Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:David R

2007-07-08T03:38:26Z

BushRules12: Wikipedia's liberal bias is no longer funny

<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; background-color: #FFAF00; color: white; height: 95px; border-color: #FFFFFF; border-width: 3px; border-style: dashed; padding: 10px; margin-bottom: -3px; margin-left: -3px; width: 807px">

{{User Talk1}}
</div>

<div style="-moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft: 16px; float: right; background-color: #FFFFFF; width: 10%; height: 160px; margin-top: 20px; text-align: center;">
<div style="color: #FFAF00">Archives [[User talk:David R/Archive 1|Archive 1]]</div>
</div>

<div style="width: 100%; background-color: #FFAF00; height: 100%; color: white; padding-bottom: 20px;">
<div style="-moz-border-radius-topleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-topright: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft: 20px; -moz-border-radius-bottomright: 20px; border:3px dashed #FFFFFF; width: 75%; margin: 0 auto 1em auto; padding: 5px; background: #FFFFFF; color: #000000">

Ha ha David. Great banner!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! :) I kind of borrowed from yours a bit and then changed a lot around. I still haven't fully grasped how to use divs in Wiki; my HTML tables don't seem to work very well. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:12, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

== Thanks. ==

Honestly, I thought it was a programming error that my name was mentioned in his comment. Please forgive, I'm VERY new to the site. I haven't gotten a straight answer on this: Is any variant on the word Sex forbidden on this site?

Still, you should not have edited his comment. As for your question, I'm not exactly sure what you want to put up. I suppose a good safety measure is to not write anything you wouldn't like your little brother or sister to see. I don't know what that is for you, but you will certainly know if you cross the line. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:53, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== personal talk pages ==

I don't have a problem with someone clearing their own talk page. replace it if you must, please don't block someone for doing it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 00:03, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk pages can be placed in Archives, but they shouldn't be cleared. I don't know what user you really are, but last I heard, comments are not supposed to be deleted unless they're obscene. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:05, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==Complaint==

Please, tell me how my edit violated any of those "Commandments". [[User:_Ace|_Ace]]

See [[Conservapedia:Commandments|Commandment #3]]. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:57, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Please cite the commandment I violated and the Edit that violated it. Also, I think it should be added in the Commandments that conservative bias must be found in all edits. [[User:_Patriot101|_Patriot101

==Proposed Block Policy==
There has recently been some disagreement over blocks, so I have created a [[User:CPAdmin1/Proposed Block Policy|proposed block policy]]
Tell me what you think. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 23:23, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 23:58, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

== Hard to read ==

The whit lettering on the bluish background ar hard to read, i suggest changing it to black lettering. --[[User:CPAdmin1|CPAdmin1]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the suggestion. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:28, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== ==

This looks like your MySpace... [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Haha....yeah, it was definitely a guideline. :) --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:41, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

== The word "parody" ==

Please forgive me for pointing this out... People are starting to use the word "parody" a little bit incorrectly, and it's starting to grate on me. If your comments were just typographical errors, my apologies.

A "parody" is to writing what a "caricature" is to sketching. A parody is a piece of writing which imitates its target, but exaggerates or warps it for comic effect. For example, the 1991 movie "Hot Shots!" was a parody of the movie "Top Gun."

The parody is the work, not the person who creates it.

In the context of Conservapedia, it is the remarks or articles which an insincere user writes, not the user himself. The user would properly be called '''a parodist,''' not "a parody." Similarly, one would not say "you are not that good a parody" but "you are not that good '''at''' parody." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:56, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

== RFB? ==

*Please no more unilaterial actions as a Sysop. Who was this approved by? --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:37, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

See your talk page. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:39, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

*Andy has explained, David. Please try and let a guy know about stuff...this has all been very controversial, and my intention was to avoid more pot-stirring, and trouble. Sorry for the confusion. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Tigers letter D==
Now how do you go about making one of those little info boxes, like what you have for the Yankees, but inserting the Old English letter "D" in it? I would love to have one for the Detroit Tigers. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
::Many thanks for the userbox, and to a fan of (and I admit it!) the greatest baseball team in history...but I still love my Tigers! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== nice user page! ==

Nice user page! The best I've seen!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Haha, thanks. Do you use Mozilla Firefox? It works best in that browser. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:00, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Don't let the new position go to your head if you get it. ==

Don't let the new position go to your head if you get it. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:40, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== Lactose intolerance ==

I will only say this once, and then move on, and let you decide what to do.

