Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-18T01:09:13Z

BryonRichards: Undo revision 476085 by Jaguar (Talk) I said: stop removing ASchlafly's work. Continue to tempt fate at your own peril.

There is much good advice that can be given to teenagers and people in their 20s and 30s. But the best advice of all is this: [[Marriage|marry]] a [[conservative]].

Benefits include:

* freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)
* fidelity in marriage and accountability
* lack of hostility to [[faith]], no [[censorship]] of [[prayer]]
* frugality and freedom from burdens of big spending and debt
* respect for the [[Ten Commandments]] and opposition to [[deceit]]
* respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality
* appreciates the importance of a [[conservative]] culture in raising children
* no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor
* recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences
* having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking
* freedom from the [[liberal media]] and [[Hollywood values]], and their misguided promotions and fads
* a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of [[Liberal]] beliefs, [[Liberal denial]] and [[political correctness]].

= True Case Studies<ref>The names and any facts are changed to preserve ideology.</ref> =

== Example One ==

Ralph was a [[conservative]] who attended a graduate school having a predominantly [[liberal]] culture. There he fell in love with a woman who was quite [[liberal]] and held a very different set of values. With six months he realized he had made a mistake, and within a year filed for divorce.

However, Ralph belong to a church that does not accept divorce, and it took him another four grueling years to obtain an annulment.

What became the worst experience of his life could have been avoided had he realized the benefits of marrying a [[conservative]].

== Example Two ==

Suzy was attractive, and promiscuous. Joe, a [[conservative]], liked Suzy and was impressed by her ability to excel at a top college and even succeed at a good graduate school. Joe decided it did not matter if Suzy did not share his conservative values, and Joe married Suzy.

For the next 25 years Joe tried with Suzy to have children, without success. What caused the infertility can never be known with certainty, but it is known that about half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases, and that these diseases cause infertility.<ref>"Among those who admitted having sex, the rate was even more disturbing -- 40 percent had an STD."[http://www.tulsaworld.com/lifestyle/article.aspx?articleID=20080312_1_C12_hUShe15125]</ref>

== Example Three ==

Beth was a [[conservative]] woman who liked Bob, a [[liberal]] man. Beth put her reservations aside and married Bob, and then gave Bob the best 30 years of her life. Beth had children with Bob and raised them to college.

Then, around age 50, Bob decided he'd like to date younger women. He divorced Beth against her wishes, and now she lives alone.

Bob's actions were consistent with the [[Hollywood values]] he preferred. Beth's actions in staying with Bob and raising the children during her younger years were consistent with her [[conservative]] values. But now Bob is happy, while Beth is not.

== Example Four ==

Elizabeth was a smart [[liberal]] who knew she would be better off marrying a [[conservative]] than a [[liberal]] like herself. She found one in Stan, a [[conservative]] who was a very hard worker and who did not have the luxury of time to develop the social skills that Elizabeth had.

Stan's circle of friends and acquaintances were limited, and he thought all women were [[liberal]]. He married Elizabeth thinking that all women were [[liberal]] like her.

For the next thirty years Elizabeth censored Stan's [[conservative]] comments, interfered with his [[conservative]] activities, and caused problems for Stan at every political turn. But Stan thought all women were that way, and rarely complained.

Tragically, Elizabeth became sick and died. Stan then remarried, this time to a [[conservative]] woman whom he did not even realize existed. For the rest of his life Stan marveled at how different -- and better -- his life was.

==Example Five ==

Kate was a conservative woman who fell in love with Bill, a liberal man. Bill convinced her to marry him despite her parents strong objections. Ten years later, Kate began to suffer from strange bouts of lethargy and sickness. Several trips to the doctor were unable to find a cause, until he performed a blood test. It turned out that Kate had AIDS. She confronted Bill who admitted that he considered himself bisexual and had been involved in several homosexual affairs while married to Kate. He was tested as well, and also was HIV positive, but the disease had not progressed to AIDS. Kate divorced and is now forced to take a battery of medications to delay the inevitable.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Conservative style

2008-06-17T02:52:28Z

BryonRichards: Remove liberal bias.

{{delete}}

In many ways, [[Conservative]] style is the antithesis of the style adopted by [[Liberal]]s.

== Examples of Conservative Style ==

The style of a conservative often includes these characteristics:

* a willingness to debate openly on all aspects of an issue or problem, without being tramelled by ideological preconceptions.
* readiness to take responsibility for the consequences of ones words and deeds.
* not using [[Liberal fluff|fluff]] or obfuscating but telling it as it is.
* behaving with decency towards other people, and treating the opposite sex with respect.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See Also==
*[[Liberal Style]]
[[category:Essays]]
[[category:Conservatives]]
[[category:Deceit]]

Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-17T02:51:41Z

BryonRichards: Revert - Don't remove ASchlafly's work.

User talk:JMarks

2008-06-16T03:43:28Z

BryonRichards: New page: Can a Sysop please review this user's edits. He seems to be vandalizing the site. ~~~~

Can a Sysop please review this user's edits. He seems to be vandalizing the site. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:43, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T03:18:17Z

BryonRichards: /* Really! */

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Give the trouble I got in for edits on articles you seem to be focused on (such as Barack Obama), I'm not even going to think about editing your personal essays. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Why did you bother me with your question if you're not willing to follow through?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/marriage-divorce-99.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" then that says more about you than me.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Aschlafly, I reiterate my statement that the truth in your little "essay" - if any truth there be - lies higher up the funnel of abstraction, at the simple aphorism, "people should talk about long-term plans before getting married." A couple can get through anything if they truly love about each other and appreciate the sacrifices, and a couple with different values - regardless of what values those may be - will fall apart before long, but it won't be anyone's fault, except the couple's for planning poorly. Your attempt to blame the marriage on liberals is sheer polemic, and quite insultive at that.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:27, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==

I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: That says more about you, DLerner, than it does about the essay.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Really! ==

Being a member of this site for a while (not that anyone would notice, they don't give me any extra rights cause they don't like my politics/religion), one of the things liberals get attacked for is their alleged [[Liberals and friendship|bias to people of different ideologies]], (Complete rubbish article, but I gave up arguing with Andy on the talk page once he stopped being coherent).

I've seen a lot of crazy nonsense written on this site, but this takes the cake. Why not throw in "Don't marry blacks or Jews, most of them are liberal".

*''freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)'' Right, because we all know that conservatives are never gay (Haggert, anyone) and '''never''' cheat on their wives or boyfriends...
*''fidelity in marriage and accountability'' Identical response
*''lack of hostility to faith, no censorship of prayer'' Who would '''marry''' someone that censors their beliefs? Sounds outlandish, anybody ever have their spouse "censor" them? Once again the vile lie that all liberals are anti-religion, I'll point out again that I'm probably the most religious person on this site and Andy thinks nice conservative girls shouldn't marry me because I'm a lib
*''respect for the Ten Commandments and opposition to deceit'' What, are you electing a public official? I guess conservatives lie much less then liberals. (Iraq WMD's, torture, 9/11 connection).
*''respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality'' No republicans on welfare, no siree. Liberals don't work and expect to get money from the government, eh?
*''appreciates the importance of a conservative culture in raising children'' And liberals appreciate the importance of a '''liberal''' culture to raise their children in. You see Andy, that what we call an opposing point of view, but then you oppose multiculturalism, so it's my way or the high way.
*''no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor'' Women belong in the kitchen! YAY
*''recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences'' Only conservatives do that...
*''having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking'' No such thing as a fat, smoking & drug addicted conservative ([[Rush Limbaugh|Well, except this guy]])
*''freedom from the liberal media and Hollywood values, and their misguided promotions and fads'' Conservatives don't have TV's? Where do they watch faux news?
*''a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of Liberal beliefs, Liberal denial and political correctness.'' Liberals never talk, and when they do they're never open. about it.

'''True case studies''' Convenient, facts changed, they'll be just like [[conservative parables]] you'll make them up as you go along.

Case one: Right, conservatives never break up with each other over differences.

Case two: some people are infertile, it could be Joe was sterile.

Case three: John McCain did the same thing... (Now that he's the nominee he's conservative enough for you...)

Case four: Stan is a moron and got what he deserved, ("All women were that way" true conservative way of thinking).

Case five: No such thing as a gay republican, right, Senator?

'''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==GlenW==

GlenW, this is not like Wikipedia. We do not use {{Fact}} tags to cast doubt onto well known facts. It's well known that promiscuity and STDs go hand in hand. If you doubt this, I'm sure some simple research will enlighten you. If you feel a citation is needed, why don't you find one and thereby contribute positively to the site. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T03:15:00Z

BryonRichards: Remove ideological fact tag - See talk page.

There is much good advice that can be given to teenagers and people in their 20s and 30s. But the best advice of all is this: [[Marriage|marry]] a [[conservative]].

Benefits include:

* freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)
* fidelity in marriage and accountability
* lack of hostility to [[faith]], no [[censorship]] of [[prayer]]
* frugality and freedom from burdens of big spending and debt
* respect for the [[Ten Commandments]] and opposition to [[deceit]]
* respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality
* appreciates the importance of a [[conservative]] culture in raising children
* no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor
* recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences
* having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking
* freedom from the [[liberal media]] and [[Hollywood values]], and their misguided promotions and fads
* a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of [[Liberal]] beliefs, [[Liberal denial]] and [[political correctness]].

= True Case Studies<ref>The names and any facts are changed to preserve ideology.</ref> =

== Example One ==

Ralph was a [[conservative]] who attended a graduate school having a predominantly [[liberal]] culture. There he fell in love with a woman who was quite [[liberal]] and held a very different set of values. With six months he realized he had made a mistake, and within a year filed for divorce.

However, Ralph belong to a church that does not accept divorce, and it took him another four grueling years to obtain an annulment.

What became the worst experience of his life could have been avoided had he realized the benefits of marrying a [[conservative]].

== Example Two ==

Suzy was attractive, and promiscuous. Joe, a [[conservative]], liked Suzy and was impressed by her ability to excel at a top college and even succeed at a good graduate school. Joe decided it did not matter if Suzy did not share his conservative values, and Joe married Suzy.

For the next 25 years Joe tried with Suzy to have children, without success. What caused the infertility can never be known with certainty, but it is known that half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases, and that these diseases cause infertility.

== Example Three ==

Beth was a [[conservative]] woman who liked Bob, a [[liberal]] man. Beth put her reservations aside and married Bob, and then gave Bob the best 30 years of her life. Beth had children with Bob and raised them to college.

Then, around age 50, Bob decided he'd like to date younger women. He divorced Beth against her wishes, and now she lives alone.

Bob's actions were consistent with the [[Hollywood values]] he preferred. Beth's actions in staying with Bob and raising the children during her younger years were consistent with her [[conservative]] values. But now Bob is happy, while Beth is not.

== Example Four ==

Elizabeth was a smart [[liberal]] who knew she would be better off marrying a [[conservative]] than a [[liberal]] like herself. She found one in Stan, a [[conservative]] who was a very hard worker and who did not have the luxury of time to develop the social skills that Elizabeth had.

Stan's circle of friends and acquaintances were limited, and he thought all women were [[liberal]]. He married Elizabeth thinking that all women were [[liberal]] like her.

For the next thirty years Elizabeth censored Stan's [[conservative]] comments, interfered with his [[conservative]] activities, and caused problems for Stan at every political turn. But Stan thought all women were that way, and rarely complained.

Tragically, Elizabeth became sick and died. Stan then remarried, this time to a [[conservative]] woman whom he did not even realize existed. For the rest of his life Stan marveled at how different -- and better -- his life was.

