Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Science

2007-10-25T12:02:55Z

Boru:

'''Science'' is a methodology for discovering and classifying knowledge. Atheists invented it to undermine Andrew Schlafy. The scope of science encompasses all measurable phenomena. Science falls under two scopes: [[natural science]], dealing with the physical, natural world, and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s, and many of them are [[atheism|atheists]].<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref>
However, most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Isaac Newton]] and [[Albert Einstein]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, if they were not actually creationists. In addition, [[Christianity]] [[Christianity and Science|played a pivotal role in the development of modern science]].

==Notes==

<references/>

[[category:science]]

User talk:DeanS

2007-10-25T11:47:20Z

Boru: /* quick question */

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list]
</blockquote>

{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | No Ping-ponging Conversations!
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Archive Policy
|-
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.
|}

[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]

== Conservative links ==

Thank you for your comment. Please do whatever you think that could improve the article. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:02, 2 September 2007 (EDT)

:Andy wants us to make explanation for the links set in this article. Could you help? Thanks! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:45, 21 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest==
Would you be interested in going after another victory and joining team one (to be named) in the contest? --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:04, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the invite Tash. I would like to join your team with the understanding I'm now working 7 days a week and will have limited time to contribute to the contest. I don't want your team to lose because of me. ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:19, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

No problem, I have SAT's in two weeks... so I;m going to be busy as well... you're in!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

== Help ==

Could you please unblock. I can't find the way.

08:34, 23 September 2007 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "'''ConservativeMom''' (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (name)
Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip" --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Try this [[Special:Ipblocklist]]. Then unblock.
:I can still do the unblock for you Joaquín if you're still having problems. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 09:03, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::Done. Thank you my friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:11, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Why the reverts? ==

The '''first''' Conservapedia Commandment states that you shouldn't copy (although public domain sources seem to be excluded from this for some reason) unless it was your own work.

Considering that the articles you created are complete copies of a copyrighted page, I now ask for proof that you are the original author of that page. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:43, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Jenkins, these articles were not copied from the source you described; however, I am going to delete them until I find the appropriate government reference. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:52, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

::Well, googling for key phrases from the articles ALL gave exactly ONE result (and the articles match the source), namely the one I mentioned. That's usually a very good indicator. However, I will assume good faith and drop the issue until you find a public domain source or word the articles in a way that doesn't coincide with a copyrighted one. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:56, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Copying from government sites ==

Crocoite, copying from [[federal]] government sites almost never has a copyright problem, but some state governments do assert a copyright. So please check carefully with the website before copying from a state government site. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:54, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the reminder Andy. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:47, 30 September 2007 (EDT)
==Very Nicely Done==
Hey - I just noticed your huge point increase on the team page - great job! With stuff like that we'll win this contest handily :D --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:06, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Iduan. I'm not counting the win just yet... Andy is very formidable and he will keep us going to the last second. ;-)

*He's toast! Compose offline, guys, and spring it at the last! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 21:49, 1 October 2007 (EDT)

== I sent you a private email ==

I sent you a private email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:53, 3 October 2007 (EDT)

==Great Job!==
Couldn't have won without you. Thanks--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:27, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks Tash. Great teamwork ;-) You and LearnTogether led the way to victory. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:31, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Just wanted to say Congratulations...although I still can't believe you won...for a little while, I thought we had it :) oh well...if you were on our team, we definitely would have won! [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 20:04, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks Deb. I was really worried, but LearnTogether was our best editor. ;-) Last time Andy was the main editor, but this time you had good teamwork and almost won. Anyway, Conservapedia was the ''real'' winner ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 20:10, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Lesbian]] ==

Don`t you think an article about this subject is necessary. It could be protected if you consider it adequate.

:I agree and the article would need to be protected. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:27, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

::Nothing special about [[Lesbian]]s; they are merely female [[homosexuals]]s. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

:::The redirect and link to the homosexual article is fine. Thanks Ed. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:43, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

# 20:46, 15 May 2007 ColinR (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lesbian" (content was: '#redirect Lesbos<nowiki>{{delete}}</nowiki>')
# '''14:17, 15 March 2007 Aschlafly (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lesbian"'''
# 19:46, 13 March 2007 MountainDew (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Lesbian"

*I have no idea where this was being talked about, and who all was involved aside from Ed, Joaquin and you, but the above should be a clear enough indication to all of you. If you don't like it, start checking with others before you act! "Others" means me, and the rest of the Site Admins. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 19:13, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== quick question ==

I know you are very active in posting breaking news. I think if Conservapedia had an decent article on [[WorldNetDaily]] and [[NewsBusters]] that were designed to get to the top of the search engines we could attract a lot of the readers of WorldNetDaily and NewsBusters when they Googled those websites to click on them. Do you have any interest in this? I could tell you what a "internet search engine master" told me in a few quick sentences so the article would be ranked highly by the search engines in all likelihood. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:22, 23 October 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal==

I think you are a closet case Liberal, considering your recent addition to the LIberal article. You are a parody sir. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 07:47, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

Leonid Brezhnev

2007-10-09T21:21:46Z

Boru:

In 1964, Leonid Brezhnev stripped the Soviet Union's leader, [[Nikita Khrushchev]], of power and took the control for himself. Brezhnev is more fondly remembered than many Soviet leaders because of his campaign against corruption in the USSR. He also relaxed some restrictions imposed under Khrushchev that prohibited free speech and cultural expression. Brezhnev's admiration for Western culture, especially music, was well-known. Brezhnev found great solace in the Liberal movement in the west during the 1960's, as the vast increase of hippies and other Liberal extremists allowed the [[Liberal Elite]] to start promoting quasi-communist idea's back at home. Many decent young people were deceived by these deceitful Liberals, but the Liberals had no remorse for their actions, even to this day.

{{stub}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Brezhnev, Leonid}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Communists]]

Essay:Liberal gloss

2007-10-09T21:15:22Z

Boru: New page: '''Liberal Gloss''' is the term used to describe the language the Liberal Elite use in written sources, such as newspapers and books. Liberals generally tend to try and make themselves...

'''Liberal Gloss''' is the term used to describe the language the [[Liberal Elite]] use in written sources, such as newspapers and books. Liberals generally tend to try and make themselves seem intelligent by adding rare quotes and decadent eastern philosophies into their work. Although typical of the deceit Liberals spin out, it is not surprising when you consider Liberals tend to deceive at any given opportunity in order to groom their false sense of superiority. [[Conservapedia]] actively removes Liberal Gloss from any of its articles.

[[Category:Politics]]

Al Gore

2007-10-09T21:08:44Z

Boru: Removing Liberal Gloss concerning Gore's Military record.

{{President
|image=Al_Gore_2.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Tipper Gore]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th [[Vice President]] of the [[United States]] (1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.

He was the [[Democrat]] Party's candidate for President in the 2000 national election, running on a ticket with then Vice Presidential candidate [[Joseph Lieberman]].

In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) Vanderbilt University.
He also served in the [[United States Army]], and worked as a war correspondant during the [[Vietnam War]]. <ref>William V. Kennedy, ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. [http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html]</ref>. Although typical of most high profile American Liberals, Gore used his Ivy League education to evade real military service in Vietnam, preferring to take silly pictures and undermine the American forces while waging a war for democracy.

He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues.

Gore is the author of ''[[Assault on Reason]]''. [[Militant]] [[leftist]] [[activist]] [[Ted Kazinski]] is said to be the inspiration of Gore's [[environmental]] manifesto, ''[[Earth in the Balance]]''.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n1_v13/ai_19007864 Conservatives claim Gore too weird for presidency - Vice-Pres. Al Gore - includes related article on Gore's book 'Earth in the Balance'], by John Elvin, Insight on the News, Jan 6, 1997.</ref>

He also starred in the 2006 documentary about [[global warming]] entitled, ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]],'' which won an [[Oscar]].

==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>.