Lactose intolerance is an example of microevolution, which creation scientists have no problem with. [http://www.trueauthority.com/cvse/micromacro.htm] And the claims of the natural selection are supported by reference 2 of the article. [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/070401_lactose] You don't have to scrub a sentence just because it has "natural" and "selection" in succession with each other.

But I will let you decide what to do. [[User:Sterile|Sterile]] 09:03, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

==Red Sox logo Image:BOS Red Sox.png==
I have made a userbox thingy for Juaquin Martinez, as he is a Red Sox fan, and I did use the logo...with the required warning that it might be changed, etc. I am thinking of the possibility that such a logo can be used by a fan as mere fan support for his team, but for that we'd have to check with the owner of the logo. Do you think it's possible? If so, then we could have the real thing displayed on our pages! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I sent a message to the powers that be on the Tigers official website about the fan-use of their logo yesterday. I should get an answer shortly, and I'm thinking that they allow it; this reasoning is based on official fan-sites which support a positive image of the Tigers. If it's a yes, then the same rule may apply for the Yankees...so get to writing them! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

====the bad news====
This came in my email from Ron Wade, an official from the internet side of the Detroit Tigers website:
:''"I'm sorry, but use of our marks or logos on the internet is prohibited. Major League Baseball Advanced Media has exclusive internet rights to MLB team marks and logos. The only exceptions are news gathering and reporting sites and only if the use of the logo is in conjunction with box scores or game summaries. (ESPN, Fox Sports, etc.)"''

So that means no one can use a baseball logo as a fan on a website. Both your's and mine are different enough to get away with it, but Juaquin's is not. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:52, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'd better remove a couple of sports logos off of my page knowing that now. It's probably safe enough, but I'd rather err on the side of caution. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:58, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

== 6000 years old? ==

I'm honestly not in the mood for an argument (major migraine) but could you just sum up how the heck you can think the worlds only 6000 years old?? I don't get it. Thx[[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 23:49, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I will let Andy know about icewedge ==

I will let Andy know about icewedge. I will send him an email. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:51, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== I have to leave in 5 minutes. I will let andy know about icewedge ==

I have to leave in 5 minutes. I will let andy know about icewedge. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== An idea to build more internet traffic to conservapedia ==

Wikipedia gives the top 1,000 articles for its website as can be seen here: http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/%7Eleon/stats/wikicharts/index.php?lang=en&wiki=enwiki&ns=articles&limit=1000&month=04%2F2007&mode=view

I think we might be able to drive more http://www.google.com and other traffic to Conservapedia if we make the following articles at Conservapedia better based on the first 100 or so most popular articles at Wikipedia:

- [[United States]]

- [[Columbine High School massacre]]

- [[World War II]]

- [[Global warming]]

- [[World War I]]

- [[Adolf Hitler]]

- [[Battle of Thermopylae]]

- [[Canada]]

- [[William Shakespeare]]

- The [[Holocaust]]

- [[Abraham Lincoln]]

- [[Jesus]]

- [[Vietnam War]]

- [[China]]

'''What do you think about starting a Conservapedia improvement drive for these articles?''' Clearly these are serious subjects that people are interested in based on Wikipedia statistics. Therefore, I believe from a strategic point of view in regards to creating internet traffic to Conservapedia it makes a lot of sense to start a improvement drive in regards to these Conservapedia articles. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:56, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why did you delete my page? ==

I worked hard on that article, why did you delete it? --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 15:34, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

: What if you restored it, and I worked some more on it? Obviously I had not completed it, it is simply convenient for me to work on articles small parts at a time. --[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 15:48, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, which pieces were "said pieces"? I assume you mean the examples, which are vital to the article. If they were not there it would be infintely harder and more tedious to explain what exactly a "Your mum" joke is, and the end result would be just as offensive. (And I fail to see how the jokes could be taken as offensive when they are not directed at anyone.)