==Example Five ==

Kate was a conservative woman who fell in love with Bill, a liberal man. Bill convinced her to marry him despite her parents strong objections. Ten years later, Kate began to suffer from strange bouts of lethargy and sickness. Several trips to the doctor were unable to find a cause, until he performed a blood test. It turned out that Kate had AIDS. She confronted Bill who admitted that he considered himself bisexual and had been involved in several homosexual affairs while married to Kate. He was tested as well, and also was HIV positive, but the disease had not progressed to AIDS. Kate divorced and is now forced to take a battery of medications to delay the inevitable.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T03:12:28Z

BryonRichards: Revert - Don't remove ASchlafly's work.

There is much good advice that can be given to teenagers and people in their 20s and 30s. But the best advice of all is this: [[Marriage|marry]] a [[conservative]].

Benefits include:

* freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)
* fidelity in marriage and accountability
* lack of hostility to [[faith]], no [[censorship]] of [[prayer]]
* frugality and freedom from burdens of big spending and debt
* respect for the [[Ten Commandments]] and opposition to [[deceit]]
* respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality
* appreciates the importance of a [[conservative]] culture in raising children
* no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor
* recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences
* having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking
* freedom from the [[liberal media]] and [[Hollywood values]], and their misguided promotions and fads
* a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of [[Liberal]] beliefs, [[Liberal denial]] and [[political correctness]].

= True Case Studies<ref>The names and any facts are changed to preserve ideology.</ref> =

== Example One ==

Ralph was a [[conservative]] who attended a graduate school having a predominantly [[liberal]] culture. There he fell in love with a woman who was quite [[liberal]] and held a very different set of values. With six months he realized he had made a mistake, and within a year filed for divorce.

However, Ralph belong to a church that does not accept divorce, and it took him another four grueling years to obtain an annulment.

What became the worst experience of his life could have been avoided had he realized the benefits of marrying a [[conservative]].

== Example Two ==

Suzy was attractive, and promiscuous. Joe, a [[conservative]], liked Suzy and was impressed by her ability to excel at a top college and even succeed at a good graduate school. Joe decided it did not matter if Suzy did not share his conservative values, and Joe married Suzy.

For the next 25 years Joe tried with Suzy to have children, without success. What caused the infertility can never be known with certainty, but it is known that half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases, and that these diseases cause infertility.

== Example Three ==

Beth was a [[conservative]] woman who liked Bob, a [[liberal]] man. Beth put her reservations aside and married Bob, and then gave Bob the best 30 years of her life. Beth had children with Bob and raised them to college.

Then, around age 50, Bob decided he'd like to date younger women. He divorced Beth against her wishes, and now she lives alone.

Bob's actions were consistent with the [[Hollywood values]] he preferred. Beth's actions in staying with Bob and raising the children during her younger years were consistent with her [[conservative]] values. But now Bob is happy, while Beth is not.

== Example Four ==

Elizabeth was a smart [[liberal]] who knew she would be better off marrying a [[conservative]] than a [[liberal]] like herself. She found one in Stan, a [[conservative]] who was a very hard worker and who did not have the luxury of time to develop the social skills that Elizabeth had.

Stan's circle of friends and acquaintances were limited, and he thought all women were [[liberal]]. He married Elizabeth thinking that all women were [[liberal]] like her.

For the next thirty years Elizabeth censored Stan's [[conservative]] comments, interfered with his [[conservative]] activities, and caused problems for Stan at every political turn. But Stan thought all women were that way, and rarely complained.

Tragically, Elizabeth became sick and died. Stan then remarried, this time to a [[conservative]] woman whom he did not even realize existed. For the rest of his life Stan marveled at how different -- and better -- his life was.

==Example Five ==

Kate was a conservative woman who fell in love with Bill, a liberal man. Bill convinced her to marry him despite her parents strong objections. Ten years later, Kate began to suffer from strange bouts of lethargy and sickness. Several trips to the doctor were unable to find a cause, until he performed a blood test. It turned out that Kate had AIDS. She confronted Bill who admitted that he considered himself bisexual and had been involved in several homosexual affairs while married to Kate. He was tested as well, and also was HIV positive, but the disease had not progressed to AIDS. Kate divorced and is now forced to take a battery of medications to delay the inevitable.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T00:02:36Z

BryonRichards: /* Example Four */

There is much good advice that can be given to teenagers and people in their 20s and 30s. But the best advice of all is this: [[Marriage|marry]] a [[conservative]].

Benefits include:

* freedom from sexually transmitted diseases and their harm (including infertility)
* fidelity in marriage and accountability
* lack of hostility to [[faith]], no [[censorship]] of [[prayer]]
* frugality and freedom from burdens of big spending and debt
* respect for the [[Ten Commandments]] and opposition to [[deceit]]
* respect for a work ethic, and rejection of an entitlement mentality
* appreciates the importance of a [[conservative]] culture in raising children
* no confusion over who is the homemaker and who is the breadwinner; recognizing the benefits of division of labor
* recognizing that values do matter and do have serious consequences
* having values powerful enough to overcome addiction, such as drinking, gambling, pornography, obesity and smoking
* freedom from the [[liberal media]] and [[Hollywood values]], and their misguided promotions and fads
* a relationship where issues and problems can be openly discussed, free from the ideological shackles of [[Liberal]] beliefs, [[Liberal denial]] and [[political correctness]].

= True Case Studies<ref>The names and any facts are changed to preserve ideology.</ref> =

== Example One ==

Ralph was a [[conservative]] who attended a graduate school having a predominantly [[liberal]] culture. There he fell in love with a woman who was quite [[liberal]] and held a very different set of values. With six months he realized he had made a mistake, and within a year filed for divorce.

However, Ralph belong to a church that does not accept divorce, and it took him another four grueling years to obtain an annulment.

What became the worst experience of his life could have been avoided had he realized the benefits of marrying a [[conservative]].

== Example Two ==

Suzy was attractive, and promiscuous. Joe, a [[conservative]], liked Suzy and was impressed by her ability to excel at a top college and even succeed at a good graduate school. Joe decided it did not matter if Suzy did not share his conservative values, and Joe married Suzy.

For the next 25 years Joe tried with Suzy to have children, without success. What caused the infertility can never be known with certainty, but it is known that half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases, and that these diseases cause infertility.

== Example Three ==

Beth was a [[conservative]] woman who liked Bob, a [[liberal]] man. Beth put her reservations aside and married Bob, and then gave Bob the best 30 years of her life. Beth had children with Bob and raised them to college.

Then, around age 50, Bob decided he'd like to date younger women. He divorced Beth against her wishes, and now she lives alone.

Bob's actions were consistent with the [[Hollywood values]] he preferred. Beth's actions in staying with Bob and raising the children during her younger years were consistent with her [[conservative]] values. But now Bob is happy, while Beth is not.

== Example Four ==

Elizabeth was a smart [[liberal]] who knew she would be better off marrying a [[conservative]] than a [[liberal]] like herself. She found one in Stan, a [[conservative]] who was a very hard worker and who did not have the luxury of time to develop the social skills that Elizabeth had.

Stan's circle of friends and acquaintances were limited, and he thought all women were [[liberal]]. He married Elizabeth thinking that all women were [[liberal]] like her.

For the next thirty years Elizabeth censored Stan's [[conservative]] comments, interfered with his [[conservative]] activities, and caused problems for Stan at every political turn. But Stan thought all women were that way, and rarely complained.

Tragically, Elizabeth became sick and died. Stan then remarried, this time to a [[conservative]] woman whom he did not even realize existed. For the rest of his life Stan marveled at how different -- and better -- his life was.

==Example Five ==

Kate was a conservative woman who fell in love with Bill, a liberal man. Bill convinced her to marry him despite her parents strong objections. Ten years later, Kate began to suffer from strange bouts of lethargy and sickness. Several trips to the doctor were unable to find a cause, until he performed a blood test. It turned out that Kate had AIDS. She confronted Bill who admitted that he considered himself bisexual and had been involved in several homosexual affairs while married to Kate. He was tested as well, and also was HIV positive, but the disease had not progressed to AIDS. Kate divorced and is now forced to take a battery of medications to delay the inevitable.

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Essays]]

User talk:Gentlemen-Operation-Atheism-UK

2008-06-14T01:32:48Z

BryonRichards: New page: {{welcome}}

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-14T01:32:05Z

BryonRichards: Remove lots of liberal mockery and suggest spelling change.

==Page name==

I believe the correct spelling is dialogue. I would suggest we move the page to match the proper spelling. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 21:32, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal fluff

2008-06-07T06:20:47Z

BryonRichards: Remove liberal bias.

'''Liberal fluff''' consists of statements that have no [[logic]]al or factual value of significance, but have the effect of diluting or distracting from the point at issue.

==References==
<references/>

Essay:Conservapedia Awards

2008-05-15T01:56:29Z

BryonRichards: /* Nominations */

Conservapedia should consider giving annual awards to people who add value to the world with a creative or striking [[conservative]] insight, project, accomplishment, sacrifice or some equivalent.

First we should develop a simple set of guidelines for the awards, a proposal for what the award would be, and then we can solicit nominations.

== Guidelines ==
# Unique contributions to the world which enable more people to become aware of [[conservative values]].
# Insight in applying [[conservative values]] to help others individually.
# Effort in reaching teenagers who are troubled due to [[liberal]] indoctrination or lack of awareness of [[conservative values]]
# Someone who overcome personal challenges and spread [[conservative values]] for the benefit of others
# Use or development of innovation in connection with the contribution.
# No one associated with Conservapedia may be nominated for an initial award.

(please add)

== Name for the Award ==

(suggestions welcome)

*the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Ronny]]

== Nominations ==

# The developer(s) of the wiki software for its value in bringing [[conservative values]] to millions of page views.
# [[Henry Morris]] II (posthumous), founder of the [[Institute for Creation Research]]
# [[Chris Ashcraft]], founder of the [[Northwest Creation Network]] and of [[CreationWiki]].
# [[Phyllis Schlafly]], for a lifetime of contributions to the Conservative movement.
# Reverend [[Donald E. Wildmon]], founder of the [[American Family Association]] and [[American Family Radio]].
# [[Vice-President Cheney]], a true Patriot.
# [[John Yoo]], legal advisor to the White House. Contributed to the USA PATRIOT Act and provided a concrete justification for enhanced interrogation of enemy combatants. Contributed immensely to the national security of the United States.

Margaret Thatcher should have a lifetime achievement award.

(only add here after more has been filled in above)
[[Category:Essay]]

Essay:Conservapedia Awards

2008-05-13T01:43:26Z

BryonRichards: /* Nominations */

Conservapedia should consider giving annual awards to people who add value to the world with a creative or striking [[conservative]] insight, project, accomplishment, sacrifice or some equivalent.

First we should develop a simple set of guidelines for the awards, a proposal for what the award would be, and then we can solicit nominations.

== Guidelines ==
# Unique contributions to the world which enable more people to become aware of [[conservative values]].
# Insight in applying [[conservative values]] to help others individually.
# Effort in reaching teenagers who are troubled due to [[liberal]] indoctrination or lack of awareness of [[conservative values]]
# Someone who overcome personal challenges and spread [[conservative values]] for the benefit of others
# Use or development of innovation in connection with the contribution.
# No one associated with Conservapedia may be nominated for an initial award.

(please add)

== Name for the Award ==

(suggestions welcome)

*the [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|Ronny]]

== Nominations ==

# The developer(s) of the wiki software for its value in bringing [[conservative values]] to millions of page views.
# [[Henry Morris]] II (posthumous), founder of the [[Institute for Creation Research]]
# [[Chris Ashcraft]], founder of the [[Northwest Creation Network]] and of [[CreationWiki]].
# [[Phyllis Schlafly]], for a lifetime of contributions to the Conservative movement.

(only add here after more has been filled in above)
[[Category:Essay]]

Violent video games

2008-05-06T04:13:25Z

BryonRichards: The modification was included on the CD. It was not a hack.

