Amendment shows Justice Thomas, the most conservative justice. He voted for the conservative position in those cases 82% of the time. Justice Marshall, the only other African-American to serve on the court, was by this measure the most liberal, voting for the conservative side 21% of the time.

In ten of the last eleven appointments, the new justice was more conservative than the one replaced.

==Current Members==
{|class="wikitable"
!Name!!Date of Accession!!Appointed by!!Title!!General ideology
|-
|[[Antonin Scalia]]||September 26, 1986|||[[Ronald Reagan]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Anthony Kennedy]]||February 18, 1988|||[[Ronald Reagan]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||moderate/swing
|-
|[[Clarence Thomas]]||October 23, 1991|||[[George H. W. Bush]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]||August 10, 1993|||[[Bill Clinton]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[Stephen Breyer]]||August 3, 1994|||[[Bill Clinton]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[John Roberts]]||September 29, 2005|||[[George W. Bush]]|||[[Chief Justice of the United States of America|Chief Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Samuel Alito]]||January 31, 2006|||[[George W. Bush]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[conservative]]
|-
|[[Sonia Sotomayor]]||August 6, 2009|||[[Barack Obama]]|||[[Associate Justice]]|||[[liberal]]
|-
|[[Elena Kagan]]||August 7, 2010||[[Barack Obama]]||[[Associate Justice]]||[[liberal]]
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==
*[[State supreme court]], usually the corresponding court in a [[state court]] system
*[[Supreme Court]] for supreme courts generally

==Further Reading==
* Hall, Kermit L., ed. ''The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-Supreme-United-States/dp/0195176618/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525239&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search], complete text online at many academic libraries.
** Patrick, John J. ed. ''The Young Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States'' (1994)
* Hall, Kermit L., and James W Ely Jr., eds. ''The Oxford Guide to United State Supreme Court Decisions'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Guide-United-Supreme-Decisions/dp/019537939X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525239&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search], complete text online at many academic libraries.
* Rehnquist, William H. ''The Supreme Court'' (2002), a popular introduction [http://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-William-H-Rehnquist/dp/0375708618/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525459&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Savage, David G. ''Turning Right: The Making of the Rehnquist Supreme Court'' (1993) [http://www.amazon.com/Turning-Right-Making-Rehnquist-Supreme/dp/0471595535/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233525459&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]

{{Supreme Court|jay=y|ellsworth=y|marshall=y|taney=y|chase=y|waite=y|fuller=y|white=y|taft=y|hughes=y|stone=y|vinson=y|warren=y|burger=y|rehnquist=y|roberts=y}}

[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[Category:United States Law]]
[[Category:Conservatives]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:United States History]]

Talk:It Gets Better

2012-02-14T05:06:10Z

Ayzmo: /* Protected? */ new section

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2012-02-14T04:58:33Z

Ayzmo: /* Cultural indoctrination */ The see also didn't exist. Nonexistant article.

Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 20%: did not hear about conservative principles until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 10%: genuinely lack of desire to find the truth, and instead desire attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
:* 10%: refuse to forgive themselves and let go of their past mistakes and image
:* 10%: believe myths created around government programs like the "New Deal" that liberal policies create jobs instead of destroying them and depriving people of liberty through government control.
:* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: feel that they deserve to make more money than they do, as in public school teachers and university professors, and refuse to rise above self-interest
:* 10%: harbor a grudge against a conservative, typically a parent but sometimes an ex-spouse, and refuse to forgive or rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas
:* 5%: are susceptible to marketing and suggestion to an overlarge degree.

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them
:* 15%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 10%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong
:* 5%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: a genuine divine experience that can not be explained.
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a truthful course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[The Simpsons]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
:*Elementary through high school textbooks having appalling and reprehensible omissions on the basic facts of American life (religion, marriage, politics, and business)<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X, (this book contains the results of a federally funded research project analyzing children's textbooks) </ref>
:*For decades Universities have discriminated against hiring conservatives, especially social conservatives and religious believers.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zGOuAAAACAAJ A Student's Guide to Religious Studies], D. G. Hart, ISI Books, 2005, ISBN 1932236589, 9781932236583, 108 pages; see page 38 and note on page 107. </ref> This has resulted in most college graduates being exposed to liberals prejudiced against conservatives and conservative thought. These graduates become the teachers and other professionals who are unwitting soldiers in liberalism's battle against a Christian Reformed, Roman-Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox, obedient-to-God reality.

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no school-sponsored prayer)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most universities and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

2012-02-14T04:57:43Z

Ayzmo: /* Cultural indoctrination */ I tend to believe there's a difference between "no prayer in schools" which is allowed and common and "no school-sponsored prayer" which is neither.

Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist? Here are some reasons:

== Statistical Analysis ==

(Estimates)

:* 20%: did not hear about conservative principles until ''after'' they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
:* 10%: genuinely lack of desire to find the truth, and instead desire attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
:* 10%: refuse to forgive themselves and let go of their past mistakes and image
:* 10%: believe myths created around government programs like the "New Deal" that liberal policies create jobs instead of destroying them and depriving people of liberty through government control.
:* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
:* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
:* 10%: feel that they deserve to make more money than they do, as in public school teachers and university professors, and refuse to rise above self-interest
:* 10%: harbor a grudge against a conservative, typically a parent but sometimes an ex-spouse, and refuse to forgive or rise above the animosity
:* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas
:* 5%: are susceptible to marketing and suggestion to an overlarge degree.

== What Triggers Reconsideration of [[Liberal]] Beliefs? ==

What triggers reconsideration of liberal beliefs? Here are some estimates:

:* 25%: raising or teaching children, and realizing how destructive liberal values are to many of them
:* 15%: a religious conversion followed by taking the [[Bible]] to heart
:* 10%: a loss of a loved one that resulted from accepting or promoting liberal values, as in losing a loved one to crime caused by pornography, drug addiction, gambling, etc.
:* 10%: a new friendship with someone who is conservative, and realizing how much good flows from the conservative values<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of [[Ronald Reagan]] based in his friendship with his [[conservative]] father-in-law, Loyal Davis.[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921293,00.html]</ref>
:* 10%: simply by maturing and seeing liberalism's impact around them, and realizing what they were taught as youth was wrong
:* 5%: a desire to learn the truth, and a dislike for those who mislead
:* 5%: a genuine divine experience that can not be explained.
:* 5%: using conservative values to overcome an addiction, and then realizing the benefits of conservative values in many other ways
:* 5%: taking a truthful course in [[economics]], or learning it in the workforce<ref>''See, e.g.'', the conversion of Nobel Laureate [[Ronald Coase]].</ref>

== Cultural indoctrination ==

*Brainwashing and deceit:
:* They pride themselves on doing well in school or reading the newspaper, can't accept that what they were taught was incorrect or biased.
:* Dangerous professors who impose their opinions upon vulnerable youth.
:* Television programs posing as comedies, such as [[South Park]], [[Family Guy]], and [[The Simpsons]], which inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values
:* Exposed to incorrect liberal ideas throughout education. Standard American kindergartens up to the fourth grade. Wastes the potential of most children—does not expose them to foreign languages and other learning tasks their minds are obviously and mysteriously suited for. All helping to make them think they need liberal man-made structures that in fact limit their potential in a self-defeating sort of cycle.
:* Indoctrination by liberal churches which have a disproportionate focus on biblical passages that appear to support liberal positions, eg. the adulteress story, the disciples holding everything in common, etc.
:* A blind obsession to be famous, act and imitate the ways of their famous idols, to absorb their ideals as their own.
:* Failure to realize that modern science and modern wealth are the result of historical processes set into motion by God-fearing Christian Conservatives like [[Blaise Pascal]], [[Robert Boyle]], [[Isaac Newton]], and [[James Maxwell]]. (When the obvious importance of Christianity to these scientific figures' everyday lives comes up in an academic situation, dangerous professors—[[liberal]] historians and [[liberal]] scientists—have been known to label it as "some mental disorder".)
:*Elementary through high school textbooks having appalling and reprehensible omissions on the basic facts of American life (religion, marriage, politics, and business)<ref> ''Censorship: Evidence of Bias in Our Children's textbooks'', [[Paul C. Vitz]], Servant Books, 1986, ISBN 0-89283-305-X, (this book contains the results of a federally funded research project analyzing children's textbooks) </ref>
:*For decades Universities have discriminated against hiring conservatives, especially social conservatives and religious believers.<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=zGOuAAAACAAJ A Student's Guide to Religious Studies], D. G. Hart, ISI Books, 2005, ISBN 1932236589, 9781932236583, 108 pages; see page 38 and note on page 107. </ref> This has resulted in most college graduates being exposed to liberals prejudiced against conservatives and conservative thought. These graduates become the teachers and other professionals who are unwitting soldiers in liberalism's battle against a Christian Reformed, Roman-Catholic/Anglican/Orthodox, obedient-to-God reality.

*No exposure:
:* Current fashions in American professional behavior make expressions of Christian faith awkward in the workaday world.
:* Increasing zone of publicly funded anti-religious fanaticism (e.g., no school-sponsored prayer)
:* Spectacle of entertainment industry (e.g., movies and T.V.) cuts into traditionally popular Christian church social activities
:* Most universities and hospitals have forgotten or have been forced to deny (to get various grants and even retirement benefits for their professors) their religious roots. Catholic affiliated institutions remain one of the few exceptions (few or possibly no other body of Christians can make legitimate claims of offering modern [[Pastoral care]] as the Roman Catholic church)

*Peer Pressure:
:* They have liberal friends, and want their approval or acceptance.
:* They live in a predominantly liberal state or community and fear rejection from said community.