::: Fair enough, you're the boss, I suppose.--[[User:Protocletos|Protocletos]] 15:56, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: Apologies, by boss, I just meant someone whose rank was superior to mine. I agree with what you say and will do my best to clean up the article if you restore it.

== User page in main space category ==

Typically, it is considered good wiki style to not include user pages in main space categories. You have your user page in [[:Category:Anti-secular humanist]]. Would you consider either removing that or moving it to a User category name space? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:16, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

: I am refering to [[User:David R]] - not [[User talk:David R]]. These are probably included from templates. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:33, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

== Wikipedia's liberal bias is no longer funny ==

Not that it was ever funny but now their are bias in seemingly innocent articles. I am a waste management supervisor and today I was reading the article on portable toilets and found many traces of liberalness. I mean now they have porta potties nothings sacred!!! I am so appalled I don't know who to voice my concerns with. You seem really knowledgeable and maybe you can give me some advise on how to deal with this--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:38, 7 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:George W. Bush

2007-05-09T03:22:37Z

BushRules12: Protected articles

{{protect|MountainDew}}

== Liberal Media? ==
um, isn't that an opinion phrase? I don't really think there's a scientific basis for such a remark.

:::Didn't you hear? This is conservapedia, a place where ignorance coalesces into a gungy goo of people who think their opinions are always right. Anyone who doesn't agree with them is a goshdang Communist! Liberal Media, haha, oh boy that's a larf.

:::::Everyone thinks their opinions are right. That's why they're their opinions. But you are right, the phrase "liberal media" has become an oft-lampooned indication of conservative paranoia. The use of it will only serve to make this article sound Stephen Colbert-ish. Not only do I think the phrase should be deleted; I think it should become the policy of conservapedia to strive to avoid it in the future. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:42, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::The [[Liberal-Biased Media]] is the GOP's equivalent of Hillary Clinton's [[Vast Right-wing Conspiracy]], as well as being an all-purpose scapegoat from when the facts turn out to have an anti-Bush agenda. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 21:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Considering this page has been locked, I'd greatly appreciate it if an administrator would remove this clearly biased phrase.--[[User:Ge Ming|Ge Ming]] 15:38, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Edits ==

1) Removed the line about Bush executing Saddam. Saddam was executed by the Iraqis under Iraqi law.
2) Removed the un-encyclopediac comment about John Kerry.

Why's this page locked? It's not going to get any better if you don't let people add to it.

The SysOp locked it b/c of rampant vandalism. It's an obivous target for such action{{citation needed}}.

This page should be unlocked. All of Bush's good (and bad) deeds will not be known to the world until this page is unlocked. The point of our site here is to inform the people, and without people interacting and adding information, Conservapedia will die out. People will go elsewhere to a more democratic environment, and that is not good for this site.

That's just fine. The Liberals can go to Communistpedia, and the people who want a more REPUBLICAN Wiki can come here! --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 21:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The liberals would probably be far more intelligent than the people that frequent this site and go to wikipedia [[User:You're wrong|You're wrong]] 15:17, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::communists can go to http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php/Main_Page [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 15:21, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'd rather Communism if Fascism were the other choice. If you really need to think you're always right to sleep at night, then be my guest my lil' Yank friend.

Shouldn't the first sentence read Name, birth date, political party, etc. and then say only President of the United States? After all, it's not like there is a Democratic President. --[[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 16:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

If they didn't know bush was republican we don't want them on the site.