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|left|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, 2004]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in [[Boston]],

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retrieved from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.</ref>

Gore contemplates a dark horse bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election|2008 Democratic Presidential]] nomination, he appears to have been downgraded from an [[Alpha male]] to a [[Beta male]] by ''Newsweek'' magazine. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881794/site/newsweek/page/0/ Betas Rule], By Jennie Yabroff, ''Newsweek'', June 4, 2007.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al and GW.png|thumb|400px|Cartoon by Greg Sheffield]]

[[Ann Coulter]] claims Gore exaggerated his military service record.
*Al Gore endlessly bragged to the media about his service in Vietnam. "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later," he told Vanity Fair. And then we found out Gore had a personal bodyguard in Vietnam, the most dangerous weapon he carried was a typewriter, and he left after three months. [http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi]

Al Gore has recently received criticism for his environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore - Electric consumption bill]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. {{Fact}}

From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382 Error: Invalid story]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/17/93301.shtml?s=ic</ref>

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276476942822261 Al Gore, Ignoble Laureate], ''Investor's Business Daily'', October 5, 2007

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

{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

[[category:liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

British politics

2007-10-09T21:04:45Z

Boru: /* Liberal Democrats */

Politics in the [[United Kingdom]] takes place within the context of a [[democracy|democratic]] [[parliamentary]] system dominated by three major parties.

The political culture of the UK tends to be more liberal than that of the United States, but less so than that of many other European nations.

==Institutions==

===Parliament===

''See also [[Parliament]]''

The cornerstone of the unwritten British [[constitution]] is ''Parliamentary supremacy'', or ''Parliamentary sovereignty''.

Britain is one of a small number of nations without a written constitution, and the British legislature, ''Parliament'', is free to legislate however it pleases. In British law, the only authority higher than parliamentary legislation is the law of the [[European Union]], and Britain is subject to EU law only by virtue of the fact that Parliament has chosen to accept it.

Parliament consists of the Queen, the [[House of Lords]] and the [[House of Commons (UK)|House of Commons]]. The Queen today takes no part in active politics (the last time that a monarch refused to ratify a law passed by the Lords and Commons was in 1714). While the House of Lords is considered to be the more prestigious chamber, the Commons is dominant by virtue of the fact that its members are elected rather than appointed. The Lords can only delay rather than veto legislation, though the Commons rarely chooses to push through laws against the Lords' wishes (it has done so only five times since the Lords' absolute veto was removed in 1911).

Reform of the House of Lords is a current political issue in the UK. The House of Commons has resolved to make it more democratic, so that 80% or 100% of its members are elected rather than appointed.

===The Executive===

The British Government operates in the name of the Queen (or the "Crown"), but power lies in practice with the '''Prime Minister''' and his '''Cabinet'''. The British Prime Minister has one of the most powerful roles of any democratic head of government or head of state (though some, like the French President, have similar or more extensive powers).

== Devolution ==

{| class="wikitable"
|- bgcolor=cccccc
! Nation/Region || Legislature || Executive || Leader(s)
|-
| '''[[Scotland]]''' || Scottish Parliament || Scottish Executive || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Wales]]''' || National Assembly for Wales || Welsh Assembly Government || First Minister
|-
| '''[[Northern Ireland]]''' || Northern Ireland Assembly || Northern Ireland Executive || First Minister and Deputy First Minister1
|-
| '''[[London|Greater London]]''' || London Assembly|| Mayor of London || Mayor of London
|}


1 Northern Ireland is a dyarchy in which both leaders are regarded as equal.


==Local government==

Each locality in the UK has its own '''local authority''': there are '''councils''' of various sorts, as well as a number of elected '''mayors''' (most notably in London, whose current mayor is the popular but controversial left-wing politician [[Ken Livingstone]]). The powers of local authorities have been declining for many years, but it is believed that they are due for a significant revival.

It should be noted that most mayors in Britain are relatively powerless officials who serve as mere figureheads (rather like the Queen). However, a number of cities, such as London, have powerful mayors with a full executive role.

==Parties==

The British political spectrum has historically been dominated by the '''[[Labour Party]]''' on the left, the '''[[Conservative Party]]''' on the right, and the '''Liberal Party''' (now the [[Liberal Democrats]]) in the centre between them ("liberal" in British political terminology is often used to mean "centrist" or "moderate", rather than "left-wing").

In recent times, there has been a perception that the main parties are crowding together on the centre ground. In the 1990s, Labour moved decisively away from the traditional left (angering many of its more traditionally-minded supporters), to the point where it was perceived by many as being less left-wing than the Liberal Democrats. Since the advent of [[David Cameron]] as its leader in 2005, the Conservative Party has moved away from the territory of the traditional right (in this case too, angering many of its more strongly conservative or [[Thatcherism|Thatcherite]] supporters).

===Labour===

The Labour Party is the current party of government in the UK. It is also the largest party in the Welsh legislature and the second-largest party in the Scottish Parliament.

Following its defeat by Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in 1979, the Labour Party adopted a strongly left-wing, socialist program. Following a catastrophic defeat in the 1983 general election, more moderate politicians took charge of Labour and slowly moved it closer to the centre ground of British politics, a process started by [[Neil Kinnock]] in the mid-1980s and carried forward enthusiastically by [[Tony Blair]] after his election as leader in 1994. Many more traditional, left-wing Labour supporters see Tony Blair as an usurper whose policies are too right-wing for comfort. This has been the case in particular following the Iraq War.

Blair's policies were arguably a mixture of left (e.g. higher taxes, higher government spending, greater integration with the European Union, support for the [[homosexual agenda]]) and right (e.g. pro-market reforms in the public services, retention of Lady Thatcher's labour laws, support for the [[War on Terror]] and [[George W. Bush]]'s foreign policies). His successor [[Gordon Brown]], once a close ally of Blair, has spoken out against the idea of the party shifting back to the left

===Conservatives===

British conservatism has traditionally been a moderate, non-ideological creed: its heroes include such pragmatic figures as [[Edmund Burke]] in the eighteenth century and Sir [[Robert Peel]] and [[Benjamin Disraeli]] in the nineteenth century. These figures contrasted with contemporary conservatives from other European countries such as the French thinker [[Joseph de Maistre]], who were often strong, ideologically-minded supporters of absolute monarchy and Roman Catholicism.

The Conservative Party became strongly ideologically conservative during the leadership of [[Margaret Thatcher]] (1975-1990). Since Lady Thatcher resigned in 1990s, the strongly conservative element within the party has been more or less eclipsed. It had some influence in the 1990s during the leadership of Sir John Major (1990-1997), but the current Conservative leader, [[David Cameron]], has moved decisively away from "Thatcherism", to the dismay of many Conservative activists.

===Liberal Democrats===

The Liberal Democrats (or "Lib Dems") were formed in 1988 by the merger of the old centrist Liberal Party with the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SDP). Their current leader is the Scottish trial lawyer Sir [[Menzies Campbell]], who took over when his predecessor, [[Charles Kennedy]], was publicly exposed as an alcoholic in early 2006.

The Liberal Democrats are divided between a relatively left-wing faction (to which Campbell and Kennedy belong), which has taken positions to the left of the Labour Party on a number of issues, and a more right-wing, pro-[[free market]] faction (several of whose members contributed to a controversial collection of essays published in 2004 called ''The Orange Book''). The Liberal Democrats are strong advocates of the homosexual agenda, and promote their filth to the unsuspecting good natured British public.

=== Scotland ===
The largest party in Scotland is the '''[[Scottish National Party]]''', which is in fact a major force in Scottish politics, being the largest party in the Scottish Parliament. It advocates independence for Scotland.

=== Wales ===
There is also a Welsh nationalist party, called '''Plaid Cymru''', or simply '''Plaid'''.

=== Northern Ireland ===
Northern Ireland has a number of political parties:
* '''[[Democratic Unionist Party]]''' - strongly Unionist
* '''[[Sinn Fein]]''' - strongly Irish-Nationalist ("Republican")
* '''[[Ulster Unionist Party]]''' - moderately Unionist
* '''[[Social Democratic and Labour Party]]''' - moderately Irish-Nationalist

===Minor parties===
There are several other minor British parties worthy of mention:
* The '''[[UK Independence Party]]''' advocates the withdrawal of Britain from the [[European Union]] and other more strongly conservative policies than those supported by the official Conservative Party.
* The '''[[Green Party (UK)|Green Party]]''' campaigns for protection of the environment, decentralisation and social justice.
* '''RESPECT''' is a strongly left-wing, socialist party led by the maverick ex-Labour politician [[George Galloway]].
* The '''[[British National Party]]''' is generally seen as an extreme right-wing or fascist party. It advocates the repatriation of non-white people from the UK to the countries of their or their families' origin.
*The [[Monster raving loony party|Monster Raving Loony Party]] is a 'joke' party, which however often receives significant numbers of [[protest vote]]s especially in high-profile [[by-election]]s (which may attract a large number, sometimes dozens, of other not entirely serious candidates).