*Systemic bias:
:* Some people are [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|inherently irrational]], and are thus driven to liberal ideology.
:* Their job and salary, such as working for public schools, depends on keeping conservatives out of power.
:* Media bias acts to caricature conservatism, making it seem unpalatable, conditioning people to reject its teachings.
:* Schools reward politically correct, liberal answers on tests.
:* Negative focusing by the media highlights personal flaws of conservatives, driving people to choose to identify with liberals rather than be categorized with those traits.

*See also: [[Mystery:Why Do Black Americans Vote For Liberal Candidates?]]

== Liberal characteristics ==
*Poor abstract thinking:
:* They have trouble understanding some of the slightly abstract concepts in conservatism, such as "more guns, less crime," and "less taxes, more revenue."
:* They are more comfortable discussing simple issues like race and poverty than complex issues like globalism.
:* Intellectual myopia - failure to heed the long-term consequences of ideological positions that seem beneficial in the short term.
:* Stereotyping: They knew a conservative whom they disliked for some reason, and tar all others with the same brush.
:* Ignorance: politics isn't a priority for some people. Without any wish to learn to think for themselves, some liberals don't bother to think through what's right, and just go with what's "cool."

*Closed-minded:
:* They made up their mind before hearing conservative principles, and will not reconsider their views.
:* They have something criticized by conservatives in their personal background, and feel compelled to defend it rather than let it go.
:* Slavish adherence to the ideals of liberal parents

*Naivety:
:* Non-conservatives demonstrate just how prone mankind is to arrogance.
:* An admiration for historical figures whom liberals claim were liberals.
:* A desire for large government inculcated by personal weakness and reluctance to take personal responsibility.
:* Impressionable individuals buying into [[Bush derangement syndrome]], and reacting with emotion rather than reason.
:* Reliance on charisma: Charismatic leaders trading on image, rather than experience, can dupe the unsuspecting.

*Self-destructive or contrarian behavior:
:* Some choose to do what is irrational.
:* Use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity.
:* Sexual experimentation to make up for lack of self-esteem, often with multiple partners, with partners of the same gender, or in public places
:* Unthinking rebellion against conservative parents.
:* Determined to prove their "independence of mind" by denying authority

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:Mystery]]

March for Life

2012-01-25T03:00:57Z

Ayzmo: The link for the 2011 attendance numbers was somehow changed to a story about a mystery fetus. Found another source.

[[File:PhpFvUL9cPM.jpg|right|300px]]
The '''March for Life''' is the largest and longest annual gathering in the history of the [[United States]]. About 400,000 (and growing) gather annually in [[Washington, D.C.]] in support of life and against [[abortion]].<ref>http://www.marchforlife.org/</ref> The March for Life began in 1974, on the first anniversary of ''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' (1973).<ref group="footnotes">If the anniversary falls on a weekend, then the next day that Congress is in session is used instead.</ref> In addition, over 100,000 gather around the nation in various cities. '''''The next March for Life will be on Tuesday, January 22, 2013'''''.<ref group="footnotes">The March is on May 12th in Canada each year.</ref>

Founded by Miss [[Nellie Gray]], who has led it ever since, she also has a non-profit organization by the same name which provides educational workshops typically the day before the [[March]]. Many organizations and groups from across the nation attend the March for Life. For example, [[Conservapedia]] has led increasing numbers to the March for Life each year beginning in 2009, and led more than a hundred participants on the very cold day of January 24, 2011.

The influence of the March for Life is approximately 20 times its attendance, as the average person who attends communicates his participation to 20 others.{{fact}}<ref group="footnotes">Some, such as clergyman, obviously influence far more.</ref> '''''An attendance of 400,000 thereby influences perhaps 8 million persons annually, and during a period of a decade the cumulative overall influence reaches perhaps 40 million persons in a personal way'''''.

The March for Life has grown to participation by about 1 in every 400 Americans from East of the [[Mississippi River]].<ref group="footnotes">The population East of the Mississippi River is estimated to be about 178 million.</ref> Additional people from across the nation and out West also travel to attend the March for Life:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Year
!Estimated Attendance
|-
|1974
|20,000<ref name="Estimates1">http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=31298</ref>
|-
|1975
|50,000<ref name="Estimates2">http://www.marchforlife.org/content/view/13/26/</ref>
|-
|1976
|65,000<ref name="Estimates2">http://www.marchforlife.org/content/view/13/26/</ref>
|-
|2000
|100,000<ref name="Estimates2"/>
|-
|2005
|200,000<ref name="Estimates2"/>
|-
|2008
|225,000<ref name="Estimates1"/>
|-
|2009
|300,000
|-
|2010
|400,000
|-
|2011
|400,000<ref>http://prolifeleague.com/articles/60-march-for-life-2011.html . The cold weather -- 10 degrees below normal in D.C. and even colder at many points of departure -- caused some to postpone their attendance until 2012.</ref>
|-
|}
[[File:Marchforlife.jpg|center]]