'''Violent video games''' are [[video games]] that teach and encourage the players -- typically children -- to engage in horrific virtual violence. Teenagers playing these games are desensitized to violent and criminal acts<ref>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/04/07/violent_video_games_held_to_be_free_speech?page=2 </ref><ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>. In a particular study specifically children who were diagnosed with neurotic behavior and predisposition to aggression reacted to violent stimuli brought by video games, though not all of them showed aggressive behavior as a consequence<ref>http://www.qj.net/Study-Violent-games-don-t-alter-normal-kids/pg/49/aid/88522</ref>.

Examples of violent video games include:

* [[Grand Theft Auto]] (series) -- The series now spanning four games and multiple expansions is considered a "sandbox" game where a player can roam around a virtual city at will. The player is able to obtain many different types of weapons, murder anyone they encounter including other criminals and prostitutes, innocent bystanders, and even police officers. One of the games also included a modification that allowed a player to engage in graphic sexual acts in the game.

* [[Doom]] and [[Quake]] are first person shooter games wherein a player roams around various levels killing various demonic creatures. The games have been described as murder simulators and were used as inspiration for the [[Columbine Massacre]] as well as other school shootings.

* Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend (M-rated) -- The ads for this first-person shooter boast that new weapons will enable you "to hack your enemies to meaty bits!" It involves a game character who commits violent acts against unarmed civilians. Other features in the Postal series include: urinating on people to make them vomit in disgust, using cats as shotgun silencers, and playing fetch with dogs using human heads.

* The Punisher (M-rated) -- Game player is able to jam knives into victims' sternums and pull up to increase the damage, cut off heads, ram a character's open mouth onto a curb, run a character over with a forklift, rip a character's arms off with an industrial hook, and set a character on fire in an electric chair.

* Resident Evil: 4 (M-rated) -- Game player uses a special blood-splattered chainsaw controller designed for playing the game, which includes chainsaw decapitations and impalements, and characters ripping off other characters' throats and biting off their heads.

* Manhunt (M-rated) -- Game player's character is James Earl Cash, a convicted serial killer facing execution. The execution is ordered to be faked so that a character named "The Director" can use Cash as a star in a series of snuff films. As the Cash character kills other characters, by suffocating them with a plastic bag, slicing them up with a chainsaw, shooting them point blank with a nail gun, stabbing them in the eyeballs with a glass shard, or beheading them with a cleaver, The Director makes sexually vulgar comments. The game has two difficulty settings: fetish and hardcore.

* God of War (M-rated) -- Game features disembowelment, mouth-stabbing, eye-gouging, severed limbs, and human sacrifice.

* Silent Hill 1-4 -- large portions of these games involve roaming around decaying buildings and beating hideously malformed humanoid monsters to death with blunt instruments.

* Condemned -- Requires the player to bludgeon NPC's to death. Since the game is played on the wii it promotes the player to act out the gruesome killings.

The Court of Appeals for the [[Eighth Circuit]] declared this to be [[free speech]] and struck down a [[Minnesota]] law that prohibited minors from purchasing or renting video games bearing a "Mature" or "Adult Only" rating.<ref>''Entm't Software Ass'n v. Swanson'', 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5634 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008).</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Video games]]

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60631 Violent video games free speech?]

[[Category:Video Games]]

NPOV

2008-05-05T03:25:43Z

BryonRichards:

'''NPOV''' is an [[acronym]] which stands for '''N'''eutral '''P'''oint '''o'''f '''V'''iew.

It is a policy at Wikipedia meant to have articles written from a neutral stance, though it is often used to censor conservative views and promote liberal ones.

==See Also==
[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

[[category:Terms]]

Credential bullying

2008-05-05T02:37:24Z

BryonRichards:

'''Credential bullying''' is an attempt to intimidate or [[censor]] someone by citing one's real or inflated credentials.

This is an example of an [[argument from authority]] where the person claiming the credential is setting themselves up as the authority. They make the unfounded assumption that just because someone has studied a subject that they are more qualified to discuss it than an average person.

It is not allowed on [[Conservapedia]], but became a scandal on [[Wikipedia]] when the credentials were not even true.

Violent video games

2008-05-05T02:29:46Z

BryonRichards:

'''Violent video games''' are [[video games]] that teach and encourage the players -- typically children -- to engage in horrific virtual violence. Teenagers playing these games are desensitized to violent and criminal acts<ref>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2008/04/07/violent_video_games_held_to_be_free_speech?page=2 </ref><ref>http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html</ref>. In a particular study specifically children who were diagnosed with neurotic behavior and predisposition to aggression reacted to violent stimuli brought by video games, though not all of them showed aggressive behavior as a consequence<ref>http://www.qj.net/Study-Violent-games-don-t-alter-normal-kids/pg/49/aid/88522</ref>.

Examples of violent video games include:

* [[Grand Theft Auto]] (series) -- The series now spanning four games and multiple expansions is considered a "sandbox" game where a player can roam around a virtual city at will. The player is able to obtain many different types of weapons, murder anyone they encounter including other criminals and prostitutes, innocent bystanders, and even police officers. One of the games also included a modification that allowed a player to engage in graphic sexual acts in the game.

* [[Doom]] and [[Quake]] are first person shooter games wherein a player roams around various levels killing various demonic creatures. The games have been described as murder simulators and were used as inspiration for the [[Columbine Massacre]] as well as other school shootings.

* Postal 2: Apocalypse Weekend (M-rated) -- The ads for this game boast that new weapons will enable you "to hack your enemies to meaty bits!" It involves a game character who commits violent acts against unarmed civilians. Other features in the Postal series include: urinating on people to make them vomit in disgust, using cats as shotgun silencers, and playing fetch with dogs using human heads.

* The Punisher (M-rated) -- Game player is able to jam knives into victims' sternums and pull up to increase the damage, cut off heads, ram a character's open mouth onto a curb, run a character over with a forklift, rip a character's arms off with an industrial hook, and set a character on fire in an electric chair.

* Resident Evil: 4 (M-rated) -- Game player uses a special blood-splattered chainsaw controller designed for playing the game, which includes chainsaw decapitations and impalements, and characters ripping off other characters' throats and biting off their heads.

* Manhunt (M-rated) -- Game player's character is James Earl Cash, a convicted serial killer facing execution. The execution is ordered to be faked so that a character named "The Director" can use Cash as a star in a series of snuff films. As the Cash character kills other characters, by suffocating them with a plastic bag, slicing them up with a chainsaw, shooting them point blank with a nail gun, stabbing them in the eyeballs with a glass shard, or beheading them with a cleaver, The Director makes sexually vulgar comments. The game has two difficulty settings: fetish and hardcore.

* God of War (M-rated) -- Game features disembowelment, mouth-stabbing, eye-gouging, severed limbs, and human sacrifice.

* Silent Hill 1-4 -- large portions of these games involve roaming around decaying buildings and beating hideously malformed humanoid monsters to death with blunt instruments.

* Condemned -- Requires the player to bludgeon NPC's to death. Since the game is played on the wii it promotes the player to act out the gruesome killings.

The Court of Appeals for the [[Eighth Circuit]] declared this to be [[free speech]] and struck down a [[Minnesota]] law that prohibited minors from purchasing or renting video games bearing a "Mature" or "Adult Only" rating.<ref>''Entm't Software Ass'n v. Swanson'', 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 5634 (8th Cir. Mar. 17, 2008).</ref>

== See also ==
* [[Video games]]

== References ==

<references/>

== Sources ==

* [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60631 Violent video games free speech?]

[[Category:Video Games]]

Public school culture

2008-04-29T00:33:01Z

BryonRichards:

'''Public school culture''' is a culture fostered in [[public school]] which is characterized by:

* fashion that includes black ([[Goth (subculture)|Goth]]) clothing
* facial piercings and rings, [[tattoo]]s, and male earings
* [[depressed]] demeanors
* an absence of [[morality|"right" and "wrong"]]; instead, a principal will say someone "made the wrong choice"
* a sense of hopelessness
* a lack of critical thinking about [[liberal]] indoctrination
* [[compulsive profanity]]
* general inability to look at someone in the eye
* extreme [[anxiety]]
* feeling that it is funny to be dumb
* so accustomed to [[censorship]] of ideas that there is genuine surprise when someone actually says something unfamiliar or [[politically incorrect]]
* Access to a wide range of new ideas, both positive and negative
* Ability to increase social development
* Access to various sports events and participation
* Willingness to accept deviant lifestyles, and support for the pro-homosexual National Day of Silence.

(a start)

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-04-22T04:23:47Z

BryonRichards: The lack of a jacket is irrelevant. He could wear one on his collar.

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. August 4, 1961) is the junior Senator from [[Illinois]], elected to the United States Senate as a [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] in 2004. Obama is currently the only [[African American]] serving in the [[United States Senate]], where he serves his first term. Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor. <ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>
[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]]. Notice Obama's lack of an American flag lapel pin. (from Time.com)]]

Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. So much so, in fact, that he even blocked the [[Illinois]] version of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, even though it was unanimously supported by the [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080208070510AAmIod2&show=7</ref> Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" for the [[abortion]] industry.<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> Obama states that he consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama has absolutely no military, executive or foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise [[Hillary Clinton]] refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref> He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe [for whom Obama worked as a research assistant] wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. For example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records.

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]] -- a figure unknown to Obama's generation outside of [[Hollywood]] -- it became clear that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

==Early Life and Education==
Senator Obama was born in Honolulu, [[Hawaii]] to Barack Obama, Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967 he moved to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]], with his mother and new stepfather. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school, followed by an Indonesian public school, until he returned with his mother to Hawaii. There he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979. 
Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at The [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004.<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> He is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal Career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate Career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

=== Bills Co-Sponsored ===

Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the [[U.S.]] to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guide of reducing global poverty. [[Conservatives]] blocked the bill.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less [[liberal]] examples, but this list is not representative:

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the Zimbabwe government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former Liberian President Charles Taylor. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential Campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his anti-war candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million dollars from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

Obama evidently was misinformed, whereas in reality the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face to face meetings with two of Florida's most fearful enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama advised he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

==Political Views==
Obama's political views have been a matter of controversy even before he put himself forward as a Presidential Candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> While he is generally considered [[liberal]] by [[America]]n standards, on an international scale he could be considered a moderate [[conservative]].<ref>http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

On [[gun control]], according to an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>[http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches]</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

== Foreign Policy Experience ==

In Russia and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited numerous nuclear/biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with Tony Blair, sitting UK Prime Minister.[http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/]

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur and addressed Africa's growing AIDS epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten day tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Faith and Values==
As he describes in ''The Audacity of Hope'' Obama grew up in a non-religious environment. When he was a child in Indonesia, he attended a local Muslim school for two years and a local [[Catholic]] school for two years, according to his own books.<ref>"Obama has noted in his two books, 'Dreams From My Father' and 'The Audacity of Hope,' that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10." [http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/]</ref> His father was a non-practicing [[Muslim]].

Obama attended a Muslim school but independent news organizations have verified it was not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

Obama and his his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is borrowed from one of his pastor's sermons. He is at ease quoting Scriptures and speaking to [[liberal Christianity|liberal]] church audiences.

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published Criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]

{{liberalism}}

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

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}
{{2008 presidential candidates}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

User talk:BryonRichards

2008-04-22T03:39:05Z

BryonRichards: /* Reversion */

{{welcome}} [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:52, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Nice phrasing on [[Statue]]: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Statue&diff=prev&oldid=432996 "figure carved from a rigid material"]. I look forward to reading a lot more of your contributions. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:42, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

==William Jennings Bryan==

While I agree that it is likely that he would not support the Democratic party today, there is no way to actually know this. I don't think that an encyclopedia should contain speculation of how a historical figure would align politically today. [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 16:08, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:I'm not sure if you meant by your edit summary that he would vote Republican because he was an evangelical, but about 35% of evangelicals voted for Bill Clinton. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week734/interview.html [[User:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]] 19:01, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== Reversion ==

BryonRichards, thanks much for your reverting vandalism. However, I think you can do it more easily by clicking a "revert" option rather than editing the entry. You might look in the page history or on a "diff" and see if there is a "revert" link for automatically reverting all the vandal's edits. Thanks again.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:37, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't seem to have that option, Aschlafly. Is it a sysop only option? [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:39, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

Katy, Texas

2008-04-22T03:32:20Z

BryonRichards: New page: '''Katy, Texas''' is a town in southeast Texas which is a suburb of Houston. ==Controversy== Katy, Texas was the subject of a number of news stories in 2006 when a local [[Musl...