::I think by "democratic," the above poster (who failed to sign his/her comment) was referring to the political idea of democracy rather than the American political party, [[User:Ballon|Ballon]]. And let's try not to deride each other with pejoratives like "commie" and "fascist." Anyway, I agree that this page needs to be watched closely. It is an obvious location for vandalism. However, very sensible changes (exempli gratia: moving references of George Bush's religious values to a section other than "Foreign Policy") have been suggested on this page, and they seem to have been largely ignored. This article is not passable in its current state. The sysops must either unlock the page or at the very least make changes that we agree upon on this talk page.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Photo ==

Somebody deleted the body of this page and substituted a photo-- can anybody verify that this photo actually is President Bush? (Could we maybe print the photo as a thumbnail, and link to the large photo?)

I believe the photo is one of Prince Harry, who has recently taken up active duty in Iraq for the UK, in compliance with the American notion that leaders such as George Washington and the sons of prominent and wealthy people should be involved in and at risk from armed conflict for their country in equal measure to the legions of the poor they send to do their work for them.

==Lacking Substance==
Conservapedia will go absolutely nowhere if its alternative viewpoints from wikipedia consist purerly in pejorative adjectives and vague speculative references. Disprove alternative opinions with facts, not derogatory adjectives and slanted phrases. I would provide examples, but they are more than clear and numerous.

This article is useless. It is a stub, which is fine, except that this is GWB, not some arcane entry. This is made more eggregious since this page has undergone many edits, and nobody has decided to actually make it a full article, just back and forth fluff. I admit that I don't particularly want to put the work in, because I don't care about this entry, I just think that conservapedia needs a credible entry for GWB to be taken seriously. Compare with [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush Wikipedia's entry].

As a starting point, how about information that would be useful, that you don't hear about in the liberal media; Major (and minor) legislative pushes, both successful and not. Who were his good conservative judicial appointments? --[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:51, 24 February 2007 (EST)

== Nation building ==

It's interesting that Bush's stated opposition to nation building isn't modified to show that he has been involved in exactly that in both Afghanistan & Iraq for over half his time in office.

I'd argue he hasn't done much nation-building in either of those places. :(
It is weird, though--having a site for Conservative politics and having such dinky articles about President Bush and Iraq is like having a wiki about oceanography and not mentioning water. --[[User:Sandbagger|Sandbagger]] 14:38, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I am concerned that the entry reads as if it were written by a gushing fan instead of one who spent significant time researching the President. If the point of conservapedia is to become a credible resource intellectually honest about its bias, we must demand these entries be written at the highest standard possible. This is gossipy drivel; the libs are bound to cackle over it. }-(

== Economy ==

Since when is Exxon Mobile the bellwether of the US economy?

:Whoever wrote that is probably a Liberal grousing about the fact that Bush has made his corporate benefactors a great deal richer by strip-mining the American economy. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:25, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Paul O'Niell (the man who rescued Alcoa) tried to talk economic sense to Bush. Good advice fell on deaf ears. Then Cheney arranged his dismissal.

I've just visited the Yahoo! article linked to by reference 7, and it says nothing about unemployment being at an all-time low in March, 2007. In fact, the article's assessment of the economy is quite bleak.

Regarding “the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD” it should be noted that the source that is cited states the opposite. The stock market hit it’s highest in January 2000, before GWB took office.

Per the article quoted: “Oct. 9, 2002, the Dow Jones industrial average, battered by the worst stock market meltdown since the 1929 crash, hit bottom. It closed 4,437 points below its January 2000 all-time high”.

The major blow to the stock market took place in 2002, about 20 months after Bush took office. It should be noted that this took place exactly one week after Congress authorized Bush to invade Iraq. Investors claimed this as a reason for the drop in the stock market.

Such frequently found mistakes underlines why Conservapedia is more propaganda than an online encyclopedia and should never be used as a source of information. The information is at best one sided, and more frequently, blantently false. The truth does not have a conservative or liberal slant. There seems to be a trend, however, in the last 12 or so years of American political media to baselessly proclaim an extream slant in media. Just because the reader does not like the truth does not mean that the carrier is slanted.
Artical

:"As we all know, the facts have an anti-Bush agenda." -- Steven Colbert. (Or, to be more accurate, it looks like Bush has an anti-facts agenda. :( --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:32, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Skull and Bones Club ==

MountainDew, why did you take that part out? It's a matter of public record (and any number of jokes) that Bush and Kerry are in the same club.