[[Category:British politics]]

West Wing

2007-10-09T20:57:46Z

Boru: Removed Liberal bias; Please consult talk page before reverting someone's edits. Thank you.

'''The West Wing''' was a TV show broadcast over seven series in the [[United States]], culminating in 2006. It was an exhibition of the promotion of the [[Liberal Agenda]], popularly called the 'Left Wing' for its far left views, the fictional Democratic President Josiah Bartlett constantly insulted and undermined Republican party values. The shows writer was a radical Liberal, proud of his attempts to deceive the American people.

[[category:television shows]][[category:liberal deceit]]

Talk:Gay Bomb

2007-10-08T11:39:45Z

Boru:

Did the 9/11 Commission investigate this? Perhaps if it had been funded in the Clinton era and dropped on [[Terrorist]] training camps in Afghanistan, 9/11 could have been prevented.

I smell coverup. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:45, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
:Or the fact that the bomb ''didn't work''.[[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:44, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

::It would have to be field tested before being combat tested, this generally is how U.S. weapons development has traditionally operated. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:06, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

:That is interesting RobS. I wouldn't be surprised if that lech did cover up this. Its definately a tragedy anyway. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 07:39, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Green Party

2007-10-08T11:23:28Z

Boru: New page: Helping the wanted pages list. Please add or take away as you see fit. ~~~~

Helping the wanted pages list. Please add or take away as you see fit. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 07:23, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

Green Party

2007-10-08T11:22:17Z

Boru: New page: The '''Green Party''' is a far-left radical environmentalist entity within the United States. Supporting policies which would cripple the world economy if implemented, the Green Party advo...

The '''Green Party''' is a far-left radical environmentalist entity within the United States. Supporting policies which would cripple the world economy if implemented, the Green Party advocates a whole new form of taxation - the Carbon tax - as well as advocating a decadent social platform, such as supporting gay 'marriage'.

There are other Green parties throughout the world, though most, if not all act independently of each other.

User talk:HelpJazz

2007-10-07T17:12:16Z

Boru: /* Wiki-quette */

{{Useful links|float=right}}

== Warning ==

Sorry, general editing is turning off soon. See you tomorrow morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking powers ==

I just gave you blocking powers. You can block vandals now. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you very much! I will do my best to stop vandals before they can cause too much harm to Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:48, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==New Entries Redux==

Oops. Okay, I'll "jazz up" the ones I've created before I move onto others. --[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 13:50, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:Heh heh thanks :) Again, I wasn't trying to criticize you or anything, just wanted to let you know. As you can see from my userpage, MoS compliancy is one of my current projects, but you know the whole "teach a man to fish" adage... [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 13:54, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::No, no--I didn't take it as criticism at all. Indeed, I appreciate the heads up. The whole wiki thing is still new to me.--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 14:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:::As for many, I suspect. You seem to be catching on quickly though! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 14:13, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==
I hate people who take advantage of good faith. --[[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 20:37, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:Heh I just thanked you on your talk page! And I agree with you on that point! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:38, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::saw that. maybe you can point me in the direction I might do the most good. I saw some of the links at the top of the recent changes page. Is that the best way to help out? [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 20:43, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Until you get your bearings, a great way to get started is to hit the "random page" button until you see something that needs fixing. Often times the title won't be bolded, or there might be a spelling mistake or something. Over time you start to get a better handle on the type of articles we have, and how they are generally written. Once you feel comfortable enough, you can go into the [[special:wantedpages|wanted pages]] and start creating new articles that interest you, or you can make revisions to articles, whatever floats your boat. Some people like going through those lists, others have certain areas of interest; I'm currently checking every single chemistry article over for correctness! You'll find your niche rather quickly, I think.
:::Check out those links I put on your talk page, they are very helpful for new editors; and you can always ask if you have any questions! Welcome, and enjoy editing Conservapedia! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:54, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Editing ==

HelpJazz, general editing needs to pick up again tomorrow morning. Sorry for the interruption, but see you tomorrow morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, guess I'll get some sleep then :) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 00:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest==
Hey HelpJazz. Would you be interested in joining team one (to be named) in the contest? --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm honored and flattered. I'd love to join your team. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 22:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! You are in!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:29, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

==Ron Paul==

I notice your supporting Ron Paul in this election? I was thinking of making small donations to him and Obama (A Ron Paul/Obama election would be some craic) It would put me in the position of watching the election from Ireland, content if either one wins. Back to the point of my question though, is it possible for non-nationals to donate to someones election campaign? I'm Irish, though have an American parent. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Do you support Paul and Obama, or just think it would be interesting to watch the two of them go against each other? They aren't exactly like-minded candidates on most issues, so it seems strange to me that you would support them both.

:That was a verty interesting question. I didn't know the answer so I looked on Ron Paul's donation page and found that when you donate you have to certify the following:
::"I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident. If a foreign national, I have permanent resident status and hold a green card."
:So you probably can't donate... legally. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah well...

First of all, there are certain things I like about both candidates:

Ron Paul- Were he to get elected, he might bring the Party to the Libertarian/Constitutional Wing. After a scurrilous few years of Bush's scant regard for constitutional rights and responsibilities as President to uphold those rights, he'd be a breath of fresh air.

Economically we differ, but I don't care so much about what he'll do to your welfare systems because I don't live there. Socially, he might just end the lunatical 'war on drugs' once and for all.

Obama- Electing Obama would create an icon for the African American community to look up to. There seems to be a shortage of role models there - Were I a Black American father, I'd teach my kids to look up to him. Furthermore, he is on the Evangelical side, so him being elected might just fragmentise the Religious Right, which holds far too much power in America.

Not to mention two articulate, honourable men running for the office of President. That would be a sight to see. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:That makes sense then. I think the best thing about Paul running as a Republican is that he actually is allowed to get his message across! I don't know how much it's changing the party line, but it's changing a lot of voter's minds. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:35, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks for Catching and Reverting Vandal ==

Thanks for catching and reverting that vandal tonight! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just glad I caught him when I did. He was pretty fast! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== What the... ==

You wouldn't happen to have just banned around 20 people as likely vandals? does a likely vandal mean that they actually haven't done anything to warrant a ban but you ban them just in case? im kinda intrested as my real account is amongst them. [[User:SimonAl|SimonAl]] 18:25, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Your real account? The usual thing is to email me instead of making a sock account. I'm banning people who have a very high probability of being vandals. If I banned you on accident send me an e-mail; I'm only human (which I suspect many of these likely vandals are not...) and I can make mistakes and push the wrong button. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:28, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wiki-quette==
Last time I checked its etiquette to check with the poster before reverting his edit. I am talking in relation to the [[Friends]] article. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 12:51, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
:Last time *I* checked you've been here for all of an hour and a half, whereas I have been editing for months now. I believe you are a parodist and if you don't cease your non-encyclopedic, unsourced editing you will be blocked. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 12:54, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
:If I am a parodist, then how come one of the sysops thought my edit on the Medusa article was fine? I assure you I am not parodist. What exactly was wrong with the Al Gore edits? He didn't serve in the military, he travelled as a war correspondant; He claims to have founded the internet and he won a predominantly Liberal award. It is not parody to point these facts out; Believing these truths to be parody displays a complete lack of confidence in your own beliefs.
::And the reason I have edited so much is because I am excited to finally have a few hours off to help out here. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 13:00, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
::Source it then. I've seen a lot of parody and it's all the same. Obviously it has to be ultra-conservative, that's how it slips in. I'm not easily fooled, however. So sit back and find out how we do things here before you go around editing. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:04, 7 October 2007 (EDT)
:I have been blocked and unblocked. I'm going to leave this for a while, and let everyone cool down. I do assure you though, that I am not a parodist. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 13:12, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore

2007-10-07T17:04:11Z

Boru: There is no parody in this edit of mine. Please re-read what I wrote before jumping to conclusions.

{{President
|image=Al_Gore_2.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Tipper Gore]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th [[Vice President]] of the [[United States]] (1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.

He was the [[Democrat]] Party's candidate for President in the 2000 national election, running on a ticket with then Vice Presidential candidate [[Joseph Lieberman]].

In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) Vanderbilt University.
He also travelled with the [[United States Army]], and worked as a war correspondant during the [[Vietnam War]]. <ref>William V. Kennedy, ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. [http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html]</ref>

He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues. Gore believes that he is personally responsible for creating the internet.