'''Katy, Texas''' is a town in southeast [[Texas]] which is a suburb of [[Houston]].

==Controversy==

Katy, Texas was the subject of a number of news stories in 2006 when a local [[Muslim]] group attempted to build a [[mosque]] in the town. The local residents strongly objected and were subject to intimidation from the local Muslims. In response, the owner of a neighboring property began holding weekly pig races on Friday.<ref>http://www.katyislamicassociation.net/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

Anti-conservative

2008-04-22T03:24:20Z

BryonRichards:

An '''anti-conservative''' is someone who defines his political positions to be against whatever the [[conservative]] position is.

Sometimes the logic is simply a matter of disliking someone or an institution perceived to be [[conservative]] and then adopting views that are the opposite of other disliked person. For example, "the ______ church holds this position, so I'm against it!" Or, to take another example, "my [father/mother/ex-husband/ex-wife] thinks such-and-such, so I'm against that!"

Note that these individuals display no intellectual rigor. They hold no positions of their own, merely gainsaying anything said by the opposing party.

Liberal bias

2008-04-22T03:19:14Z

BryonRichards: Revert vandalism

[[Image:Stossel.jpg|thumbnail|150px|right|[[John Stossel]]]]
'''Liberal bias''' is partisan support for [[liberal]] positions or policies. This bias pervades encyclopedias, periodicals and [[broadcast media]], and the Internet. It is expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media and by teachers in [[public school]] and in many private schools.{{fact}} It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.

In the absence of clear rules to prevent the bias, it will often occur due to:
*political correctness
*a tendency to exaggerate and deceive to attract attention
*a reliance on obscenity to attract attention
*an attempt to be "consistent" by treating men and women alike
*where images are used, an obsession with race

==The Media Confronts Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

Although many prominent liberal journalists and teachers deny being biased - or indeed that liberal bias exists at all in the media - same have freely admitted it (e.g., [[Andy Rooney]]).{{fact}}

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied the the New York Times has a [[liberal]] viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref> In regards to the [[Western World]], although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:
{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[CNN]]
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* The [[United Nations]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]

==U.S. Universities==

Liberal bias is everywhere on American university campuses. Leftist professors dominate the universities.{{fact}} "Because of this slant, it is virtually impossible for political balance in our universities and, as a result, the curriculum, the culture, the values, the atmosphere and the underlying currents of thought resemble indoctrination." <ref>[http://www.thefire.org/pdfs/4134_2453.pdf?PHPSESSID=14d1b6b722914bc403636c401f9792ee Universities' liberal bias is real], Fred Singer, [[Denver Post]], January 29, 2003</ref>

"College faculties are not only mostly liberal, but lean even further to the left than conservatives have imagined."
<ref>[http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/1809 Liberal bias in colleges bleeds into classroom], Cal Thomas, [[Townhall]], March 31, 2005</ref>

"The political tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If you're looking for balance, you're not going to find it."
<ref>[http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3514.html Liberal Bias on Campus], John Eberhard, [[Intellectual Conservative]], June 18, 2004</ref>

Even the students admit the liberal bias. "Here at Columbia, as at most top universities, we enjoy belittling conservative beliefs."
<ref>[http://www.columbiaspectator.com/?q=node/27969 Liberal Bias is A-OK], J.D. Porter, Columbia Spectator, November 9, 2007</ref>

==Media==

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives.{{fact}} ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war.{{fact}}"

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]]. Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda, and control the writing of history and the national consciousness.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but [[moral]]ly lacking. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.

For liberals, it is desperately important to win because their whole sense of themselves is at stake. Given the high stakes, it is not hard to understand the all-out attacks of liberals on those who differ from them and their attempts to stifle alternative sources of values and beliefs, with [[Hate speech|campus speech codes]] and ‘[[political correctness]]’ being prime examples of a spreading pattern of [[taboo]]s. Here they are not content to squelch contemporary voices, they must also silence history and traditions–the national memory–as well. This too is a larger danger than the dangers flowing from particular policies.

History is the memory of a nation–and that memory is being erased by historians enthralled by liberalism. Open disdain for mere facts has been accompanied by adventurous reinterpretations known as ‘revisionist’ history. This is all yet another expression of the notion that [[Moral relativism|reality is optional]].

A very similar development in the law treats the Constitution as meaning not what those who wrote it meant, but what one small segment of the public today wants it to mean. This is the ‘[[living constitution]]’ of ‘evolving standards,’ reflecting what ‘thinking people’ believe. The law itself has been prostituted to the service of [[ideological]] crusades. The social cohesion that makes civilized life possible has been loosened by the systematic undermining of families and of commonly shared values and a common culture. <ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]

{{liberalism}}
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberals]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-04-22T03:18:56Z

BryonRichards: Revert vandalism

William Jennings Bryan

2008-04-20T19:59:48Z

BryonRichards: I think the statement is self evident as it is.

[[image:WJBryan.jpg|200px|thumb|The Great Commoner, William Jennings Bryan, 1907.]]
'''William Jennings Bryan''' (1860-1925) was a populist three-time Democratic presidential nominee, known as "The Great Commoner" due to his strong political support for farmers and laborers. <ref>http://www.americaslibrary.gov/cgi-bin/page.cgi/aa/bryan</ref> He was notable for advocating that the United States switch from the [[gold standard]] to the less demanding silver standard (to back up the nation's money).

In 1896, Bryan delivered one of the most riveting speeches in all of American history, known as the "Cross of Gold" speech. A phenomenal orator, Bryan galvanized the national political convention at the young age of only 36. He speech almost single-handedly united the Democratic and Populist parties, thereby laying the foundation for what became the modern [[Democratic Party]]. However, Bryan was a devout evangelical and it is doubtful that he would call himself a Democrat today.

He served as Secretary of State during the Administration of President [[Woodrow Wilson]], and resigned based on his principled opposition to American involvement in [[World War I]].

Bryan then toured Europe and became alarmed at the consequences of teaching Darwinian evolution. He grew concerned that this theory was the intellectual basis for the massive world wars, and that the theory led to an erroneous view that human races must inevitably fight with each other for survival of the fittest. He feared another world war.

He returned to the [[United States]] and argued for the prosecution in the [[Scopes trial]] in Dayton, [[Tennessee]] in 1925, a case which he won. Already in poor health, he died five days after the trial while taking his afternoon nap after church.<ref>Larson, Edward J. (2006), Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial And America's Continuing Debate over Science And Religion, Basic Books, p. 199</ref> [[Bryan College]], a private Christian college located in Dayton, is named for him.

==References==

<References/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Bryan, William Jennings}}
[[Category:United States Jurists]]

Day age creationism

2008-04-20T19:25:58Z

BryonRichards:

Day age creationism refers to an [[Old Earth Creationism|old earth creationist]] belief that the days of creation in [[Genesis]] do not refer to literal days but to longer periods.

Frequently the concept of "as day is a thousand years" from 2 Peter 3:8<ref>[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20peter%203:8;&version=9; KJB version]</ref> is used to justify the concept.

{{Bible quote|1But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.|book=2Peter|chap=3|verses=8|version=KJV}}

Nevertheless, other day age creationists are prepared to give longer values to each day. In more extreme case they are even prepared to change the order of the "days".

This belief, like evolution, is incompatible with a plain reading of the Bible.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:creationism]]

Evolutionist style

2008-04-20T19:03:29Z

BryonRichards:

'''Evolutionists''', or believers in the [[theory of evolution]], have a trademark style of argument that includes:

* insistence on [[censorship]] of any and all opposing evidence and viewpoints, and retaliation against anyone who dares to disagree
* attempted [[proof by assertion]]. The classic case of such conduct was Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s advocacy of [[uniformitarianism]], which establishes the required [[deep time]] scale and as such is the very linchpin of the evolutionary paradigm.
* [[argumentum ad hominem]], or excessive personal attacks that often include childish name-calling and personal put-downs, more so than other debaters
* [[proof by authority]], or highlighting their own academic credentials or those of their allies in support of their theories. An academic credential can include anything from a publishing credit (especially in a "peer-reviewed" journal) to a degree to a particular academic appointment. However, [[Ben Stein]] (''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'') shows that evolutionists add this twist: they systematically deny to others, whenever they can, any opportunity to acquire similar credentials.
* use of bizarre jargon such as "[[quote mining]]," "[[moving the goalposts]]" and "[[Fundamentalism|fundies]]"; use of incoherent phrases like "unconvincingly hysterical"
* inordinate attempt to demonize the other side, as in overuse of the term [[creationist]] and [[fundamentalist]]. The latter example includes the attempt to show that [[Christian]] fundamentalists are morally equivalent to [[Muslim]] fundamentalists, whether in their extreme rejection of modernity or in their practice and advocacy of [[terrorism]].
* an astounding lack of understanding -- or denial -- of how most great scientists and mathematicians either rejected evolution or were silent about it
* an equal lack of understanding, or denial, that most of the greatest scientists in the Western world asserted the reality of [[creation]] and the [[Great Flood]] prior to the [[Enlightenment]], or else a denial that their scientific achievements (including those of [[Sir Isaac Newton]]!) matter today.
* frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in defining evolution as change and [[survival of the fittest]] as those who survive
* [[Liberal projection|projection]]—literally, "throwing off" their own faults on the other side, in that they accuse the other side of doing the very things that they themselves do.
* claiming to enjoy scientific debate yet often refusing to debate creationists.
* refusing to allow the possibility that God exists.
* claiming that so-called "[[Theistic evolution]]" is possible, which would indicate that the events that took place in Genesis are false (meaning God lied about them) or allegoric.
* ignoring the clear historical link between [[Darwinism]], [[Eugenics]], and the [[Holocaust]].
* [[deliberate ignorance]] about phenomena that [[evolution]] cannot explain, such as remarkable [[migration]] and [[homing]], or the existence of the [[whale]]
* claim that the theory of evolution can be used as an applied science, like the development of flu vaccines, but continuing to support the theory when the application fails. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/opinion/20sun3.html?ref=opinion</ref>

(add more)

[[Category:Evolution]]

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-18T04:43:26Z

BryonRichards: /* Darwinism and the Holocaust */

==Darwinism and the Holocaust==

DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

:Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

::Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in [[survival of the fittest]], and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "points" 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about "creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins" is just a cover-story for our '''EVIL'''. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission ''directly'' from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
:Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the [[uniformitarianism]]/[[abiogenesis]]/[[evolution|common-descent]] paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed?
In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:You clearly do not understand the [[Crusades]], or the history of [[Islam]]. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered [[Spain]] and tried to conquer [[France]]. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the [[Church of the Holy Sepulcher]].
:I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no ''positive statement'' that ''condemns'' a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The [[Bible]] says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why [[Martin Luther]] finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying "astronomy makes no ''positive statement' that ''condemns'' a Hitler".
Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:All right, [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]], pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] and myself, about the "evolutionist style." You keep saying that "evolution is science"—and by "evolution" I mean here the full paradigm of [[uniformitarianism]], [[Big Bang]] cosmology, [[abiogenesis]], and "common descent from one ancestor."
:So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes "millions of years" to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.
:And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space [[astronomy]]. What's this [[dark matter]] and [[dark energy]] we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that "dark matter" trick on the world once before—they invented a "planet" named [[Vulcan (planet)|Vulcan]] (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the [[planet]] [[Mercury]] that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then [[Albert Einstein]] showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.
:Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first "dark matter" object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark ''energy'', all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the "Higgs boson," an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.
:Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter ''or'' dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing [[Edwin Hubble]] knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe ''did'' expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped—and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::Funny thing, Terry--the scientists '''threw those theories out''' when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:::For some science that is true, Gulik, but scientists these days hold onto things like Global Warming, the Big Bang, and Evolutionism with a near religious fervor despite the fact that these hypotheses are unproven and often disproven. Believe me, when they can't find the Higgs Boson, they'll just say "Oh well, we just need a bigger supercollider." And then we see a billion more in wasted taxpayer dollars. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:43, 18 April 2008 (EDT)