The guy who put that in there was a known vandal, so I was just reversing all his edits at once. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Locked Page ==

Should we really lock a page with so many typos? [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 09:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can understand why the page is locked, obviously people will target Bush, but the page needs LOTS of improvement, not just typos, but the Economy section is laughable.

: Indeed. No mention of the 8 trillion (is it 9 now) debt? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 20:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Debt only matters if you ever intend to pay it off. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:29, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Economy ==

''Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobile has posted the largest profit of any company in a signle year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well [5]. This is due to changes in the stock market that lead to a record high in 2006, recovering from the Clinton years which lead to the lowest point of the stock market in January 2000 AD since the great depression of 1929 AD, and "Companies are churning out double-digit profit growth" currently.[6] Even the working class is benefiting from the Bush economy, as unemployment hits an all time low in March 2007.[7] Bush worked with Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a more livable level.[8]''

The information in this section appears to have either been written by a liberal who was interested in subtly undermining the informative authority of this particular entry (and possibly Conservapedia in general), or by someone who is perhaps good-intentioned but very badly informed.

First of all, using Exxon-Mobil and executive salary increases as an indication of how much Bush has done for the economy is actually quite bad press for him. The majority of Americans are not voting to line the pockets of the people at the very top. They prefer to have their own pockets lined, even if it is just in small ways, like in tax cuts for the middle class. Suggesting that Bush has done good for our economy as evidenced by the economic boon of the elite would seem to give credit to Bush's detractors who have accused him of being concerned only with his "oil buddies" and largest contributors. Let's not add more wood to that fire, please. That's how we lost the mid-terms - shooting ourselves in the foot.

Second point, please, whoever has write permissions, clean up the spelling errors at the very least (Exxon-Mobile, signle - in this section)

Third, someone else cited the error in referencing January 2000 as the lowest point of the stock market. In addition to their points (including the quote from the article that was supposedly used as reference for that inaccurate "fact"), I think it's important to clarify that while the market has never dropped as low as it did following the crash of 1929, the *percentage* drop could again be as great as it was in 1929. In 1929 the percentage drop was 23%. In 1987, the crash of October caused a dip of 22.7%. The actual numbers of 1929 were in the 200-400 range, whereas the Dow Jones is over 12,000 right now. If, in the modern era, the DJIA ever dropped as low as it did in 1929, i.e., down ot the 200-400 range, then we may as well prepare for Armageddon, because the state of the world would probably be *that* bad.

Fourth, is it necessary to place A.D. after every year, even when it is obvious that the referenced year is In the Year of Our Lord (i.e. Anno Domini)? It seems unnecessary, and certainly cumbersome to have A.D. following years that are obviously referring to U.S. political events. Our conservative audience is not so dumb as to be confused about whether the Clinton administration of the year 2000 is in reference to 2000 years before or 2000 years after the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Mostly I agree that we should not be concerned about the stereotypes our liberal brothers and sisters have placed upon us, but when possible for us to avoid looking stupid and playing into the stereotypes the liberals have assigned to us, I think we ought do so.

Fifth, the unemployment rate is dropping for March 2007, and this is wonderful and it speaks well of Bush's handling of the economy. It is not the lowest rate of all time, however. I don't feel compelled to provide sources here, because this information is readily available in under 2 minutes of searching for "U.S." and "unemployment rate" on any search engine of your choosing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, can tell you that the lowest unemployment rate of the last 60 years was in 1953 at just under 3%. It's an easy fact to check, and a ridiculous error to lock into an entry about our President. There are true pieces of information about President Bush that make him worthy of admiration. There is no need to attempt to bolster his image with false information.