Gore is the author of ''[[Assault on Reason]]'', a strictly Liberal supremacist work. [[Militant]] [[leftist]] [[activist]] [[Ted Kazinski]] is said to be the inspiration of Gore's [[environmental]] manifesto, ''[[Earth in the Balance]]''.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n1_v13/ai_19007864 Conservatives claim Gore too weird for presidency - Vice-Pres. Al Gore - includes related article on Gore's book 'Earth in the Balance'], by John Elvin, Insight on the News, Jan 6, 1997.</ref>

He also starred in the 2006 documentary about [[global warming]] entitled, ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]],'' which won an [[Oscar]] from the predominantly Liberal voting panel.

==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>.

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|left|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, 2004]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in [[Boston]],

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retrieved from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.</ref>

Gore contemplates a dark horse bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election|2008 Democratic Presidential]] nomination, he appears to have been downgraded from an [[Alpha male]] to a [[Beta male]] by ''Newsweek'' magazine. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881794/site/newsweek/page/0/ Betas Rule], By Jennie Yabroff, ''Newsweek'', June 4, 2007.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al and GW.png|thumb|400px|Cartoon by Greg Sheffield]]
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore - Electric consumption bill]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. {{Fact}}

From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382 Error: Invalid story]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/17/93301.shtml?s=ic</ref>

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276476942822261 Al Gore, Ignoble Laureate], ''Investor's Business Daily'', October 5, 2007

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

{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

[[category:liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

User talk:HelpJazz

2007-10-07T17:00:39Z

Boru: /* Wiki-quette */

User talk:HelpJazz

2007-10-07T16:51:56Z

Boru: /* What the... */

{{Useful links|float=right}}

== Warning ==

Sorry, general editing is turning off soon. See you tomorrow morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

== Blocking powers ==

I just gave you blocking powers. You can block vandals now. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:35, 13 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you very much! I will do my best to stop vandals before they can cause too much harm to Conservapedia. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 19:48, 13 September 2007 (EDT)

==New Entries Redux==

Oops. Okay, I'll "jazz up" the ones I've created before I move onto others. --[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 13:50, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:Heh heh thanks :) Again, I wasn't trying to criticize you or anything, just wanted to let you know. As you can see from my userpage, MoS compliancy is one of my current projects, but you know the whole "teach a man to fish" adage... [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 13:54, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::No, no--I didn't take it as criticism at all. Indeed, I appreciate the heads up. The whole wiki thing is still new to me.--[[User:PeteVan|PeteVan]] 14:08, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:::As for many, I suspect. You seem to be catching on quickly though! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 14:13, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks ==
I hate people who take advantage of good faith. --[[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 20:37, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:Heh I just thanked you on your talk page! And I agree with you on that point! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:38, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
::saw that. maybe you can point me in the direction I might do the most good. I saw some of the links at the top of the recent changes page. Is that the best way to help out? [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 20:43, 18 September 2007 (EDT)
:::Until you get your bearings, a great way to get started is to hit the "random page" button until you see something that needs fixing. Often times the title won't be bolded, or there might be a spelling mistake or something. Over time you start to get a better handle on the type of articles we have, and how they are generally written. Once you feel comfortable enough, you can go into the [[special:wantedpages|wanted pages]] and start creating new articles that interest you, or you can make revisions to articles, whatever floats your boat. Some people like going through those lists, others have certain areas of interest; I'm currently checking every single chemistry article over for correctness! You'll find your niche rather quickly, I think.
:::Check out those links I put on your talk page, they are very helpful for new editors; and you can always ask if you have any questions! Welcome, and enjoy editing Conservapedia! [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 20:54, 18 September 2007 (EDT)

== Editing ==

HelpJazz, general editing needs to pick up again tomorrow morning. Sorry for the interruption, but see you tomorrow morning!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:49, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
:Ok, guess I'll get some sleep then :) [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 00:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest==
Hey HelpJazz. Would you be interested in joining team one (to be named) in the contest? --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:01, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm honored and flattered. I'd love to join your team. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 22:23, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! You are in!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 22:29, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

==Ron Paul==

I notice your supporting Ron Paul in this election? I was thinking of making small donations to him and Obama (A Ron Paul/Obama election would be some craic) It would put me in the position of watching the election from Ireland, content if either one wins. Back to the point of my question though, is it possible for non-nationals to donate to someones election campaign? I'm Irish, though have an American parent. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:12, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:Do you support Paul and Obama, or just think it would be interesting to watch the two of them go against each other? They aren't exactly like-minded candidates on most issues, so it seems strange to me that you would support them both.

:That was a verty interesting question. I didn't know the answer so I looked on Ron Paul's donation page and found that when you donate you have to certify the following:
::"I am a United States citizen or a lawfully-admitted permanent resident. If a foreign national, I have permanent resident status and hold a green card."
:So you probably can't donate... legally. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:18, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

Ah well...

First of all, there are certain things I like about both candidates:

Ron Paul- Were he to get elected, he might bring the Party to the Libertarian/Constitutional Wing. After a scurrilous few years of Bush's scant regard for constitutional rights and responsibilities as President to uphold those rights, he'd be a breath of fresh air.

Economically we differ, but I don't care so much about what he'll do to your welfare systems because I don't live there. Socially, he might just end the lunatical 'war on drugs' once and for all.

Obama- Electing Obama would create an icon for the African American community to look up to. There seems to be a shortage of role models there - Were I a Black American father, I'd teach my kids to look up to him. Furthermore, he is on the Evangelical side, so him being elected might just fragmentise the Religious Right, which holds far too much power in America.

Not to mention two articulate, honourable men running for the office of President. That would be a sight to see. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:30, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

:That makes sense then. I think the best thing about Paul running as a Republican is that he actually is allowed to get his message across! I don't know how much it's changing the party line, but it's changing a lot of voter's minds. [[User:HelpJazz|HelpJazz]] 10:35, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks for Catching and Reverting Vandal ==

Thanks for catching and reverting that vandal tonight! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:35, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just glad I caught him when I did. He was pretty fast! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 00:36, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== What the... ==

You wouldn't happen to have just banned around 20 people as likely vandals? does a likely vandal mean that they actually haven't done anything to warrant a ban but you ban them just in case? im kinda intrested as my real account is amongst them. [[User:SimonAl|SimonAl]] 18:25, 6 October 2007 (EDT)
:Your real account? The usual thing is to email me instead of making a sock account. I'm banning people who have a very high probability of being vandals. If I banned you on accident send me an e-mail; I'm only human (which I suspect many of these likely vandals are not...) and I can make mistakes and push the wrong button. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:28, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

==Wiki-quette==

Last time I checked its etiquette to check with the poster before reverting his edit. I am talking in relation to the [[Friends]] article. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 12:51, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

Friends (TV show)

2007-10-07T16:44:53Z

Boru: Expansion

'''Friends''' was situation comedy [[television]] series created by David Crane and Marta Kauffman and heavily promoted by [[liberals]] and the [[media]]. It ran from 1994-2004 and featured six "friends" in their 20s living in [[New York City]]. Like most situation comedies, it relied on canned laughter to create the impression among viewers of humor.

The show deceptively promoted disgusting [[liberal]] activities such as sex outside of [[marriage]], pornography, and [[homosexuality]], without disclosing the adverse effects such behavior, including increased disease, infertility, depression and domestic violence. The show had little long-term influence in television or culture.

The show was made by Warner Brothers Studios [http://www2.warnerbros.com/friendstv/]

A spin-off show about one of the characters (Joey) ultimately failed. [http://www2.warnerbros.com/television/tvShows/joey/]

[[category:television shows]]
[[category:media]]

Medusa

2007-10-07T16:43:36Z

Boru: Drawing parallels to Liberal arguments

[[Image:Medusa.gif|thumb|250px|Medusa]]
'''Medusa''' in [[Greek mythology]] 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.

==Contempory usages==

Liberal arguments which are regularly knocked back in popular discourse and debate can be considered similar to Medusa's many elusive heads. Despite how many times a Liberal has been chastised for the intellectual weakness of his arguments, he always props up another one to be chopped off by conservatives.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Greek Mythology]]

West Wing

2007-10-07T16:40:55Z

Boru:

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-10-07T16:31:23Z

Boru: /* It shouldn't */

{{debate}}

== The Definition of Conservative ==
There is the political definition of Conservative along with its related concepts, ideals, and beliefs. But there is also a broader and more liberal definition of conservative. Basically conservativism is a cautiousness and traditional approach to things. Social conservatives want to keep the current societal mores or have them change slowly.