== Photos from 2011 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==

[[File:PhpMGlmDfPM.jpg|200px]] [[File:PhpUImy4EPM.jpg|200px]][[File:Php3sfokfPM.jpg|200px]] [[File:Php9T6BjXPM.jpg|200px]]
 [[File:PhpeokG1ZPM.jpg|200px]] [[File:PhpzD3YBWPM.jpg|200px]] [[File:PhpUrImgrPM.jpg|200px]]

== Photos from 2010 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==

[[File:March for Life 2010 Along Route.JPG|left|300px]]
[[File:March for Life 2010 Mall.jpg|right|300px]]
[[File:March for Life 2010 Mall Capitol.jpg|center|300px]]
{{clear}}

== Photos from 2009 March for Life by ''Conservapedia'' ==

[[File:March for Life 2009 Sup Ct.JPG|right|thumb|March for Life 2009 outside [[U.S. Supreme Court]]]]

[[File:March for Life 2009 Mall.JPG|left|300px]]

{{clear}}

==See Also==
*[[Thine Eyes]]

== Footnotes ==
<references group="footnotes"/>
== References ==
<references />
[[category:United States Politics]]
[[category:abortion]]

Talk:Newt Gingrich

2012-01-24T23:16:31Z

Ayzmo: /* Orphan and third wife? */ Woops, forgot to sign.

Let's get a citation for the affair thing. It's publicly acknowledged, but it'll carry more weight if it has one. --[[User:John|John]] 23:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Recommend==
[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I noticed he was categorized under Category: 2008 Presidential candidates. He never officially declared candidacy, therefore he shouldn't be in it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:39, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal Vs. Conservative ==

I have removed Mr. Gingrich from the conservative category into that of of detestable liberals, as the front page of Conservapedia has claimed him to no longer be a true conservative, having embraced socialistic views on Medicare. --[[User:TeaPartyFreedom76|TeaPartyFreedom76]] 19:12, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Ethics Charges ==

Despite what his spokesperson says he was found guilty of ethics violation and had to pay a $300,000 fine. The panel found that he violated Rule 42 many times. The last three charges were dropped, as his spokesman said, in 1998 but not because they were without merit. The committee found that there was no evidence that he was still violating the rule and saw no reason to impose further sanctions.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich123198.htm</ref> I'm going to remove the quote from his spokesperson. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:04, 29 November 2011 (EST)

==Issues vs. quotes==

I've started a new section, which shows his stand on issues (or at least indicates areas of concern to him). This may contain direct quotations, but it would not be a random collection of quotes. Wikipedia has quote farms, some of which are use for [[quote mining]] (like "Bushisms"): Gingrich said this, see how it proves he's a nutcase!

I want our readers to be able to read a straightforward statement of the man's views, not "distortion by selection". See [[Star Parker]] for a test case. See also [[Quotation out of context]] and [[Putting words into someone's mouth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:27, 9 January 2012 (EST)

----
<references/>
==Personal life==
Gingrich is an orphan. The fact an orphan rises to the third highest office in the United States and is considered a viable candidate for President would be of more interest than the marital troubles intended as an obvious attack on his character should have precedence, at least in website written from a conservative viewpoint. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:Ah, so we should give him a by for being an two-time (at least) adulterer. Okay, I give up. Whatever. Whitewash it anyway you want, Rob. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::Gingrich is an orphan, right but that does not give him the right to live a sinful life !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:::John 8:10-11, ''Where are thine accusers?'' She said, ''No man, Lord.'' "Neither do I condemn thee." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:10-11&version=KJV] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::::I know the bible Rob, but you cannot just get out of everything with it. Would you excuse murder and rape the same way ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Moses was a murderer. So was David. And between them God wrote the Pentateuch and Psalms (incidentally, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Principles_+_Values.htm Hillary cites the Book of Psalms] as having inspired her to save her open marriage. As to rape, I'd have to do more bible research (and way off the point, I recently learned from the BBC that Uncle Joe Stalin condoned mass rape funded with [[Lend Lease]] dollars from [[FDR]], but that's neither here nor there...) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:59, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::::::And you are the one who speaks about [[Last wordism]] ? Come on, I am sure you understood my point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:48, 22 January 2012 (EST)

*According to Conservapedia, an [[orphan]] ''is a child who has lost both parents and has no one to look after them.'' I don't see how Newt Gingrich fits this description: [http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Parents-Grandparents.php republican-canditates.org]
*A more loose definition would probably cover Obama, too.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:51, 23 January 2012 (EST)