And finally, let's please be honest about the minimum wage situation. The decision to raise the minimum wage is controversial among conservatives, and I am having difficulty finding a reliable source that suggests Bush supports, in isolation, the idea of raising the minimum wage (i.e. without tax-cuts for small-businesses also tacked on as a proviso). In terms of economic growth, raising the minimum wage may not be helpful, and everything I have read about President Bush seems to indicate that he knows that. So any suggestion that his personal opinion is that the minimum wage should be raised is questionable. Aside from his personal opinion, in his professional capacity, he most certainly hasn't been placed in a position of "working with the Democrats to raise the minimum wage to a livable level." The Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007 has passed in both the House and the Senate, but it has not yet been presented to our President to be signed into law, because it is pending committee review. Additionally, crediting Bush with "working with Democrats" on this is erroneous. Bush has reached across partisan lines on many occasions, but this particular bill was brought on entirely by Democratic feather-ruffling during their "First 100-Hours" campaign. It was an attempt by the Dems to make a garish display of their new "authority," having gained the majority in Congress.

:For starters, what powers do the executive branch have over economics? --[[User:JamesLipton|JamesLipton]] 22:29, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::My personal political philosophies aside, I completely agree that Exxon-Mobile is probably the worst company that could have been chosen to show support for Bush's economic policies. This is an encyclopedia for conservatives, but if it's going to stand up to the criticisms of the liberal community and not be a major source of embarrassment for conservatives as a whole, it must hold itself to a higher level of political awareness. Whether one believes Exxon-Mobile's booming business is proof the economy is in great shape or not, the majority of those who read this (including conservatives) will fall out of their chairs when they read that. I guarantee you, liberal citizens all across America will copy and paste the paragraph into their blogs for their readers to laugh at.

::This is probably the most important article on conservapedia. It HAS to be beyond reproof. --[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:42, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

: When is this going to be fixed? The "lowest unemployment rate in history" is not true, it was far lower in the 60s, and lower during the later years of the Clinton administrator. The claim isn't even supported by the reference, which claims "the lowest in five years", which I suppose is true enough. Concise and fact based indeed. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 16:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous claim ==

"He is now working tirelessly to end the Iraqi insurgency and stabilize the region."

Eh, ok? Source? A silly attempt to try to create some kind of sympathy for the man. It's like saying "Jesus was very kind." in his entry. It has got nothing to do with facts and people should be given facts on this site and then determine for themselves if Jesus was kind and if GWB is working tirelessly.

:Agreed. Authors establish bias effectively by utilizing fact selectivity and through awareness of the perspective from which those facts are related. Ineffective authors establish bias by simply writing their opinions. An openly biased article is not the same thing as an opinion column. An encyclopedia does not need to allow itself to be tainted with opinions in order to be biased. This is supported by conservapedia itself in its article "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia." (Wikipedia, however biased it may or may not be, never allows anything close to the candid opinions of its editors to pollute articles.)
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:29, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== "Hard Work" ==

George W Bush has never done a day's hard work in his lifetime.

Oh wait, he was having trouble reading his children's book when he heard about 9/11. Dang, forgot about that.

:Sarcasm and exaggeration are the didactic devices of idiots.
:[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 17:31, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Ridicolous Article ==

This whole article is a joke, right? How can you put this out as fact when it has been debunked so many times?

==Better Picture==
[[Image:Busio.jpeg|thumb|right]]

::I agree, that is a much better picture. It's the same one used on wikipedia, but it's public domain. I'd use it, but get a higher resolution copy of the image at http://www.defenselink.mil/DODCMSShare/NewsPhoto/2003-02/030114-O-0000D-001.jpg
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:49, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
This article does not just neglect important information, but also gives incorrect facts. Al Gore won the popular vote in the 200 election. Also, this I laugh out loud that people are actually believing this conservopedia crap.

== Requested edits ==

* The article needs to have <tt style="background-color:#bfb"><nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Bush, George W.}}</nowiki></tt> added just above the categories at the bottom, so its category sortkey is set properly. Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 17:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please add <nowiki>[[Category:Military Commanders]]</nowiki>
:He is after all our [[Commander in Chief]] leading the hugely successful war against [[terrorism]] in [[Iraq]] and elswhere.
::"Behold, I have given him for a witness to the people, a leader and commander to the people." (Isaiah 55:4)
:[[User:JC|JC]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::"Hugely successful?" I missed the announcement that they'd caught Osama Bin Laden. --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:56, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

== Poor addition to a poor article ==

The line, "Many people feel that George W. Bush's faith is sincere and profound. The Faith of George W. Bush, a non-political book by author Stephen Strang, made the New York Times best-sellers list" should be quickly deleted from this article. I know wikipedia doesn't allow such B.S. qualifiers as "many people feel," and neither should conservapedia if it's going to be taken seriously. Just state that he's a Christian. How profound his Christian-ness is is both irrelevant and unquantifiable.