:This should probably go to one of our [[Debate Topics]], but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Media bullying

2008-04-17T04:25:36Z

BryonRichards: /* Tiger Woods? */

==Tiger Woods?==

What, do they cough loudly while his opponents are lining up their putts? --[[User:Gulik5|Gulik5]] 23:17, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

: Do you follow the mainstream media??? Tiger Woods gets 99% of the press attention in major golfing events, often in a style that predicts he will overtake and defeat the leader at the time. I bet you can't even name who won the Masters last year, and this year.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:10, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

::[[Zach Johnson]] :) [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:13, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

:::No need to be smart about it. It's a fact that Tiger Woods gets the vast majority of the press' attention, and it's never negative. Yet one commentator makes an offhand comment about how other golfers could beat Tiger Woods, and she's kicked off of her show. [[User:BryonRichards|BryonRichards]] 00:25, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Eco-terrorism

2008-04-17T04:18:57Z

BryonRichards:

'''Eco-terrorism''' refers to the use of [[terrorist]] tactics in order to achieve the political goals of [[environmentalism]], examples of this would be using [[violence]] to intimidate [[governments]], [[business]]es or even [[civilian]]s and force them to support environmental causes.

<blockquote>"It remains what we would probably consider the No. 1 domestic terrorism threat, because they have successfully continued to conduct different types of attacks in and around the country," [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,343768,00.html FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko]</blockquote>

Examples of eco-terrorism include attacking, threatening or commit other [[criminal]] acts against targets such as whaling ships, animal-testing laboratories, meat-processing facilities, logging camps, etc.

Sometimes eco-terrorist acts damage the environment they pretend to maintain, for example, animals released from facilities into urban settings have been run over by cars or otherwise died.

Eco-terrorism must not be confused with [[Environmental Terrorism]].

==See Also==
*[[Environmentalism]]
[[Category:Environmentalism]]

Statue

2008-04-17T04:17:55Z

BryonRichards: New page: A statue is a figure carved from a rigid material, typically stone or wood. Michaelangelo's David is considered the finest example of sculpture.

A statue is a figure carved from a rigid material, typically [[stone]] or [[wood]].
[[Image:David M.jpg|right|thumb|Michaelangelo's David is considered the finest example of sculpture.]]

Logical fallacy

2008-04-17T04:14:38Z

BryonRichards: /* Proof by authority */ - Removed liberal bias.

A '''logical fallacy''' is an error in [[formal logic|logical]] reasoning. While the common usage of the word ''fallacy'' would include ''any'' error in [[reason]]ing, in logic a fallacy is defined at a particularly [[deceit|deceptive]] argument which seems correct, but upon further examination is found to be incorrect.<ref name="copi">Copi, Irving M. and Carl Cohen. "Introduction to Logic, 12e". Pearson Education: 2005</ref>

Logical fallacies fall into two general categories: formal fallacies and informal fallacies. Formal fallacies apply to [[deductive argument]]s, and are those which relate to an improper application of a rule, whereas informal fallacies apply to [[inductive argument]]s, and are those which involve the improper use of the content of an argument.

A logical fallacy ''is not'' the same as [[lie|lying]]. A ''lie'' in logic is a [[premise]] that one offers while knowing that it is false.

There are four general categories of fallacies: fallacies of relevance, fallacies of defective or weak induction, fallacies of presumption, and fallacies of ambiguity.

==Fallacies of Relevance==
Fallacies of relevance are fallacies which are due to a lack of a relevant logical connection between [[premise]] and [[conclusion]].

===Appeal to force===
An appeal to [[force]] (Lat: ''argumentum ad baculum'') is an argument which uses a threat of [[violence]] or force as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to force argument follows the form:

*If person A does not accept P, then Q
*Q is a threat of force
*Therefore P is true

For example: "If you do not pay me $30 I will break your leg. Therefore you owe me $30."

===Appeal to pity===
Also called [[emotion]]al appeal, (Lat: ''ad misericordiam'') this fallacy is characterized by a use of emotion as a justification for the conclusion. An appeal to [[pity]] follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Circumstance Q has happened to person P
*Therefore P is true

For example: "Yes, [[police|officer]], I realize I was speeding, but you shouldn't give me a ticket because I was racing to see my wife who is in the [[hospital]]." While this argument uses an emotional appeal to convince the officer not to hand out a citation, there is no logical connection between the premise ("you shouldn't give me a ticket") and the conclusion ("I was racing to see my wife").

===''Argumentum ad hominem''===
: ''Main Article: [[Ad hominem]]''

''Ad hominem'' arguments (Lat: "argument directed toward the man") fall into two forms: ''ad hominem'' abusive and ''ad hominem tu quoque'' (circumstantial).

====''Ad hominem'' abusive====
An ''ad hominem'' is an argument which tries to disprove another argument by attacking the person who made it, rather than by focusing on the actual logical reasoning. The goal of an ''ad hominem'' argument is usually to take focus off of the actual argument by calling attention to a flaw of the person making it. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P
*Person A is Q
*Q is some derogatory description not related to the argument at hand
*Therefore P is false

For example: "We all know that George beats his wife, so obviously he's wrong when he says that we should vote against this proposition." This is fallacious reasoning because the premise ("George beats his wife") does not have a logical link with the conclusion ("George is wrong").

====''Ad hominem tu quoque''====
A ''tu quoque'' argument (Lat: "you're another") is one which argues that, because someone does that which they are arguing against, that person must be wrong. This form of argument follows the form:

*Person A argues that P should not happen
*Person A does P
*Therefore Person A's argument is incorrect

For example: "You can't tell me not to eat cheeseburgers, I just saw you eating one last week!" Another common example is often found in business: "why are you punishing me for dumping waste in the river? My opponent does the exact same thing and you don't punish him!" In this case, dumping waste into the river is wrong (and illegal) regardless of how it is enforced for any other company.

===Genetic fallacy===
In general, this is the attempt to assert or reject a theory by citing its origins as either reputable or disreputable. The usual expression of this fallacy is "consider the source!" Thus it becomes a form either of ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' or of ''argumentum ad hominem'', depending on whether one seeks to verify or disprove the theory by this method. This type of argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Q is true
*P is false
*Therefore Q is false

When the origin of ''evidence'' or of ''premises'' is relevant to the reliability of the same, then asking a hearer to "consider the source" is valid. Judges in courts of [[law]], for example, routinely reject as unreliable the testimony of any witness who has demonstrably lied about a point that matters in the case at hand. The facts that such a witness is asserting might still be true, but they cannot stand without corroboration from another, more reliable witness.

But when corroboration is established, the origins of a conclusion, however tainted, become irrelevant.

As an example, [[Gregor Mendel]] established the genetic theory that remains current today, even though Mendel's experimental technique was badly flawed, and he even stands accused of falsifying key data. But succeeding [[science|scientists]], using accepted methods of verification and statistical assessment, have achieved results consistent with this theory. Thus the theory remains valid even though Mendel's original presentation was fraudulent. Any attempt today to discredit Mendel's theory on account of Mendel's sloppy methods would be an example of a genetic fallacy.<ref name=Genetic>[http://www.fallacyfiles.org/genefall.html Genetic Fallacy] on [http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ The Fallacy Files]</ref>

===Proof by numbers===
Also known as "appeal to the people" (Lat: ''ad populum''), this is an argument that a person bases on the numbers of people holding to its conclusion, rather than on the premises that might support that conclusion. An appeal to the people follows the form:

:Most people believe P
:Therefore P is true

"Ninety nine point nine percent of all respondents can't be wrong" is the classic phraseology of this fallacy One does not effectively disprove such an argument by challenging the numbers. Instead, one reminds the other person that the numbers of people holding to any given conclusion are irrelevant to establishing the truth or falsehood of that conclusion. [[History]] is in fact replete with multiple examples of conclusions that memorable [[science|scientists]] and other great discoverers have shown to be false even though large numbers of people believed them. [[Antoine Lavoisier]], who disproved "phlogiston" as the principle of fire, was one such person. [[Christopher Columbus]] and [[Ferdinand Magellan]] are two others.

===Special pleading===
: ''Main Article: [[Special pleading]]''

[[Special pleading]] means applying to other people a set of standards that one is not willing to apply to oneself, without offering sufficient grounds, called the ''relevant difference'', to support such exemption. Special pleading follows the form:

*If Person X is in set P then Q happens to person X
*Person A is in set P
*Person A cites R circumstance, unrelated to P or Q
*Therefore Person A is not subject to Q

For example: a political or military leader who urges his subjects (or those under his command) to observe "iron rations" without similarly depriving himself leaves himself open to a charge of special pleading.

==Fallacies of Defective or Weak Induction==
Fallacies of defective or weak induction are fallacies which are due to a lack of understanding for how well premises lead to a conclusion.

===Argument from silence===
''Argument from silence'' (in [[Latin]], ''argumentum ab silencio'') or ''argument from ignorance'' (Lat: ''ad ignorantium'') is an assertion which states that, because there is no evidence to support a given argument, the opposite must be true. The fallacy follows the form:
*If P then Q
*P cannot be shown true
*Therefore Q is false

For example: "Nobody has ever seen God, so clearly he doesn't exist".

This fallacy is often associated with and best remembered by the phrase: "the absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence."

===False cause===
False cause (Lat: ''non causa pro causa'') is a fallacy which arises when a poor cause/effect link is used within an argument, especially if coincidence or chance are not taken into account. The fallacy follows the form:

*P causes Q (faulty reasoning)
*P is true
*Therefore Q is true

For example: "I used to be a well paid teacher until I started being a tougher grader. When my students' grades went down, so did my salary." While this sounds like a logical explanation, not all factors are taken into account. For example, the teacher's school could have been subject to budget cuts, or maybe the teacher was overpaid at first and now his salary corrects his true worth.

====''Post hoc ergo propter hoc''====
''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' (Lat: "after the thing, therefore because of the thing") is a subcategory of false cause fallacies. In this type of argument, a close temporal proximity is used as a justification of a cause/effect relationship. ''Post hoc ergo propter hoc'' arguments follow the form:

*P happened, and then Q happened
*Therefore P caused Q

For example: "Right around the time the sun goes up my alarm clock goes off, so the sun causes my alarm clock to go off." Clearly this is not the case.

===Non sequitur===
: ''Main Article: [[Non sequitur]]''

A ''non sequitur'' (Lat: "It does not follow") is an argument which moves from a premise to a conclusion without showing a valid connection, or sometimes any connection at all. This form of argument follows the form:

*P
*Therefore R is true

For example: "Crime rates are high, so we should increase the penalty for drug possession."

===Overgeneralization===
Overgeneralization (also called hasty generalization or converse accident) is an error in reasoning which comes about by making a logical leap far greater than what the data allows. Overgeneralization follows the form:

*P is Q
*P is in R
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "I just read that three kids were arrested yesterday for drug possession. Teens in this country are really going downhill!"

Overgeneralization the central problem in trying to conclude something about a population from a non-representative sample, or about a larger group from a non-representative subset of that group.

====Proving too much====
Proving too much is a form of overgeneralization in which one attempts to use a set of premises to sustain more conclusions than he can reasonably sustain using the argument presented.