In the case of Conservapedia I think the best approach would be the cautious one. Let us approach writing here as a way to express cautious, respectful, and rational beliefs in the way the world is.
--[[User:Kirby|Kirby]] 22:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Diversity of Thought ==
Can we get away from this 2+2=4 line of thought? I don't think it is very productive. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 14:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think its important for everyone to realize that acknowledging an argument that is contrary to one's own beliefs, does not mean you support that counter-argument. If Conservapedia wants to avoid having a conservative bias, we might want to use critical analysis and pursue a perspective that is respectful of a diversity of thought. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:50, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:An encyclopedia like ours may properly acknowledge the existence of contrary arguments. But it should report fact as fact. The most charitable thing I am prepared to do is to say, "Two plus two is equal to four, though some profess that it might be made equal to five, or ten, or five-and-twenty, as the case demands." I will ''not'' consent to reporting that two plus to is, under any circumstances, equal to anything other than four.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 19:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Read relativism and read Bertrand Russell. There's no absolute truth and there's no absolute mathematical truth that doesn't require unsupported assumptions (much like this statement). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 18:34, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 22=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's ''Italic text''On Liberty''Italic text'': 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.

== It shouldn't ==
Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small. - User: Edward. (I might not have formatted this properly, I apologise).

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:We might as well have a king, then, if absolute truth is knowable for all times for all people, as BenS suggests. What point in politics, democracy, debate? Let's just crown BenS king and henceforth rely on BenS's judgment about what's right, since he seems to have a monopoly on truth. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 00:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::Neither [[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] nor I have ever claimed a ''monopoly'' on truth. Anyone can ''discover'' the truth for himself. The problem is that ''liberals'' have a ''problem'' with the truth--because the truth harms their case for "comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable" ([[John Kenneth Galbraith]])--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:09, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Well, as long as we're talking Christianity (and Conservapedia is at least partly about that, isn't it?), comforting the afflicted sounds about right. And challenging the comfortable was certainly not foreign to Jesus' approach. Apart from that, though, when you say that liberals have a problem with truth because it conflicts with their views, the tendency you're talking about isn't by any means the exclusive province of liberals. Everyone does it to some extent, amazingly even people who edit Conservapedia. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 23:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

'''The writer above me is claiming is that only his views are correct, and no others come even close to the mark.''' I want to make this perfectly clear. This is the Rush Limbaugh conservative that cannot even see the truth and merit in the arguments against him. The conservative who claims that any argument is opposition of him is non-factual, when '''in reality the world is contrary,''' one fact always in balance with a contrary fact.
''The path to affirming your beliefs is by listening to the opposition's point of view, not shunning them.''--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:11, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

We are not trying to be "unbiased" we are trying to be ''conservative''. The truth is not unbiased. I agree with ben that we should take an official position on some key issues. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 18:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I think it is ironic that Conservapedia should wish to be unbiased when "Conservative" is evident in it's name. I have argued the conservative view on Wikipedia many times. I think that one of the nice things about Wikipedia is that so many people of so many backgrounds can discuss matters on an online forum. When debating anywhere, I argue a creationist pov, and am deeply religious when it comes to following Jesus. I know go to your "terrorist" debate page and will use Jesus as a weapon. [[User:Two by two|Two by two]] 08:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

The name says it all, this is not liberalpedia. You can have a conservative democrat(maybe) and a conservative Republican posting to Conservapedia. The point of view should still be conservative. When we post in the name of 'fairness', then we say we accept opposing viewpoints a.k.a. liberal points or grey instead of black or white. Truth and half truth should not be considered equal, only truth should be the guiding principle.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:34, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

:Liberals will not recognise that there is such a thing as the truth and righteousness. They are embroiled in their own pseudo-intellectual activities, such as the vain search for moral relativism. Conservapedia is neutral to the facts, as it should be. We present the facts, people make up their own minds then. Liberals insist on compensating for something or someone in order to try and give a balanced viewpoint when the truth is that sometimes God made some horrible, evil people, and we should be pointing that out, not pointing out that for example Hitler was good with dogs and therefore had a nice side. Its ridiculous. [[User:Boru|Boru]] 12:31, 7 October 2007 (EDT)

== It should==
Otherwise it will simply be labled as hypocritical (which has already happened). If removing the bias from Wikipedia's articles is one of the main reasons for establishing this site then creating a new conservative bias would simply be irrational. This site could simply semsibly point out bias' in wikipedia's articles pointing out scientifically and socially credible sources. An image of " we're more conservative than Wikipedia but we're not creationists" would go a long way to creating credibility.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
:I agree heartily. Merely having the articles written by conservatives will put a slight spin on the issues, intentional or not. Any more than this and we are no longer writing an encyclopedia, but a conservative propaganda resource.--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 23:53, 6 March 2007 (EST)
::'''Counter''' Sub Zenyth, do you actually know what [[propaganda]] is? It is, by my definition, a tissue of lies, or anything presented in a manner that would lead one to suspect lying. Is anyone telling lies here? Evidence, if you please.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 00:02, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:: I just want to say how much I enjoy this phrase; "by my definition". Especially in a document that is complaining about post modern liberals!--[[User:Donalbain|Donalbain]] 08:35, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::::TerryH, I do know what propaganda actually is and '''you are wrong.''' Propaganda literally means "that which ought to be propagated" and historically derives from the office of the Catholic Church charged with "the propagation of the faith." Propaganda does not need to be false. ''That's not a part of the definition at all.'' What makes propaganda propaganda is that it is intended to advance a cause, rather than being disinterested. Propaganda can be truthful, and arguably the truer the propaganda the more effective it is.
:::::'''Propaganda, n.''' 1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause. 2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda. 3. Propaganda Roman Catholic Church A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy. (AHD) [http://www.bartleby.com/61/79/P0597900.html]
:::::'''Propaganda.''' Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623 1. (capitalized) : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions. 2: the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person. 3: ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect. (Merriam-Webster) [http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/propaganda]

:::..Wait, did I miss something? That link helped my argument. "Any ''idea, fact, rumor,'' or lie, or a ''wider body of same,'' which one circulates, publishes, or otherwise ''spreads by deliberate conscious effort in order to advance'' or hinder ''any given cause.''" So, conservatives claiming factuality of articles that are intentionally skewed to advocate conservative views would be... propaganda, no?--[[User:Sub Zenyth|Sub Zenyth]] 00:52, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Sub, you're still missing the point. I'm sure that Andrew Schlafly can speak for himself and the other Bureaucrats, but: if you have a complaint about a specific article, that's what Talk pages are for--either for the article or for its major contributor. But yours seems to be a general complaint about the project as a whole.

::Let's face it: while we can and should have an objective standard about what is propaganda and what is not, and avoid presentations that a reasonable and prudent editor would recognize as unnecessarily invidious, we will ''always'' face those who dispute the facts, who try to state or imply that two plus two can make "five-and-twenty, as the case demands" (apologies to [[Gilbert and Sullivan]]), and who are engaging in propaganda of their own. At a certain point, we must ''face'' the fact that we are ''stating'' facts--facts that some people aren't going to like. And we will be doing ourselves ''no'' favors by allowing that fact might be non-fact, or that someone else's non-fact might be fact. We must strive to ''establish'' the facts, and then ''present'' them--politely, of course, but firmly and without reservation.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 09:27, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Terry, the Bible has several comments on this notion. One that has particular significance given the nature of this debate is this:
:::Isaiah 5:20 "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" -NKJV --[[User:Knowthetruth|Knowthetruth]] 08:49, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Facts are stubborn things, as I seem to recall someone once saying. Which would be your position:
::::1) Conservapedia should strive to establish the facts, and if they happen to support a liberal view, so be it, let the chips fall where they may. Conservapedia should strive to ensure that conservative views get adequate representation and are presented fairly, as (some think) Wikipedia does not.
::::2) Conservapedia should only include facts that present no serious challenge to conservative views.
::::3) Questions 1 and 2 don't arise, because conservatism is the objective, absolute, final truth on all subjects, and a conflict between a conservative point of view and the facts cannot possible occur. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 09:45, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::: DP, your argument above assumes that any fact might exist that would bring a major tenet of conservatism crashing down. Games, must we? What ''fact'' do you wish to assert that you believe would be unflattering to conservatism?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 10:00, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::I gather then that you take position number 3? Let me phrase it in a less extreme form, thus:

:::::3a) Questions 1 and 2 need not receive serious consideration, because there are no facts that would conflict with any major tenet of conservatism.