At least move it out of the "Foreign Policy" section of the article.

--[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 18:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)
:I don't agree with the first paragraph by Mechrobioticon, but I do agree with the second paragraph. I think that faith statement should be moved from the "Foreign Policy" section to a new "Faith" section. There is tons of material from the book ''God and George W. Bush''. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 02:30, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::OK, maybe requesting that the reference be completely omitted is a little harsh to ask of a conservative encyclopedia, but I still stand by my statement that it needs to be drastically reworded. "Many people feel" is simply a phrase that should never be used in scholarly writing. It's an obvious euphemism for "I feel," and a bad attempt to cover up personal bias. It makes the article appear very amateurish and will become a point of ridicule for knowledgeable readers.
::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 14:28, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Who cares how 'sincere' he is? [[Marshall Applewhite]] was 'sincere', but that didn't stop him from being lethally deluded. Or are we hoping the [[Great Pumpkin]] will visit Bush this Halloween? --[[User:BDobbs|BDobbs]] 15:51, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that how "profound" or "sincere" one's faith in something is is a poor indicator of one's character (not to mention highly arbitrary and impossible to confirm), but this isn't my encyclopedia. It's conservapedia. The ideas of the secular humanist must yield to the consensus of the conservative majority. I think that even bearing this fact, however, that there is a good case to be made for the removal of the sentences in question on the basis that they are, in fact, an opinion that can't be indisputably confirmed. But again, that's not my place to decide, and if the conservative editors and sysops of conservapedia say "it stays," then it stays. Secularists should always remember that we are here to advise and help, not to ridicule and lampoon.
::::[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 16:54, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== No information ==

There's no information about how GWB is being named the Worst President in History [http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history] by alot of people, as well as having some of the lowest approval ratings ever.[http://www.hist.umn.edu/~ruggles/Approval.htm][http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/27/opinion/polls/main1350874.shtml] And lack of information about major events in his presidency. Such as Katarina, September 11th and stuff like that.

==No Information==
Period. This isn't an encyclopedia entry, this is more like the bio somebody writes for the program to their high school musical. Could it be more bland? Ish. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 16:02, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing about his childhood, his college, or his time as Texas governor. And there never will be. Conservapedia doesn't trust their editors to write about this icon. (They might mention, for instance, his drunk driving arrest or allegations of cocaine use). [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 13:36, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

== Someone tell me when this article is fixed ==

I'm quickly coming to the conclusion that this article is hopeless. It's not my opinion that George W. Bush's "sincere and profound faith in God" doesn't belong in the foreign policy section of this article. It's a demonstrable fact. Someone tell me what qualifies his religion as a formal written policy by which America's interactions with other countries are deliberated, and I will shut up. The addition is also poorly written, vague, unscholarly, conjectural, impossible to confirm, and dripping with bias and ethnocentrism, but I'll ignore that. Just move it. Please just move it. If this ever happens, please email me at happyhealey@gmail.com, and will resume contributing to Conservapedia. It's ludicrous for a wiki project to be unable to correct its own typographical errors. It's been a month. A whole month. If this were Wikipedia it would have been corrected in less than five minutes. This is, without exaggeration, pitiful.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, at least you changed the picture. Good to know the article isn't completely stagnant.
[[User:Mechrobioticon|Mechrobioticon]] 23:32, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

== How can I edit this article? ==

There are some spelling mistakes (Exxon Mobil not Exxon Mobile) and grammar that need correcting but I can't get on to fix it. [[User:Erasmus|Erasmus]] 11:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Could someone add "Category:Christian warriors" which I created specifically for Dubya?[[User:Muschifresser|Muschifresser]] 08:23, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