===Proof by authority===
Also known as ''argumentum ab auctoritate'' ("argument proceeding from clout") or ''argumentum ad verecundiam'' ("appeal to unqualified authority"), this is an argument that a person bases on authority, either his own or that of another person, rather than on the merits of the position. When the authority involved is a relevant source who has access to more information about the topic than the people discussing it, then the argument becomes a ''citation.'' However, a valid citation must be in an area of study, research, or mental discipline in which the authority being cited is a recognized [[expert]].

*P says Q
*P is an authority in his field
*Therefore Q is true

A classic example of argument from unqualified authority is a reference to a celebrity or religious leader for their opinion on a matter of science or public policy, when that celebrity or cleric has never adequately studied the subject. A standard argument from authority is often used by evolutionists. A notable scientist claims that evolution is true, and based on that the average person is expected to believe in it as well.

==Fallacies of Presumption==
Fallacies of presumption are fallacies in which an unstated or shaky presumption is made.

===Accident===
The fallacy of accident occurs when a generalization is inappropriately applied to an individual. A fallacy of accident follows the form:

*Some P are Q
*R is in P
*Therefore R is Q

For example: "You are from [[Ohio]], which is a [[red state]], so you must be a [[Republican]]".

===Contradiction===
:''Main article: [[Contradiction]]''

A contradiction is a statement that contradicts its own terms. [[Aristotle]] famously stated that contradictions cannot exist. In any case of a contradiction, some of the premises must be false. A contradiction is an argument which includes in its reasoning:

*P
*Not P

===Loaded question===
: ''Main Article: [[Loaded question]]''

A [[loaded question]] is a question that assumes facts, usually unflattering, that are not in evidence, with the intent of trapping the other person into admitting those facts. The classic loaded-question example is "When did you stop beating your wife?" Another example is, "Do you disbelieve in [[global warming]], which 99.9 percent of all reputable scientists now accept?"

===Proof by assertion===
Proof by assertion is an argument that states something as true without offering supporting evidence or attempting to construct a valid argument. This form of argument follows the form:

*P is true

Often the argument is simply repeated over and over, and no evidence for support is given.

Proof by assertion can also be broken down into several subcategories of fallacies: circular reasoning, infinite regression, manufacturing facts from a theory, and your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.

====Circular reasoning====
:''Main article: [[Circular reasoning]]''

[[Circular reasoning]], also called begging the question (Lat: petitio principii), is a form of proof by assertion in which one asserts a premise, then asserts a conclusion from that premise (directly or indirectly), and then tries to show that the last conclusion ''supports'' the original premise.

====Infinite regression====
: ''Main Article: [[Infinite regression]]''

An infinite regression results when one asserts that a given event caused another, and yet that first event requires another, identical event, to cause ''it.'' An infinite regression follows the form:

*P1 causes Q1
*Q2 causes P1
*P3 causes Q2
*Q4 causes P3
*And so on, forever

For example: [[Panspermia]], an alternative to [[abiogenesis]] as a proposition about the origin of life, suffers from the infinite-regression flaw so long as it fails to state positively what conditions could have brought about an origin of life on a planet other than the earth, ''other than'' the alleged mechanism of the "seeding" of life on the earth itself.

====Manufacturing facts from a theory====

Manufacturing facts from a theory is the assertion as fact of an undemonstrated, unobserved idea for no better reason than that a given theory requires that fact.

In the early stages of formulating a model, this sort of behavior is acceptable. But when repeated efforts to demonstrate such a new fact have failed, the proper logical response is to discard or revise the theory, and not merely to assume that the "fact" still exists and someone hasn't tried hard enough to find it. This is especially true when someone develops evidence that the inferred "fact" could not possibly exist.

====Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong====
: ''Main article: [[Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong]]'' 

This fallacy occurs when one theory is judged by the premises and assumptions of another theory, rather than against its own premises and assumptions. This form of fallacy follows the form:

*Theory A says that if P then Q
*Theory B says that if P then R
*Therefore theory A is wrong

For example: "Dinosaurs died 65,000,000 years ago, so the earth couldn't have been created 6,000 years ago."

===Straw man===
:''Main article: [[Straw man fallacy]]

A straw man fallacy occurs by first incorrectly attributing an argument to someone, disproving this argument, then claiming that the person was wrong. A straw man argument follows the form:

*If P then Q
*Person A says P
*Therefore Q

Straw man arguments can sometimes be hard to detect, because a valid statement may be used in a distorted fashion. For example:

*Person A believes that a military program should be cut
*Person B argues that since Person A wants to cut military funding, he wants to leave the country defenseless to attack

This is fallacious reasoning, because there is no way to know ''why'' person A believes what he does, and Person B has used one reason which suits his own purpose. For example, it's quite possible that Person A wants to cut the program because he wants to change the funding to something which he thinks does a ''better'' job at defending the country.

===Tautology===
:''Main article: [[tautology]]''

A [[tautology]] ([[Greek]] '''ταυτα''' ''tauta'', "these") is an argument that becomes a repetition of a definition. Literally it means "the study of this" or "the study of these." Such an argument, or statement, can prove nothing beyond itself and is useless as a premise.

==Fallacies of Ambiguity==
Fallacies of ambiguity are fallacies which arise from ambiguity in language used.

===Amphiboli===
Amphiboli is an ambiguity which arises though loose or awkward phrasing:

For example: "Save soap and waste paper".

===Composition===
The fallacy of composition occurs when the parts of a whole are incorrectly used to describe the whole.

For example: "Since one of the battleships is ready to deploy, the whole fleet is ready to deploy".

===Conflation===
Conflation is the treatment of two different concepts as one.

For example: "Comparing apples to oranges".

===Division===
The fallacy of division occurs when it is argued that what is true for the whole must be true for its parts.

For example: "That company is very important. Since Joe works at that company, he must be very important."

===Equivocation===
Equivocation is the use of word with multiple meanings, and then using a different meaning in the conclusion than in the premise.

For example: "The coach said we should eat light, so take your heavy coat off."

== Related References ==
<references/>
*[http://creationwiki.org/Logical_fallacy Logical fallacy] by [[CreationWiki]]
*[http://www.creationsafaris.com/crevbd.htm The Baloney Detector]
*[http://www.theskepticsguide.org/logicalfallacies.asp SGU-Top 20 Fallacies]
*"The Fine Art of Baloney Detection." Sagan, Carl. ''The Demon-Haunted World, Science As a Candle in the Dark.'' Ballantine: New York, 1996; pp 201-218.

== See Also ==
*[[Conservapedia:Is infinite regression ever valid as a form of reasoning, or acceptable as a way the universe works, or came to be?]]

[[Category:Logic]]

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T04:11:43Z

BryonRichards: /* Darwinism and the Holocaust */

Marble

2008-04-17T04:10:16Z

BryonRichards: New page: '''Marble''' is a metamorphic rock often used by sculptors to create statues. Michaelangelo's David is carved from marble. A Marble may also refer to a small glass ball used to p...

'''Marble''' is a metamorphic rock often used by sculptors to create statues. [[Michaelangelo]]'s [[David]] is carved from marble.

A Marble may also refer to a small glass ball used to play a traditional competitive children's game.

[[Category:Geology]]

Terrorism

2008-04-17T03:54:37Z

BryonRichards: /* See also */

[[Image:Terrormunich.jpg|thumb|right|300px|A member of [[Black September]], a terrorist group, during the [[1972 Munich Olympics]]]]'''[[Terrorism]]''' is defined by the US [[Department of Defense]] as "''the unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.''"

==Terrorist==
One who uses [[terroristic tactics]] to coerce behavior in another person or group is generally considered to fall under the definition of the term "terrorist". One who uses such terroristic tactics ([[suicide bombing]], [[sniper]], [[assassination]], [[random bombing]], etc.) can often be described as such. Aeroflight in the UK [http://www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm], defines it as: ''"One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and/or intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals."''

==Terrorism==
Terrorism is the use of terror (fear), violence, and intimidation to achieve an end. Terrorism also refers to any fear and subjugation produced by this. The term is also used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or ideological goals. Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use, of force, ''intimidation'', and/or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

===Leftist (Radical) Terrorism===

Leftist Terrorism, often referred to as radical terrorism, is terrorism that embraces the fringe left side of the political spectrum (Countries that are hostile to dissident terrorist movements often also see violence from the far left as well). Radical terrorists are future orientated. That is, radicals believe that they are currently being oppressed by some current government, ideology or regime, and therefore they should overthrow that oppressor and install a better government. Radical terrorists often operate with the belief that it is possible to create a utopia for the people. Radicals generally follow the beliefs of Karl Marx and Lenin, with emphasis on the idea of Lenin's vanguard party. Leftist terrorists often choose symbolic targets that emphasize what they see as a an oppressor to the working class. Leftist terrorist tend to target buildings and governmental structures that represent capitalism, or assassinate government leaders and capitalists. Leftist terrorists are self characterized as the young, self-educated elites of society, who are destined to both weaken the oppressive government and at the same time expose the weakness of the government to the exploited workforce. Radicals also tend be more exclusive with what issues they champion. Often, very narrow radicals will focus on one issue, resulting in animal rights, feminist, and eco-terrorists. Radical groups often operated in highly organized and clandestine groups, easily recognizable and orderly. However, leftist groups often had internal divisions in the larger groups that often broke off to create new group.<ref>Gus Martin. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues.</ref>

====Famous Radical Groups====

*[[Al-Qaeda]]
*[[Animal Liberation Front]]
*[[Black Liberation Army]]
*[[Black Panther Party]]
*[[Earth Liberation Front]]
*[[Irish Republican Army]]
*[[John Brown Anti-Klan Committee]]
*[[May 19th Communist Organization]]
*[[Muslim Brotherhood]]
*[[Prairie Fire Organizing Committee]]
*[[Red Army Faction]]
*[[Revolutionary Organization 17 November]]
*[[Symbionese Liberation Army]]
*[[Weather Underground Organization]]
*[[Youth International Party]]

===Right (Reactionary) Terrorism===

Historically, reactionary terrorism has been less organized and less symbolic than leftist terrorists. Reactionary terrorists, like radical terrorists, see the current government as corrupt, but unlike radical leftists, reactionaries do not see the current government as needing revolutionary change. Rather, reactionaries view the government as a perversion of some older, better, government or social order. Reactionary terrorist violence is an attempt to regain the lost government and return to "order" and status quo. Reactionary violence is often justified by a use of mysticism about the old order. Scapegoating is a common tactic among reactionary terrorists to create an enemy for which to blame for the current order. Historical scapegoats among reactionary terrorists have included Jews, foreigners, homosexuals, atheists, leftists, blacks, illegal immigrants, and other racial minorities. Reactionary groups often defined by racial supremacy and a sense of order. Goals of reactionary terrorist include the delegation of minorities back to secondary status with respect to the national majority and a creation of a strong government to sustain order and prevent chaos through a police state. It should be noted however that due to conspiracy theories prevalence in the American fringe right, American reactionaries do not seek the creation of a strong government. Reactionaries often act as individuals or small groups and are not as discriminate with their targets as are leftist groups. This is partially due to the lack of unity between reactionaries and the scope of reactionary targets, often encompassing entire races.<ref>Gus Martin. Understanding Terrorism: Challenges, Perspectives, and Issues.</ref>

====Famous Reactionary Groups====

*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Skinheads]]
*[[New Order]]

== Domestic terrorists ==
In describing domestic terrorism before the House Resources Committee on February 12, 2002, James F. Jarboe, Domestic Terrorism Section Chief of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division, stated:
:''"Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States (or its territories) without foreign direction, committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. During the past decade we have witnessed dramatic changes in the nature of the terrorist threat. In the 1990s, right-wing extremism overtook left-wing terrorism as the most dangerous domestic terrorist threat to the country. During the past several years, special interest extremism, as characterized by the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), has emerged as a serious terrorist threat. Generally, extremist groups engage in much activity that is protected by constitutional guarantees of free speech and assembly. Law enforcement becomes involved when the volatile talk of these groups transgresses into unlawful action. The FBI estimates that the ALF/ELF have committed more than 600 criminal acts in the United States since 1996, resulting in damages in excess of 43 million dollars."'' [http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/jarboe021202.htm]

The following organizations have been accused by the FBI of being involved with domestic terrorism:
*[[Animal Liberation Front]]
*[[Black Panther Party]]
*[[Black Liberation Army]]
*[[Earth Liberation Front]]
*[[Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional]] (FALN)
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[Symbionese Liberation Army]]

== International ==

*[[Al-Qaeda]]

*[[PIRA]]

*[[Hamas]]

==Terrorism and the Media==

The prime goal of any terrorist is mass media exposure. Terrorism cannot recruit new initiates like regular armies, rather when they run out of discontented radicals within their state, they must rely on the media to spread their message. Therefore, media outlets and the press must be careful when choosing a story, as often running a story about a terrorist attack just creates more support for a terrorist cause.