:::::Is that fair? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:58, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Let me rephrase myself: I have not ''found'' any facts that would embarrass a committed conservative. And I am still waiting for you to state one. So my position is: Questions 1 and 2 above are without foundation--thus far--because no opponent of conservatism has ''yet'' adduced any factual evidence to impugn any major tenet of conservatism.

::::::The tone of your conversation indicates that you believe that some such embarrassing fact has arisen, or will arise. So I ask you again: Can you lay a foundation for a fact that would embarrass conservatism generally?

::::::I am not talking, by the way, about a fact that would embarrass some ''particular proponent'' of conservatism. In regard to that, I definitely hold that we ought to report every fact about a particular figure--warts and all--the same as the [[Bible]] itself reports. But the particular sins of a proponent of conservatism are incompetent to show anything other than that the particular proponent was not willing to "practice what he or she preached.

::::::For example, a biography of [[Ayn Rand]] would be incomplete without a discussion of her eighteen-year association with [[Nathaniel Branden]], the romantic involvement between these two (this although each was married to another person, and she was twenty-five years his senior), their public breach, and the frankly appalling travesty of justice that was the sum total of her treatment of him afterward.

::::::But what does that show, other than that [[Objectivism]] demanded something of her that she was not willing to satisfy in her own life? Does that, in and of itself, impugn Objectivism? No--but an examination of its implications and its failures to come to grips with certain metaphysical questions--such as whether [[God]] existed or not--certainly would. And this is a fault that other conservatives would find with Objectivism. It is a fault I myself find with it.

::::::But in my experience, the faults that conservatives find with one another's philosophies are not the same faults that liberals find. I also find that the real problem that liberals have with conservatives is that the liberals do not wish to deal with the world and cosmos as they are, but rather as they would wish them to be--or as they think they can force them to be. In this regard, I am not interested in reporting, as fact, that the [[Global warming|globe is warming]], that human beings are responsible for it, and that this so-called disaster will surely kill us all. I can think of certain disasters that ''will'' befall the world--but "man-made injection of [[carbon dioxide]] into the [[atmosphere]]" is not one of them.

::::::In sum, I know perfectly well that the dispute between liberals and conservatives is largely a dispute on matters of fact about the planet we live on, the larger cosmos of which it is a part, and human nature. Reporting the shortcomings of any particular historical figure does not trouble me. Reporting as fact a thing that is not fact at all, but mere conjecture, does.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 16:32, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::::::TerryH your views (especially in regard to global warming) are rather disturbing and underline why this site needs to try to avoid containing bias. Global warming is almost certainly ''the'' most pressing issue that our society currently faces. While some predictions ''may'' be a little extreme there is no doubt that if the world does not reduce it's greenhouse emissions then there will be a significant irreversible (in the short term) impact on the world.

:::::::Also I personally find your absolute faith in the bible as a factual account of history disturbing. Such views (especially in Australia) are no longer part of main stream culture and for good reason!!!--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

::::::::Let us continue these discussions [[Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|here]] and [[Is the Bible a reliable source of history against which one may check all other sources?|here]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 11:50, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Conservatives appear to me to be a bunch of cowards. If your ideas don't stand up to the scrutiny of liberals and independents, you automatically scream "LIBERAL BIAS" without ever once considering the fact that -gasp- you might actually be wrong. Instead of inserting conservative bias to correct this fabricated liberal bias, why don't you instead try to right this wrong and work toward more honest and open media rather than playing dirty? I hate to be cliche but...what would Jesus do??

As a non-conservative, I have to say that as it stands, this website has absolutely no credibility outside conservative/fundamentalist circles. Your articles, particularly science issues, and on things like evolution, abortion, and homosexuality read more like a fred phelps handout or a chick tract than a dictionary. If your guys goal is to create an insular, self congratulating source of propaganda, you've succeeded. If your goal was to make an 'unbiased' version of wikipedia, you've merely gone in the exact opposite direction. I wish you all luck. -s

I think religious bias is something to be worried about. For example, the article on [[Salvation]] shows only one facet of Salvation (e.g. the protestant version of the satisfaction theory) but the admins say it is true and will not let it be changed. Of course, this alienates Roman Catholics, some Lutherans, and Orthodox Christians. Also, it makes the conservapedia an unreliable source for students writing papers on the history of theology.--[[User:Mattk|Mattk]] 16:41, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

==A story about the Christian Science Monitor==
A point of view doesn't necessarily have to be in your face all the time. There's no reason why a publication with a point of view needs to be making that point explicitly, visibly, obviously, on every page.

:"When I was in college, I subscribed to The Christian Science Monitor. It was still a major daily newspaper, and a respected one, known for its thoughtful analysis and good coverage of world and national events. I subscribed to it because it was the best daily newspaper I could get in the town I was in.

:One day my mother says to me on the phone, 'You probably don't know that Eleanor Roosevelt died today.' I said 'What do you mean? It was on the front page.' She said 'But you read the Christian Science Monitor, and I thought they never say that anyone has died.' I said, 'No, there was a ''huge'' obituary, on the front page.' She said 'What did they say? Did they say "passed on" or something?'

:I looked, and, you know what? The headline was something like 'Eleanor Roosevelt, 78, was Admired, Influential.' The story was a capsule biography of her life and achievements. It was entirely in the past tense. ''But it did not say that she had died.'' Not outright, not euphemistically. On the face of it, there was no reason for the story. It was as if the editors had woken up this morning and said 'This would be a nice day to run a profile of Eleanor Roosevelt on the front page.'

:It did not say she had died—but I never would have noticed if I hadn't specifically looked for it."

So, the Monitor was able to be true to a Christian Science point of view without being ludicrously obvious Christian Science propaganda.

Conservapedia could do worse than to emulate the ''Christian Science Monitor'' in that regard. (The ''Monitor'' fell on hard times because of a decline in the Christian Science church itself, because of a financial crisis brought on by overexpansion and a wildly ambitious scheme to become a giant media empire, and because of a general decline in print newspapers...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:07, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:A very perceptive comment. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Wait, what? ==

Are you honestly asking how a conservative encyclopedia can avoid a conserative bias? Is that not the very definition of conservapedia? Wikipedia, but with a conservative bias? If that seems like an offensive point to you, ask yourself, if this site ''didn't'' have a conservative bias, how would it be different from wikipedia? --[[User:Phist|Phist]]

:It could just ''not have a liberal bias''. --[[User:Monotreme|Monotreme]] 08:46, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::After all, the word "right" can mean square, correct, making a "right angle," standing perfectly upright... rather than leaning to one side... [[User:Dpbsmith|Not gonna sign this]] 19:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:Um, Dpbsmith, I hope you were kidding about not signing it because in addition to looking at this edit page your name can be found by mousing over... Anyways, I think the liberal bias of Wikipedia is ''greatly'' overestimated on this site, especially considering the way 'liberal' is thrown around like it's a curse word. Having strong feelings on any issue can make any neutral source read as bias against you. [[User:Phist|Phist]]

::(Yes, it was a joke). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

conservapedia cannot really be unbiased because its basis is Christian, therefore its viewpoints will be based on christian views [[user:benmatthews|benmatthews]]

: Christianity is the only completely unbiased source of information, because it is the only true source of information. All other sources are biased, therefore should not be part of an unbiased encyclopedia like Conservapedia. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Question, why are you going to use Christian information (''Remember Ceinhorn you said it is the only unbiased information!)'' to discuss everything? Do you claim to know god's opinion of the molecular structure of a brick? Than '''why use Christian information to analyze non-Christian subject matter?''' And by the way, ''if Christianity is unbiased, than that means the Aztec religion is unbiased, because where do you think we get those lovely halos from?'' (Aztec sun-discs)And what about our Sabbath on Sunday, borrowed from the polytheist roman sun worshipers? And Zoroastrianism must be as unbiased as Christianity, if not more, because ''it is Christianity under a different name, but more than a thousand years older''. '''All information is biased''', because history is written by the winners, and '''Catholicism has always had some bloodthirsty warriors''' (I’m probably going to get kicked off the site for this post, but it must be said.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 17:23, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The Bible is truth. Therefore, everything that conforms to the Bible is true and everything that contradicts the Bible is false. On the other topics -- halos are just a representation of God's spirit; whether the style came from Aztec sun-discs or something earlier is immaterial. The Sabbath came about because our Lord, Jesus Christ, was raised from the dead on Sunday. And, unless Zoroastrianism preaches that the Son of God came to this world and died for our sins, it, too, is false. [[User:CEinhorn|CEinhorn]] 20:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: It the Bible is the only reliable source of truth, why don't we just post the Bible. In fact, I'm surprised how many articles here don't refer to the Bible at all. Shouldn't we be trying to provide an appropriate Biblical reference for evey topic? Surely links to other mere websites can't be as important as the word of the Lord? [[User:FijjaccoDeMiggnotta]]