===How did CNN obtain sealed documents?===
So, the question is now, for SharonW who wishes to insert citations from what are ''supposed'' to be sealed documents, (1) [http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html How did CNN obtain personal, confidential, and what are supposed to be sealed court documents]? (2) The ethical implicationns of CNN publishing what may be illegally obtained personal, confidential, and sealed documents?, and (3) Should Conservapedia be used as a platform to further the agendas of liberal, radical, and unethical mainstrream news organizations such as CNN with the aim to cause personal, emotional, and professional harm to the reptation and career ambitions of people CNN does not like? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:09, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:The files weren't sealed. Here's a quote: "After initially '''''being told''''' that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk's drawer. Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN '''''his deputy took Gingrich's file out of the public records room around 1994''''', "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention," '''''because Skinner feared tampering and theft.''''' [http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html]. (Emphasis mine).

:From what I remember from the 1990s, it was '''''Gingrich''''' who caused the personal and emotional harm to people - his ex-wife and children. He is an adulterer, and I don't think that should be glossed over like you're attempting to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:10, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::The files were sealed (as all divorce records are). CNN obtained sealed files. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:35, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::So they were removed to avoid tampering and theft and wound being tampered with and stolen. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::"Alan Lee, the Carroll County Superior and State courts clerk, confirmed the divorce records were never sealed. Finding the original papers, first requested by Bloomberg and then CNN last week, was simply a matter of locating the box of paperwork in the Carroll County records room, not a drawer."[http://www.atlawblog.com/2011/12/gingrich-divorce-records-pose-question-for-carroll-county-court/] Not sealed, and not stolen. Guess you need to find a different theory to use. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 03:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::So we have enough evidence to suspect the theft and illegal handling of what should have been sealed documents, their subsequent mishandling and ethical abuses by CNN and other mainstream new sources, is part of what George Steponopalous calls the [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_23_16/ai_62896460/ Clinton's "scorched earth policy"], correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Except, of course, that divorce records are not routinely sealed in many states, INCLUDING GEORGIA.
:::::"Access to divorce records. Available to the general public. The state Vital Records Office will conduct a search to determine the occurrence of a divorce."[http://www.georgia.gov/00/channel_title/0,2094,4802_5009,00.html]

::::: One of the involved parties has to request a court order that they be sealed. Really, Rob, it took me about a minute to come up with this information. That's the beauty of public records. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:43, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::(a) the Georgia law can tell you the records exist, that is far different from being held for public viewing; (b) how do we know whether or not one party or the other requested they be sealed, being that (1) those posted on CNN's site are incomplete, and (2) the reluctance of ''both'' parties to discuss the case openly for 30 years? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::(c) and the site you posted clearly states the office "[http://health.state.ga.us/programs/vitalrecords/divorce.asp cannot issue a record]", and only copies of the decree are available, not the actually filings and record. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:03, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::I'm loving watching you twist in the wind to make this into a huge conspiracy. '''Divorce records are public records, and anyone can view them (and read them and make copies of them) at the courthouse.''' I do genealogy for a hobby, and review title searches as part of my job, and I see and obtain divorce records fairly regularly. It takes a court order to seal the records, and '''''the order sealing the records will be in the public records for anyone to see and read'''''.

:::::::And do you ''really'' think the courthouse is going to give you the original record? Of course it's a copy, and it can be certified if you pay for it. "Certified copies of divorce decrees are only available from the Clerk of the Superior Court in the county where the divorce was granted." (see previous link for quote.) A certified copy means it's an '''''exact copy''''', guaranteed by the issuing agency. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:14, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::A Certified copy of the Final Decree ''is not'' a copy of the original filings or hearing transcripts. Why don't ask the resident in house attorney, Mr. Shlafly, if divorce records are routinely available for public viewing in most states and courthouses in America? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:34, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::::Not a bad idea, but I believe Mr. Schlafly is only licensed to practice law in New Jersey, while we're looking at Georgia law. Furthermore, I don't believe he practices family law, so his expertise would only be very general in a case such as this. I guess his background in law would put him in a good position to research the answers we're looking for, but I wouldn't consider him an expert on a topic this specific. [[User:DanE|DanE]] 00:54, 24 January 2012 (EST)

==Stop the edit war!==
Shouldn't we agree on something instead of keep reverting everything ? My question is why do we hide this gossip whil we keep the gossip on democrats pages ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:01, 22 January 2012 (EST)