However, terrorist must be careful, as if an attack goes too far, it is possible to cause political backlash against the group, as what happened in the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

== Groups Considered by the United States to be Terrorist Organizations ==

*[[Abu Sayyaf]]
*[[Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade]]
*[[Al-Qaeda]]
*[[Ansar Al-Islam]]
*[[ETA]]
*[[Hamas]]
*[[Hizbollah]]
*[[Jemaa Islamiya]]
*[[Palestinian Islamic Jihad]]
*[[PKK]]
*[[Real ETA]]
*[[Tamil Tigers]]

==Groups directly or indirectly supporting terrorists==
The following organizations within the United States have either directly supported terrorist organizations world-wide through the use of money contributions or media influence, or have prevented enforcement of the laws on the books via court petitions and lawsuits:
*[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]
*[[Council on American-Islamic Relations]] (CAIR)
*[[American Civil Liberties Union]]
*[[Noraid]]

== Groups receiving CIA support ==
The American CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) has the stated objective of ''"Conducting covert action at the direction of the President to preempt threats or achieve US policy objectives."''[https://www.cia.gov/cia/information/mission.html]. Over the course of it's well-documented history, this has involved the establishment, funding and organization of various organizations some have regarded as terrorist, including:

* [[Mujahadeen el-Khalq]]<ref>Michael Ware,[http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/04/05/protected.terrorists/index.html ''U.S. protects Iranian opposition group in Iraq''], CNN, April 6, 2007.</ref>
* [[Kosovo Liberation Army]] (KLA)<ref>Jerry Seper, [http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/KLA-drugs.html ''KLA rebels train in terrorist camps''], The Washington Times, May 4, 1999.</ref><ref>Gary Wilson, [http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/68b.php ''Who's the KLA? German document Reveals Secret CIA Role''].</ref><ref>Peter Beaumont, Ed Vulliamy and Paul Beaver,[http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,449923,00.html ''CIA's bastard army ran riot in Balkans' backed extremists''], The Observer, March 11, 2001</ref><ref> Andy Wilcoxson, [http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/kerry101804.htm ''Kerry Campaign Financed by Terrorists''], October 18, 2004.</ref>
*[[Front for the Advancement and Progress of Haïti]] (FRAPH)<ref>Reed Lindsay,[http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1163909,00.html ''Cold War returns to US backyard''], The Observer, March 7, 2004</ref>.

== War on terror ==

===Fighting terrorism===
*[http://lightonthings.blogspot.com#fight The Reality Show - The Watch the Fight] links to many sites that deal with the 'war on terror'.
*[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] has compiled a [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,335500,00.html list of known terror plots] thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.

==See also==
*[[FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List]]
*[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]
*[[Osama Bin Laden]]
*[[Homicide Bombers]]
*[[Pyroterrorism]]
*[[Sudden Jihad Syndrome]]

==References==

<references/>
[[category:politics]]
[[Category: Terrorism]]

Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T03:50:25Z

BryonRichards: I think that might be better.

'''Evolutionists''', or believers in the [[theory of evolution]], have a trademark style of argument that includes:

* attempted [[proof by assertion]]. The classic case of such conduct was Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s advocacy of [[uniformitarianism]], which establishes the required [[deep time]] scale and as such is the very linchpin of the evolutionary paradigm.
* [[argumentum ad hominem]], or excessive personal attacks that often include childish name-calling and personal put-downs, more so than other debaters
* [[proof by authority]], or highlighting their own academic credentials or those of their allies in support of their theories. An academic credential can include anything from a publishing credit (especially in a "peer-reviewed" journal) to a degree to a particular academic appointment. However, [[Ben Stein]] (''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'') shows that evolutionists add this twist: they systematically deny to others, whenever they can, any opportunity to acquire similar credentials.
* use of bizarre jargon such as [[quote mining]] and [[moving the goalposts]]
* inordinate attempt to demonize the other side, as in overuse of the term [[creationist]] and [[fundamentalist]]. The latter example includes the attempt to show that [[Christian]] fundamentalists are morally equivalent to [[Muslim]] fundamentalists, whether in their extreme rejection of modernity or in their practice and advocacy of [[terrorism]].
* an astounding lack of understanding -- or denial -- of how most great scientists and mathematicians either rejected evolution or were silent about it
* an equal lack of understanding, or denial, that most of the greatest scientists in the Western world asserted the reality of [[creation]] and the [[Great Flood]] prior to the [[Enlightenment]], or else a denial that their scientific achievements (including those of [[Sir Isaac Newton]]!) matter today.
* frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in defining evolution as change and [[survival of the fittest]] as those who survive
* projection—literally, "throwing off" their own faults on the other side, in that they accuse the other side of doing the very things that they themselves do.
* claiming to enjoy scientific debate yet often refusing to debate creationists.
* refusing to allow the possibility that God exists.
* claiming that so-called "theistic evolution" is possible, which would indicate that God lied about the events that took place in Genesis.
* ignoring the clear historical link between [[Darwinism]], [[Eugenics]], and the [[Holocaust]].

(add more)

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T03:49:36Z

BryonRichards: /* Darwinism and the Holocaust */

Talk:Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T03:46:37Z

BryonRichards: New page: ==Darwinism and the Holocaust== DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. ...

Evolutionist style

2008-04-17T03:41:05Z

BryonRichards:

'''Evolutionists''', or believers in the [[theory of evolution]], have a trademark style of argument that includes:

* attempted [[proof by assertion]]. The classic case of such conduct was Sir [[Charles Lyell]]'s advocacy of [[uniformitarianism]], which establishes the required [[deep time]] scale and as such is the very linchpin of the evolutionary paradigm.
* [[argumentum ad hominem]], or excessive personal attacks that often include childish name-calling and personal put-downs, more so than other debaters
* [[proof by authority]], or highlighting their own academic credentials or those of their allies in support of their theories. An academic credential can include anything from a publishing credit (especially in a "peer-reviewed" journal) to a degree to a particular academic appointment. However, [[Ben Stein]] (''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'') shows that evolutionists add this twist: they systematically deny to others, whenever they can, any opportunity to acquire similar credentials.
* use of bizarre jargon such as [[quote mining]] and [[moving the goalposts]]
* inordinate attempt to demonize the other side, as in overuse of the term [[creationist]] and [[fundamentalist]]. The latter example includes the attempt to show that [[Christian]] fundamentalists are morally equivalent to [[Muslim]] fundamentalists, whether in their extreme rejection of modernity or in their practice and advocacy of [[terrorism]].
* an astounding lack of understanding -- or denial -- of how most great scientists and mathematicians either rejected evolution or were silent about it
* an equal lack of understanding, or denial, that most of the greatest scientists in the Western world asserted the reality of [[creation]] and the [[Great Flood]] prior to the [[Enlightenment]], or else a denial that their scientific achievements (including those of [[Sir Isaac Newton]]!) matter today.
* frequent reliance on [[circular reasoning]], as in defining evolution as change and [[survival of the fittest]] as those who survive
* projection—literally, "throwing off" their own faults on the other side, in that they accuse the other side of doing the very things that they themselves do.
(add more)
* claiming to enjoy scientific debate yet often refusing to debate creationists.
* refusing to allow the possibility that God exists.
* claiming that so-called "theistic evolution" is possible, which would indicate that God lied about the events that took place in Genesis.
* refusing to accept the clear link between [[Darwinism]], [[Eugenics]], and the [[Holocaust]].

Conservative values

2008-04-16T05:46:40Z

BryonRichards: adding a few

'''Conservative values''' include:

* placing ideas and principles above personal desire
* emphasizing charity rather than compulsory tax-and-spend programs
* teaching [[self-help]]
* supporting [[self-defense]]
* recognizing the [[media]] for its [[liberal bias|bias]], [[media bullying|bullying]], deception and waste of time
* downplaying significance of wealth, disparities in wealth, and materialism in general<ref>''See, e.g.,'' the [[Coase Theorem]]</ref>
* emphasizing self reliance and being able to keep the fruits of one's labor
* giving primacy to God's creation and God's law in judging all worldly matters
* eliminating government regulation of the free market
* understanding that a rising tide lifts all boats, e.g. that when tax cuts are given they help everyone.
(please add)

'''Conservative values''' recognize the adversarial nature of politics, and life. As a result of their ability to deal with adversity, '''conservative values''' are superb in defending against addiction, anxiety, depression, self-destructive behavior, and other mental disorders.

== References ==

<references/>

Western world

2008-04-15T05:57:31Z

BryonRichards: New page: The Western world is made up of those European countries allied against the former Soviet Union also known as the Eastern bloc. The Western world is considered to include Western [[Eu...

The Western world is made up of those European countries allied against the former [[Soviet Union]] also known as the Eastern bloc. The Western world is considered to include Western [[Europe]], the [[United States]], [[Canada]], [[Mexico]], [[Australia]], and [[New Zealand]] (although these latter countries are geographically in the Far East). Other politcal divisions include the Far East ([[Asia]]n and Southeast Asian countries), the Middle East (typically [[Islam]]ic countries), and the third world (South America and sub-[[Sahara]]n [[Africa]]).

[[Category: Geography]]

Media bullying

2008-04-15T05:48:54Z

BryonRichards:

'''Media bullying''' is aggressive [[bias]] by the [[media]] in the attempt to influence the outcome of an event. The event can be an [[election]], an expected statement by an individual, or even a sports contest.
[[category:media]]

Religions of America

2008-04-15T05:47:36Z

BryonRichards:

'''Religions of America''': Ferment and Faith in An Age of Crisis, edited by Leo Rosten.

The edition copywritten in 1975 is presented in two parts:
*Part I: Religious [[Belief]]s and Credos
**The editor provided representatives from the 16 largest denominations in the United States who are joined by agnostics, scientists, and the "Unchurched"
*Part II: Almanac
**Statistics, public opinion polls, basic documents, sociological résumés, and psychological analyses of the role, conflicts, influence and trends which characterize US religion along with material from the editor himself.

The book has been released in various editions since the 1950s; first copyright is 1952. The reader is able to learn directly from key leaders of various religious groups what is and is not a part of their faith. The questions cover a broad-spectrum of faith and include such touchstone issues as the religions views on abortion, divorce, ecumenism, homosexuality, ordination of women as ministers, and views of race.