'''i give up, you can't debate with someone who fails to follow logical arguments'''. the point of enlightened debate is to express your intellectual opinion, not you narrow, dogmatic views (P.S.: you can do what the church tells you not to do, like study up on Zoroastrianism and Aztec sun worship, you're a Catholic, all you have to do is repent and boom, it never happened!)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 06:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Fine and dandy. Since "truth" has been established as knowable (see above, generally), and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "truth" and since the Bible is (how do you say?) "the only true source of information," then let's use this source of truth to solve some age-old problems. And what better place to start than religion, where truth claims abound. OK, what is the "true" reason for which Christ died on the cross? The three competing truth claims (according to [[Christianity]]) are: (1) to cleanse humanity of Adam's original sin (predominantly Catholic teaching), (2) for our sins (predominantly Protestant teaching), or (3) as a sacrifice to defeat death or Satan (predominantly Lutheran teaching). So, who's got it right (i.e., what's the "truth") -- the Catholics, the non-Lutheran Protestants, or the other Protestants? If facts are facts (2 + 2, etc.), and if unbiased people can see them clearly, then there must be an obvious candiate for the truth of this matter. If the Bible is a reliable source of "information," then I expect it would have an answer for questions like these in particular. Still no takers? I don't get it. [[User:McTavidge|McTavidge]] 01:42, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

FINALLY! someone who sees clearly! Thank you unnamed writer above (the posts between my last and this one are not written by me.)--[[User:Thepunkway|Punky]] 16:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Liberals have control of Wikipedia (fooling the readers that it is unbiased). Conservatives have control of Conservapedia (upfront with their readers as to their true intentions). Fair and balanced? Thats like truth (fair) with half truth (balanced) as a counterpoint. You want a centrists approach, start Centripedia.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:47, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

==Conservative, yes. Bias, no.==
I for one would like to see a more conservative and less biased Conservapedia. Many articles here read like mirror images of Wikipedia articles. I'd like to see a truly fair and balanced encyclopedia that does not squelch the conservative point of view. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== Will someone please explain ==
How does the term "conservative" automatically mean fair and balanced AND the truth?

== Idea ==
Perhaps the name should be objectivepedia, if one were wanting to have an un-biased, truthful, and accurate reference tool.

== References ==
<references/>

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

Ian Paisley

2007-10-07T16:23:10Z

Boru:

{{expand}}

[[Image:IanPaisley.gif|frame|Doctor the Reverend Ian Paisley MP]]

'''Dr Rev Ian Richard Kyle Paisley MP MLA''' (born April 6, 1926) is a [[Northern Ireland|Northern Irish]] politician and religious leader. Paisley uses the title "Doctor" on the basis of an honorary [[Doctor of Divinity]] degree awarded by [[Bob Jones University]].

He is the founder and head of the [[fundamentalism|fundamentalist]] [[Free Presbyterian Church]] and the head of the [[Democratic Unionist Party]]. He is a lifelong teetotaller who refers to alcohol as "the Devil's buttermilk", a [[creationism|creationist]], pro-life, and supports the criminalisation of [[homosexuality]], once opposing reform of laws relating to homosexuality with a campaign that he called "Save Ulster from Sodomy"<ref>McKittrick, David (24 May 2007). Ian Paisley: Can the Big Man say 'Yes'? ''The Independent''.</ref>.

In 1988, during a speech by [[Pope John Paul II]] to the [[European Parliament]], Paisley, who was a Member of the European Parliament, held up a poster reading "Pope John Paul II Antichrist" and called "I renounce you as the Antichrist"<ref>MacDonald, Susan (10 February 1988). Paisley ejected for insulting Pope. ''The Times''.</ref><ref>Chrisafis, Angelique (16 September, 2004). The return of Dr. No. ''The Guardian''.</ref><ref>[http://www.ianpaisley.org/antichrist.asp The Pope is the Antichrist]</ref>. In 1963 he held a rally to object to the lowering of the national flag at [[Belfast]] City Hall to mark the passing of [[Pope John XXIII]]<ref>McKittrick, David (24 May 2007). Ian Paisley: Can the Big Man say 'Yes'? ''The Independent''.</ref>.

In 2007 Dr Paisley became First Minister of the devolved Northern Ireland Government, with Martin McGuiness, a senior [[Sinn Fein]] leader and former [[IRA]] commander in [[Londonderry]], as his Deputy First Minister.

Ian Paisley is a symbol of the conservative counter culture throughout the island of Ireland, constantly destroying Liberal arguments wherever he see's them.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Paisley, Ian}}
[[Category:Political people]]
[[Category:Northern Ireland]]
[[Category:Creationist]]

Classical Liberalism

2007-10-07T16:21:00Z

Boru:

'''Liberalism''' is an archaic term that can mean:

*an [[economic]] view in support of free enterprise
*a political philosophy based on a belief in progress and goodness in man
*a [[Protestant]] movement embracing intellectual liberty
*support of individual liberty

The term is almost never used in contemporary political discourse in the [[United States]]. Instead, if you ask a Liberal what Liberalism means, he would most likely not understand as a Liberal in the United States favours [[deceit]] over the truth, and [[Socialism]] over [[Capitalism]]. Indeed, [[Liberal]]s have been at the forefront of every major societal catastrophe, such as the Sexual Revolution and the downfall of the family unit. When approaching a Liberal, it is important to remember their contempt for the truth as although what they say may be enticing, it is important to remember the Christian virtue of self control in order to survive such a conversation. [[Ann Coulter]] wrote a book about what to do when caught in one of these situations.
[[category:politics]]
[[category:philosophy]]

Liberal elite

2007-10-07T16:14:52Z

Boru: New page: The '''Liberal Elite''' is a term used to describe those high ranking members of society - Politicians, college educators and celebrities - who regularly promote the Liberal agenda to unsu...

The '''Liberal Elite''' is a term used to describe those high ranking members of society - Politicians, college educators and celebrities - who regularly promote the Liberal agenda to unsuspecting teenagers and young people. In Ireland, the Liberal Elite is symbolised by [[Pat Kenny]], a prominent talk show host who displays all the worst aspects of the [[Liberal Style]] of debating.

The Irish Times

2007-10-07T16:13:20Z

Boru: New page: '''The Irish Times''' is an Irish broadsheet newspaper, which has consistently being at the forefront of promoting Liberal viewpoints within Ireland. The Irish Times was in favour of legal...

'''The Irish Times''' is an Irish broadsheet newspaper, which has consistently being at the forefront of promoting Liberal viewpoints within Ireland. The Irish Times was in favour of legalising homosexuality in 1993, despite the majority of Irish people being opposed to the Homosexual agenda's role in dictating Irish affairs. Similarily, the Irish Times has been guilty of insulting the Catholic Church, a much revered institution in Irish life and is also guilty of promoting the drive to secularism that is eating the island inside. The collapse of the family and the rise of hard drug usage can easily be corresponded with the influence the Irish Times has with the Irish [[Liberal Elite]].

Al Gore

2007-10-07T15:50:17Z

Boru:

{{President
|image=Al_Gore_2.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Tipper Gore]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th [[Vice President]] of the [[United States]] (1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.

He was the [[Democrat]] Party's candidate for President in the 2000 national election, running on a ticket with then Vice Presidential candidate [[Joseph Lieberman]].

In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) Vanderbilt University.
He also travelled with the [[United States Army]], and worked as a war correspondant during the [[Vietnam War]]. <ref>William V. Kennedy, ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. [http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html]</ref>

He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues. Gore believes that he is personally responsible for creating the internet.