:(ec)[http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Quick_reference ''Conservapedia articles tone, style, and content should be written with an American, conservative and/or Christian orientation or focus. ''] If you're referring to debates on several other pages about the liberal concept of "open marriage", the Clinton marriage, as accurately cited from numerous sources, fits the definition of "open marriage" on both the sexual and non-sexual planes. In the Gingrich instance, ABC News correspondence, along with other liberal, mainstream, non--conservative and anti-conservative sources and journalists, clearly attack Gingrich's personal life to cause harm and personal suffering. These same journalists and news organizations in the cases the Clinton family and Obama family have repeated stated a candidates personal life, and that of their families and children, are off limits and out of bounds. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)

::Because liberals. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Gingrich publicly acknowledges having affairs with his second and third wives. That's not gossip. There are many rumors, and have been for years, about ''other'' Gingrich adulterous affairs, but those weren't added to the article because those ''are'' gossip. The rumors about Gingrich serving divorce papers to the hospital to his "dying" wife" are also rumors and have not been added. What has been added has been cited, and in many cases have court records to back them up. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:12, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:None of that material was reverted; the contrast with William Jefferson Clinton who publicly lied and misprisoned a felony, encouraging others to perjure themselves, has remained. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Why not to add a section about Morality==
That would include the fact that he is an unfaithful overweight man ? You know, the same kind of important information that is given for [[PZ Myers]] or [[Peter Singer]].--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:33, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Good point. But I think Gingrich has confessed to his love of donuts. How this translates to morality, I'm not sure. But donut eating is consumer [[stimulus]] spending, and thus creates jobs, ''nes pas''? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::Do you mean: ''n'est-ce pas''? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Orphan and third wife? ==

I tried to do a little research and from the sources I found it seems Newt was raised by his biological mother who had remarried?

Also recent edits seem to make it seem like he is still married to his second wife "Gingrich married Ginther in 1981. The couple separated in 1988, and reconciled in 1994." while removing the part of him and his aide. I'm not trying to berate the man, we are all sinners, granted some worse then others, but as a Christian Conservative I need a man who can protect marriage, and I suspect others agree. We have to be a trustworthy source for people to get to know their candidates and their values on marriage and religion. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 16:54, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:I think you're right. 'Abandoned' seems more accurate than 'orphaned'. And the other sentenced should read something like "...reconciled in 1994 but were divorced in 1999 (or whatever year)". Any proposals on language? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:26, 24 January 2012 (EST)

:Also, can we put the year his marriage to Callista began(2000) to the info box? [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 18:16, 24 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Newt Gingrich

2012-01-24T23:15:50Z

Ayzmo: /* Orphan and third wife? */

Media Matters for America

2012-01-24T21:26:51Z

Ayzmo: The source was nonexistant so I found the actual article though the article gives a different light on the quote.

'''Media Matters for America''' is a [[Liberal smear machine|liberal smear organization]] founded by [[David Brock]], with a goal to highlight what it considers [[conservative]] misinformation in mass media organizations. Primarily, they target prominent conservative public officials, public television personalities, [[Fox News]], and [[conservative talk radio]]. Some claim they were instrumental in lobbying for the firing of [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.aim.org/special_report/5390_0_8_0_C/ How Hillary's Hit Man Got Imus], Cliff Kincaid, April 17, 2007.</ref> whom they considered a moderate for endorsing [[John Kerry]] for [[United States presidential election, 2004|president in 2004]].<ref>[http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/17/video-tammy-bruce-exposes-far-left-outlets-hit-list-on-everyone-to-their-right/ Video: Tammy Bruce exposes far-left outlets’ hit list on everyone to their right,] ''FOX News'', April 17, 2007.</ref> Imus was targeted by the liberal left for criticizing Senator [[Charles Schumer]] and most notably, the constant rebuke of former First Lady and at the time Senator [[Hillary Clinton]].

==Founding==
Since 2004, Media Matters has monitored conservative media and attacked high-profile conservatives with provocative language. In addition, it is often accused of using out-of-context [[quote mining]]. It is headed by [[David Brock]], a former conservative who claims he made up stories about such people as [[Anita Hill]], who charged Supreme Court Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] with sexual harassment during Thomas’s confirmation hearings. Brock developed a relationship in the 1990s with then-First Lady [[Hillary Clinton]]'s press aide, [[Neel Lattimore]], and came out of the closet, announcing he was a [[homosexual]] and joining the [[liberal]] cause. Brock later hired Lattimore at Media Matters as director of "special projects."

Brock is a self-proclaimed fabricator of lies who strong-armed sources that didn’t agree with him.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20711 Media Matters: Defaming Journalists, Getting Sued], by Catherine Moy, ''Human Events'', 05/15/2007.</ref> While writing ''Blinded by the Right'',<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_23_119/ai_94639741/pg_1 Slime-master: inside the `vast right-wing conspiracy' - Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative] - Book Review, Christian Century, Nov 6, 2002 by Gary Dorrien.</ref> Brock was hospitalized in a mental facility where he spent time in a "quiet room" and "had delusions, he thought people were trying to kill him," according to the Drudge Report.<ref>http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2002/05/22/20020522_143906_brockb.htm</ref>

Brock outlined his lies and conversion to liberalism in his 2002 book, ''Blinded By The Right.'' He launched Media Matters in 2004 after conferring with [[Hillary Clinton]].