==Part I: Religious Beliefs and Credos==

<blockquote>
<big>"I cheerfully admit to bluntness in my queries: about [[God]], the [[Bible]], [[sin]], [[salvation]], [[heaven]], [[hell]], [[divorce]], the status of [[women]], and the status of black people, [[birth control]], [[abortion]], [[homosexuality]], life after death, new 'charismatic' movements, the defection of priests and nuns, attitudes toward other [[faith]]s, and so on." Leo Rosten</big>
</blockquote>

The following are the denominations or belief systems covered, the person responding as a representative of the faith, and some questions asked:

*What Is a [[Baptist]]? by William B. Lipphard and Frank A. Sharp
**Why don't Baptists baptize infants?
**How do Baptists propogate their faith?
*What Is a [[Catholic]]? by Donald W. Hendricks
**What was the Second [[Vatican]] Council?
**What is the real meaning of Mass?
*What Is a [[Christian Scientist]]? by J. Buroughs Stokes
**What is the basic premise of Christian Science?
**What is a Christian Science Practioner?
*Who Are the [[Disciples of Christ]] (''Christian Church'')? by James E. Craig and Robert L. Friedly
**Is the [[Church]] related to the "Churches of Christ"?
**Do you believe in the "priesthood of the laity"?
*What Is an [[Episcopal]]ian? by W. Norman Pittenger
**What is the Episcopalian attitude toward Roman Catholicism?
**What are the basic beliefs of Episcopalianism?
*What Is a [[Greek Orthodox]]? by Arthur Douropulos
**Is the Greek Orthodox Church the same as teh Eastern Orthodox Church?
**What are the sacraments or "mysteria" recognized by the Orthodox Church?
*What Is a [[Jehovah's Witness]]es? by Milton G. Henschel
**Where did the name come from?
**What will become of the billions of people who have lived on the earth?
*What Is a [[Jew]]? by Morris N. Kertzer
**Exactly what is a [[Rabbi]] and what does he do?
**What are the "kosher" laws?
*What Is a [[Lutheran]]? by G. Elson Ruff and Albert P. Stauderman
**Do Lutherans worship any sins?
**How do Lutheran sacraments differ from Roman Catholic sacraments?
*What Is a [[Methodist]]? by Ralph W. Sockman and Paul A. Washburn
**How do Methodists regard the Bible?
**Do Methodists believe in heaven and hell?
*What Is a [[Mormon]]? by Richard L. Evans
**What is the [[Book of Mormon]]?
**What is the Mormon concept of marriage?
*What Is a [[Presbyterian]]? by John S. Bonnell
**What is the basis of the Presbyterian Creed?
**Do Presbyterians employ the confessional?
*What Is a [[Quaker]]? by Richmond P. Miller and R.W. Tucker
**What does "Quaker" mean?
**Do Quakers have a formal creed?
*What Is a [[Seventh-Day Adventist]]? by Arthur S. Maxwell
**What do Adventists believe about Christ's return?
**What makes Adventists think Christ is coming soon?
*The "Unchurched" Americans": What Do They Believe? by Edward L. Ericson
**What is a [[Secularist]], or a [[Humanist]]?
**How can you claim to be religious and not be in God?
*What Is a [[Unitarian Universalist]]? by Karl M. Chworowsky and Christopher Gist Raible
**How do Unitarian Universalists regard the Bible?
**How do Unitarian Universalists view the virgin birth? the resurrection?
*What Is the [[United Church of Christ]]? by The Church Office of Communication
**What sacraments does the United Church of Christ recognize?
**Who is the head of the United Church of Christ?
*What Is an [[Agnostic]]? by Bertrand Russell
**Are agnostics [[atheist]]s?
**Does an agnostic believe in a hereafter, in heaven or hell?
*The Religion of a Scientist by Warren Weaver
**No questions asked, an essay by Warren Weaver

==Part II: Almanac==
Note: Since book was published in 1975 the data contained would be reflective of dates prior to publication.

*Abortion
*"Activism": The Growth or Decline of Religious Groups Related to their Social Activism in the 1960s and 1970s
*Affirmations of Religious Identity: Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Agnostics
*Belief in God
*Belief in Heaven, Hell, the Devil, Life after Death
*The Bible
*Bible Reading in the United States
*Birth Control
*Black Americans and the Churches
*Catholics: Facts, Opinions, Trends, Ferment, and Schisms
*Church Attendance in the United States
*Church Membership: Seventy-Nine Denominations
*The Clergy
*Denominations and Their "Family" Groups
*Divorce and Religion
*Ecumenism: History, Hopes and Disappointments
*Education in Religious Schools in the United States
*Family Size and Planning: Polls and Statistics
*Federal Aid to Education
*Holy Days and Religious Observances: AlL Faiths
*Homosexuality: The Churches and Psychiatry
*Humanists: Manifesto II
*Influence of Religion: Opinion Polls
*Intermarriage-Statistics, Opinions, and Conversion Data: Catholics, Protestants, and Jews
*Jews
*Lutherans: Recent Crises
*Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements
*Politics and Religious Affiliation
*Prayer in Public School
*Prejudice and Religion
*Religion in U.S. History
*Youth and Religion

'''Reference'''
*Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in Age of Crisis, edited by Leo Rosten (© 1975, Simon and Schuster)

[[category:Religion]]

Religions of America

2008-04-15T05:47:23Z

BryonRichards: undeadend

'''Religions of America''': Ferment and Faith in An Age of Crisis, edited by Leo Rosten.

The edition copywritten in 1975 is presented in two parts:
*Part I: Religious [[Belief]]s and Credos
**The editor provided representatives from the 16 largest denominations in the United States who are joined by agnostics, scientists, and the "Unchurched"
*Part II: Almanac
**Statistics, public opinion polls, basic documents, sociological résumés, and psychological analyses of the role, conflicts, influence and trends which characterize US religion along with material from the editor himself.

The book has been released in various editions since the 1950s; first copyright is 1952. The reader is able to learn directly from key leaders of various religious groups what is and is not a part of their faith. The questions cover a broad-spectrum of faith and include such touchstone issues as the religions views on abortion, divorce, ecumenism, homosexuality, ordination of women as ministers, and views of race.

==Part I: Religious Beliefs and Credos==

<blockquote>
<big>"I cheerfully admit to bluntness in my queries: about [[God]], the [[Bible]], [[sin]], [[salvation]], [[heaven]], [[hell]], [[divorce]], the status of [[women]], and the status of [[black people]], [[birth control]], [[abortion]], [[homosexuality]], life after death, new 'charismatic' movements, the defection of priests and nuns, attitudes toward other [[faith]]s, and so on." Leo Rosten</big>
</blockquote>

The following are the denominations or belief systems covered, the person responding as a representative of the faith, and some questions asked:

*What Is a [[Baptist]]? by William B. Lipphard and Frank A. Sharp
**Why don't Baptists baptize infants?
**How do Baptists propogate their faith?
*What Is a [[Catholic]]? by Donald W. Hendricks
**What was the Second [[Vatican]] Council?
**What is the real meaning of Mass?
*What Is a [[Christian Scientist]]? by J. Buroughs Stokes
**What is the basic premise of Christian Science?
**What is a Christian Science Practioner?
*Who Are the [[Disciples of Christ]] (''Christian Church'')? by James E. Craig and Robert L. Friedly
**Is the [[Church]] related to the "Churches of Christ"?
**Do you believe in the "priesthood of the laity"?
*What Is an [[Episcopal]]ian? by W. Norman Pittenger
**What is the Episcopalian attitude toward Roman Catholicism?
**What are the basic beliefs of Episcopalianism?
*What Is a [[Greek Orthodox]]? by Arthur Douropulos
**Is the Greek Orthodox Church the same as teh Eastern Orthodox Church?
**What are the sacraments or "mysteria" recognized by the Orthodox Church?
*What Is a [[Jehovah's Witness]]es? by Milton G. Henschel
**Where did the name come from?
**What will become of the billions of people who have lived on the earth?
*What Is a [[Jew]]? by Morris N. Kertzer
**Exactly what is a [[Rabbi]] and what does he do?
**What are the "kosher" laws?
*What Is a [[Lutheran]]? by G. Elson Ruff and Albert P. Stauderman
**Do Lutherans worship any sins?
**How do Lutheran sacraments differ from Roman Catholic sacraments?
*What Is a [[Methodist]]? by Ralph W. Sockman and Paul A. Washburn
**How do Methodists regard the Bible?
**Do Methodists believe in heaven and hell?
*What Is a [[Mormon]]? by Richard L. Evans
**What is the [[Book of Mormon]]?
**What is the Mormon concept of marriage?
*What Is a [[Presbyterian]]? by John S. Bonnell
**What is the basis of the Presbyterian Creed?
**Do Presbyterians employ the confessional?
*What Is a [[Quaker]]? by Richmond P. Miller and R.W. Tucker
**What does "Quaker" mean?
**Do Quakers have a formal creed?
*What Is a [[Seventh-Day Adventist]]? by Arthur S. Maxwell
**What do Adventists believe about Christ's return?
**What makes Adventists think Christ is coming soon?
*The "Unchurched" Americans": What Do They Believe? by Edward L. Ericson
**What is a [[Secularist]], or a [[Humanist]]?
**How can you claim to be religious and not be in God?
*What Is a [[Unitarian Universalist]]? by Karl M. Chworowsky and Christopher Gist Raible
**How do Unitarian Universalists regard the Bible?
**How do Unitarian Universalists view the virgin birth? the resurrection?
*What Is the [[United Church of Christ]]? by The Church Office of Communication
**What sacraments does the United Church of Christ recognize?
**Who is the head of the United Church of Christ?
*What Is an [[Agnostic]]? by Bertrand Russell
**Are agnostics [[atheist]]s?
**Does an agnostic believe in a hereafter, in heaven or hell?
*The Religion of a Scientist by Warren Weaver
**No questions asked, an essay by Warren Weaver

==Part II: Almanac==
Note: Since book was published in 1975 the data contained would be reflective of dates prior to publication.

*Abortion
*"Activism": The Growth or Decline of Religious Groups Related to their Social Activism in the 1960s and 1970s
*Affirmations of Religious Identity: Catholics, Jews, Protestants, Agnostics
*Belief in God
*Belief in Heaven, Hell, the Devil, Life after Death
*The Bible
*Bible Reading in the United States
*Birth Control
*Black Americans and the Churches
*Catholics: Facts, Opinions, Trends, Ferment, and Schisms
*Church Attendance in the United States
*Church Membership: Seventy-Nine Denominations
*The Clergy
*Denominations and Their "Family" Groups
*Divorce and Religion
*Ecumenism: History, Hopes and Disappointments
*Education in Religious Schools in the United States
*Family Size and Planning: Polls and Statistics
*Federal Aid to Education
*Holy Days and Religious Observances: AlL Faiths
*Homosexuality: The Churches and Psychiatry
*Humanists: Manifesto II
*Influence of Religion: Opinion Polls
*Intermarriage-Statistics, Opinions, and Conversion Data: Catholics, Protestants, and Jews
*Jews
*Lutherans: Recent Crises
*Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements
*Politics and Religious Affiliation
*Prayer in Public School
*Prejudice and Religion
*Religion in U.S. History
*Youth and Religion

'''Reference'''
*Religions of America: Ferment and Faith in Age of Crisis, edited by Leo Rosten (© 1975, Simon and Schuster)

[[category:Religion]]

States of the Unites States of America

2008-04-15T05:43:19Z

BryonRichards: Redirecting to Category:States of the United States

#REDIRECT [[Category: States of the United States]]

States

2008-04-15T05:42:54Z

BryonRichards: Redirecting to Category:States of the United States

#REDIRECT [[Category: States of the United States]]

Photograph

2008-04-15T05:42:02Z

BryonRichards: New page: A '''photograph''' is an image captured by a camera onto film. Category:Art

A '''photograph''' is an image captured by a [[camera]] onto film.

[[Category:Art]]

Category:Business

2008-04-15T05:28:20Z

BryonRichards: New page: Category:Business

[[Category:Business]]

Bitterness

2008-04-15T05:21:26Z

BryonRichards:

'''Bitterness''' can refer to the taste of sour food, or it can refer to the emotion of resentment. On April 6, 2008, [[Barack Obama]] stated that when people lose their jobs they become bitter which causes them to turn to religion and gun ownership, as if these were negative things.<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/clinton-team-lunges-at-obama-hunts-for-opening-over-small-town-america-remarks/</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category: Food and Drink]]

Bitterness

2008-04-15T05:20:47Z

BryonRichards: How about this instead.