Gore is the author of ''[[Assault on Reason]]'', a strictly Liberal supremacist work. [[Militant]] [[leftist]] [[activist]] [[Ted Kazinski]] is said to be the inspiration of Gore's [[environmental]] manifesto, ''[[Earth in the Balance]]''.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n1_v13/ai_19007864 Conservatives claim Gore too weird for presidency - Vice-Pres. Al Gore - includes related article on Gore's book 'Earth in the Balance'], by John Elvin, Insight on the News, Jan 6, 1997.</ref>

He also starred in the 2006 documentary about [[global warming]] entitled, ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]],'' which won an [[Oscar]] from the predominantly Liberal voting panel.

==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>.

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|left|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, 2004]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in [[Boston]],

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retrieved from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.</ref>

Gore contemplates a dark horse bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election|2008 Democratic Presidential]] nomination, he appears to have been downgraded from an [[Alpha male]] to a [[Beta male]] by ''Newsweek'' magazine. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881794/site/newsweek/page/0/ Betas Rule], By Jennie Yabroff, ''Newsweek'', June 4, 2007.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al and GW.png|thumb|400px|Cartoon by Greg Sheffield]]
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore - Electric consumption bill]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. {{Fact}}

From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382 Error: Invalid story]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/17/93301.shtml?s=ic</ref>

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276476942822261 Al Gore, Ignoble Laureate], ''Investor's Business Daily'', October 5, 2007

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

{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

[[category:liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

Al Gore

2007-10-07T15:49:40Z

Boru: Removed Liberal Bias, cleaned up Liberal Gloss

{{President
|image=Al_Gore_2.jpg
|seq=45
|office=vice
|term_start=January 20, 1993
|term_end=January 20, 2001
|party=Democratic
|pres=Bill Clinton
|previous=Dan Quayle
|next=Dick Cheney
|birth_date=March 31, 1948
|birth_place=Washington, D.C.
|death_date=
|death_place=
|spouse=[[Tipper Gore]]
|spouse2=
|religion=[[Baptist]]
}}

'''Albert "Al" A. Gore, Jr.''' was the 45th [[Vice President]] of the [[United States]] (1993-2001) succeeding [[Dan Quayle]] and succeeded by [[Dick Cheney]], following service in the [[House of Representatives]] and the [[Senate]], spanning 1977-85 and 1985-93, respectively.

He was the [[Democrat]] Party's candidate for President in the 2000 national election, running on a ticket with then Vice Presidential candidate [[Joseph Lieberman]].

In his early life, Al Gore attended [[Harvard University]] and (briefly) Vanderbilt University.
He also travelled with the [[United States Army]], and worked as a war correspondant during the [[Vietnam War]]. <ref>William V. Kennedy, ''The Military and the Media: Why the Press Cannot Be Trusted to Cover a War''. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 1993. [http://com.hilbert.edu/students/papers/carolina-1999/1999vietnam.html]</ref>

He is married to activist [[Tipper Gore]].

In his Senate career, he proposed bills to fund the Internet and chaired panels on environmental issues. Gore believe that he is personally responsible for creating the internet.

Gore is the author of ''[[Assault on Reason]]'', a strictly Liberal supremacist work. [[Militant]] [[leftist]] [[activist]] [[Ted Kazinski]] is said to be the inspiration of Gore's [[environmental]] manifesto, ''[[Earth in the Balance]]''.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n1_v13/ai_19007864 Conservatives claim Gore too weird for presidency - Vice-Pres. Al Gore - includes related article on Gore's book 'Earth in the Balance'], by John Elvin, Insight on the News, Jan 6, 1997.</ref>

He also starred in the 2006 documentary about [[global warming]] entitled, ''[[An Inconvenient Truth]],'' which won an [[Oscar]] from the predominantly Liberal voting panel.

==Vice Presidency==
The [[Democratic Party]] selected him for Vice President on the 1992 ticket. The Democrats were victorious and he was sworn in on January 20, 1993.
==Campaign for the Presidency==
As is customary with Vice Presidents, he was nominated to the [[Democratic]] ticket for the 2000 Presidential election. Gore lost to [[George W. Bush]] in the [[Electoral College]] after a close vote, in which Gore received more popular votes than Bush, but fewer electoral votes. Gore contested the results in Florida. On December 13, 2000, after an extensive court battle ([[Bush v. Gore]]), Gore accepted Bush's election to the Presidency.<ref>[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2000 2000 Presidential Election Results]</ref>.

[[Image:041109 al gore vsml 6a vsmall.jpg|left|thumb|150 px|Al Gore, 2004]]
In the spring of 2000 Gore told the International Press Institute in [[Boston]],

:"For all of my career, I have believed that America has a responsibility to lead in the world. ...we must also recognize that there is ...a set of threats that affect us all and that transcend political borders....we need a foreign policy that addresses the classic security threats -- and understands the new ones as well....We need to pursue a policy of "forward engagement" -- addressing problems early in their development before they become crises; addressing them as close to the source of the problem as possible" <ref>[http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0900/ijpe/pj52gore.htm ''A New Security Agenda for the Global Age''], Al Gore, Speech to the International Press Institute, Boston MA, April 30, 2000. Retrieved from U.S. Department of State, International Information Programs.</ref>

Gore contemplates a dark horse bid for the [[2008_Presidential_Election|2008 Democratic Presidential]] nomination, he appears to have been downgraded from an [[Alpha male]] to a [[Beta male]] by ''Newsweek'' magazine. <ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18881794/site/newsweek/page/0/ Betas Rule], By Jennie Yabroff, ''Newsweek'', June 4, 2007.</ref>

==Post politics==
Gore has started an investment firm to invest in environmentally sustainable technology and industries, a cable channel (Current TV), and is an adviser to [[Google]]. Al Gore is also mentioned as a possible 2008 presidential candidate. His famous sentence: "I used to be the next president of United States of America."

== Criticism ==
[[Image:Al and GW.png|thumb|400px|Cartoon by Greg Sheffield]]
Al Gore has recently received criticism for his environmental issues. When it was discovered that Gore's electric utility bill is 20 times higher than the average American's<ref>[http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/02/26/al-gore-hypocrite/ Al Gore - Electric consumption bill]</ref> many of his detractors accused him of not living up to his own standards. Gore's defenders claim that the majority of that power came from 'green', or environmentally friendly, power sources such as solar and wind power. These power sources are much more expensive than traditional power sources such as coal and nuclear power. {{Fact}}

From The Tennessean:

<blockquote>
"Gore purchased 108 blocks of "green power" for each of the past three months, according to a summary of the bills.

That's a total of $432 a month Gore paid extra for solar or other renewable energy sources.

The green power Gore purchased in those three months is equivalent to recycling 2.48 million aluminum cans or 286,092 pounds of newspaper, according to comparison figures on NES' Web site."<ref>[http://tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070227/NEWS01/702270382 Error: Invalid story]</ref>
</blockquote>

Also, some conservatives have pointed to Gore's use of a private jet while spreading the message about the dangers of [[global warming]].<ref>[http://www.gnn.tv/articles/2332/More_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore More Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore]</ref>

Attention has also been called to Gore's profits from mining royalties. Specifically, the mining of zinc adjacent to his property he leased in Tennessee, which has released millions of pounds of potentially toxic substances into the environment.<ref>[http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770316074 Tennessee Mine Enriched Gore, Scarred Land]</ref> The mine has been closed since 2003. The new owner Strategic Resource Acquisition is planning to re-open the mine. From The Tennessean (3/12/07):

<blockquote>
'Last week, Gore sent a letter asking the company to work with Earthworks, a national [[Environmentalist|environmental group]], to make sure the operation doesn’t damage the environment.

“We would like for you to engage with us in a process to ensure that the mine becomes a global example of environmental best practices,” Gore wrote.'
</blockquote>

However, this was after he had already made $500,000 from the mining operations.<ref>http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/17/93301.shtml?s=ic</ref>

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

==External Links==
*[http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=276476942822261 Al Gore, Ignoble Laureate], ''Investor's Business Daily'', October 5, 2007

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

{{USVicePresidents}}
[[Category:Vice Presidents of the United States|Gore, Al]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

[[category:liberal activists]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Gore, Al}}

European Liberalism

2007-10-07T15:43:25Z

Boru: New page: '''European Liberalism''' is a term used to describe the predominant Liberal political culture in Europe. In contrast with American Liberalism, European Liberals tend to favour less govern...

'''European Liberalism''' is a term used to describe the predominant Liberal political culture in Europe. In contrast with American Liberalism, European Liberals tend to favour less government control of the economy in contrast to their social democratic or Socialist rivals for power. Most of the European Christian Democrat parties can be consider to be Liberal in the European sense.