“David Brock has invented a new form of political organization: a tax-exempt group that is subsidized by taxpayers while Brock gets to spew his hate/smears,” said Anthony “Andy” Martin, a journalist suing Brock & Media Matters for defamation.

[[Jamison Foser]] is described on the Media Matters website as having "served as Research Director at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ([[DCCC]]) for the 2002 cycle" and is one of several staffers with connections to the faction of Democratic Party linked to the Clintons.

Glenn Thrush of ''Newsday'' has reported very close ties between Brock and the [[Hillary Clinton]] campaign, noting that Hillary "advised Brock" on creating his organization. He added, "For her part, Clinton's extended family of contributors, consultants and friends has played a pivotal role in helping Media Matters grow from a $3.5 million start-up in 2004 to its current $8.5 million budget."<ref>[http://www.aim.org/aim_report/5541_0_4_0_C/ AIM Report: Hillary's Hit Man Strikes Again], Accuracy in Media, June 19, 2007.</ref> While speaking at a [[Daily Kos]] event; Hillary Clinton bragged about her role regarding <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/node/16046/print Hillary Clinton Told YearlyKos Convention She Helped Start Media Matters]" News Busters, October 1st, 2007</ref>

{{cquote|institutions that I helped to start and support like '''Media Matters''' and '''Center for American Progress'''.}}

==Recent Developments==

Media Matters has come under attack by the influential [[Simon Wiesenthal Center]] for supporting bloggers who promote "dangerous political libels" and "toxic anti-Jewish prejudices". According to the Center, Media Matters Senior Foreign Policy Fellow [[MJ Rosenberg]] "has repeatedly smeared Jewish groups such the [[Anti-Defamation League]], the [[American Jewish Committee]], and the [[American Israel Public Affairs Committee]] as “Israel Firsters.”"<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/simon-wiesenthal-center-time-to-clean-up-the-discourse/2011/12/13/gIQAThG6rO_blog.html Simon Wiesenthal Center: Time to clean up the discourse]</ref><ref>[http://biggovernment.com/tag/mj-rosenberg/ Democrats' 'Brain Trust' Hit by Antisemitism Accusations]</ref>

In a Twitter post by MJ Rosenberg, he called Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "terrorist".<ref>[http://biggovernment.com/abreitbart/2011/05/20/media-matters-honcho-attacks-israel-aipac-calls-netanyahu-terrorist/ Media Matter's MJ Rosenberg tweets, calls Israel PM Netanyahu a "terrorist"]</ref>

==The MSNBC – Media Matters Connection==

Media Matters for America is a very popular source of information within MSNBC’s prime time lineup. Some might argue [[MSNBC]] is a defacto mouth piece for the organization.<ref>[http://bigjournalism.com/sright/2011/07/12/media-matters-propaganda-watch-the-tax-exempt-research-department-of-msnbc-martin-bashir-edition/ Media Matters Propaganda Watch: The Tax-Exempt Research Department of MSNBC, Martin Bashir Edition]</ref> In prime time alone, since 2005 Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on the network nearly 200 times. Media Matters has been particularly popular with MSNBC’s producers during the last 2 years.
Below are some interesting tid bits about Media Matters and its growing relationship with MSNBC’s prime time programming:

* 197 guest appearances and/or on-air mentions on MSNBC’s prime time since January 2005
* Of the roughly 390 broadcast evenings on MSNBC since July 2010, Media Matters has either been booked as a guest and/or mentioned on air 26% of the possible broadcast evenings (1 out of every 4 days).
* In 2011, on average, a Media Matters representative appeared on MSNBC at least once per week
* [[Eric Boehlert]] has been the most popular Media Matters representative on MSNBC, accounting for 43% of all Media Matters appearances on the cable network
* [[The Ed Show]] is the most popular show for Media Matters representatives, accounting for 72 Media Matters guest appearances since 2009<ref>[http://www.nexis.com Search and analysis on MSNBC's primetime transcripts via Nexis.com]</ref>

==Financial information==
For 2009, Media Matters of America showed assets of $2,774,565 and income of $6,711,993.<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/organizations/b/47-0928008/media-matters-america.aspx Media Matters 990 tax filings, 2003 - 2009]</ref>

Since its inception, they've received over $40 million dollars in contributions from several sources including wealthy liberal activists such as [[George Soros]]<ref>[http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/1010/Soros_gives_1_million_to_Media_Matters.html "Soros gives $1 million to Media Matters"], Politico.com October 20, 2010</ref> and hedge funds<ref>[http://nymag.com/news/media/david-brock-media-matters-2011-5/index3.html "If I Take Down Fox, Is All Forgiven?"], By Jason Zengerle, ''New York Magazine'', May 22, 2011</ref>. Left-wing foundations have also been a rich source of funding as well, accounting for over $17 million in donations. Below are the list of foundations who've helped to fund Media Matters over the years. The data is culled from publicly available tax filings made by these foundations as of October 25, 2011.

'''Top Foundations Donating Funds to Media Matters for America Operations''' (> $50,000):<ref>[http://www2.guidestar.org/ Guidestar database of IRS filings filed by non-profit organizations]</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Foundation
!Amount Donated to Media Matters
|-
|1. [[Bohemian Foundation]]
| $2,325,000
|-
|2. [[Ford Foundation]]
| $1,945,000
|-
|3. [[Dyson Foundation]]
| $1,450,000
|-
|4. [[Gill Foundation]]
| $1,150,000
|-
|5. [[Stephen M. Silberstein Foundation ]]
| $1,125,000
|-
|6. [[Tides Foundation]]
| $946,276
|-
|7. [[Bauman Familly Foundation]]
| $600,000
|-
|8. [[Schumann Center for Media and Democracy]]
| $600,000
|-
|9. [[Leland Fikes Foundation ]]
| $500,000
|-
|10. [[Silicon Valley Community Foundation]]
| $428,000
|-
|11. [[Gruber Family Foundation]]
| $400,000
|-
|12. [[Joyce Foundation]]
| $400,000
|-
|13. [[Marisla Foundation]]
| $370,000
|-
|14. [[Boston Foundation (aka TBF)]]
| $305,000
|-
|15. [[Lewis B. & Dorothy Cullman Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|16. [[Glaser Progress Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|17. [[Marin Community Foundation]]
| $300,000
|-
|18. [[Lotus Foundation]]
| $280,000
|-
|19. [[Dallas Foundation]]
| $250,000
|-
|20. [[Schooner Foundation]]
| $234,717
|-
|21. [[Mai Family Foundation]]
| $225,000
|-
|22. [[McKay Foundation]]
| $225,000
|-
|23. [[Bernard and Audre Rapoport Foundation ]]
| $175,000
|-
|24. [[Johnson Family Foundation]]
| $155,000
|-
|25. [[Goatie Foundation]]
| $150,000
|-
|26. [[Pritzker Family Foundation ]]
| $150,000
|-
|27. [[Wasserman Foundation]]
| $150,000
|-
|28. [[BayTree Fund]]
| $110,000
|-
|29 [[Kanter Family Foundation]]
| $108,000
|-
|30. [[Proteus Fund]]
| $95,000
|-
|31. [[Dwoskin Family Foundation]]
| $87,500
|-
|32. [[Barbara Lee Family Foundation]]
| $80,000
|-
|33. [[J.M. Kaplan Fund]]
| $77,500
|-
|34. [[Furman Foundation]]
| $75,000
|-
|35. [[Murphy Family Foundation]]
| $75,000
|-
|36. [[Sagner Family Foundation]]
| $65,000
|-
|37. [[Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors (aka RPA)]]
| $60,000
|-
|38. [[Wallace Global Fund]]
| $60,000
|-
|39. [[AG Foundation (aka Agnes Gund Foundation)]]
| $55,000
|-
|40. [[Lear Family Foundation ]]
| $55,000
|-
|41. [[Barbra Streisand Foundation]]
| $55,000
|-
|42. [[Greater Kansas City Community Foundation (aka GKCCF)]]
| $51,000
|-
|43. [[Carnegie Corporation]]
| $50,000
|-
|44. [[Daniel Neidich & Brooke Gerber Foundation]]
| $50,000
|-
|45. [[Park Foundation]]
| $50,000
|}

==References==
<references/>
==External links==
*[http://www.mediamatters.org Media Matters For America Website]
*[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600848_pf.html Rich Liberals Vow to Fund Think Tanks], By Thomas B. Edsall, ''Washington Post'', August 7, 2005.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/readarticle.asp?ID=15409&p=1 The Shadow Party: Part II Continued ], By David Horowitz and Ben Johnson, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', October 7, 2004.
*[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19564 David Brock: Media Liar], By Jacob Laksin, ''FrontPageMagazine.com'', September 21, 2005.
*[http://www.therealitycheck.org/StaffWriter/bparks061507.htm Misleading Matters], by Bob Parks, ''TheRealityCheck.org'', retrieved 15/06/07.
*[http://www.firedems.com/members/david_brock/ David Brock bio]

[[Category: Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Foundations]]
[[Category: United States Political Organizations]]

User talk:Jpatt

2012-01-20T20:58:30Z

Ayzmo: /* Rubio */