== Protected articles ==

Protected articles infringe on the right to free speech. I am greatly opposed to this policy. Bush happens to be one of my favorite people and you are depriving the fact that I can't contribute to this article is appalling. I know you are worried about vandals, but you are just punishing the innocent. The world is being deprived of my great knowledge, these are sad times.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:22, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Sisterhix

2007-05-03T01:00:32Z

BushRules12: New page: Express some love to Jewish people. Just try it I promise it won't hurt.--~~~~

Express some love to Jewish people. Just try it I promise it won't hurt.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 21:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

Abraham Lincoln

2007-05-02T03:08:28Z

BushRules12:

[[Image:Ncoln.jpg|right|thumb]]

'''Abraham Lincoln''' (1809-1865) presided over the Civil War as the 16th president of the United States. Idolized by the North and hated by the South, Lincoln pursued his goal of keeping the Union together despite the fervent desire by southerners to secede. Approaching secession with the mind of the attorney that Lincoln was, he declared it illegal and managed, or mismanaged in the view of some, the resultant war. He is also famous for his [[Gettysburg Address]], affirming the commitment of America to liberty for all with the words: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal…"

He was born on February 12, 1809 in Kentucky.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Presidents Abraham Lincoln]] by Jim Hargrove, Children's Press, 1988.</ref> Homeschooled in his youth, Lincoln became a successful attorney in Illinois who was known for his integrity and his piercing cross-examinations. He lost many more political races than he won, and served briefly in [[Congress]] as a Whig opposed to the Mexican War. That cost him reelection.

Lincoln opposed slavery.
"In 1837 with one other representative from Sangamon county, named Dan Stone, he protested against a series of resolutions, adopted by the Illinois General Assembly, expressing disapproval of the formation of abolition societies." <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/332/000024260/</ref>

In 1858 he ran for the [[U.S. Senate]] against the dynamic speaker [[Stephen Douglas]], who defeated him. But Lincoln ran a strong enough race that Douglas was forced to alienate some of his supporters with his [[Freeport Doctrine]], and when both ran for president two years later in 1860, Lincoln won easily without even campaigning. His victory precipitated the Civil War, as many southern states believed that he would abolish slavery, abolition being a core plank of the young liberal [[Republican]] party.

Lincoln was perhaps the only President who increased his Christian faith while in office. As a congressmen in the 1840s, Lincoln distinguished himself by redoing the geometric proofs in the great work of [[Euclid]], and prided himself on logic rather than faith. From 1860 to 1863 Lincoln continued to rely entirely on logical arguments in his speeches and approach to the Civil War. But on the way to the cemetery in Gettysburg in November 1863, Lincoln apparently found God and inserted after "one nation" the phrase "under God" into his pre-written Gettysburg Address. The following year Lincoln won reelection, and his Second Inaugural Address was filled with spiritual references lacking from his First Inaugural Address.

Lincoln was shot by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theater in [[Washington, D.C.]] on Good Friday, April 14, 1865, a few days after the Civil War's official end, and passed away the next day. He became a martyr to the North and a cause for revenge against the South, from where the assassin had come.

In a October 2000 survey of 132 prominent professors of history, law, and political science, President Lincoln was grouped in the "Great" group, ranked 2nd (behind [[George Washington]]), with a mean score of 4.87 out of 5.00. <ref>Presidential Leadership: Rating the Best and the Worst in the White House (New York, Wall Street Journal Book, 2004)</ref>

==Currency==
Lincoln is depicted on the penny and the five-dollar bill.

==Links==
*[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/ Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln]

==Quotations==
[[Image:DcLincMor.JPG|right|thumb]]
Lincoln's views on slavery became controversial in the 20th century when revisionists began saying that he never opposed slavery. It has even been claimed by some that he owned domestic slaves early in his presidency, although if this is the case, he acted against his financial interests by signing the [[Compensated Emancipation Act]], which freed all slaves in the [[District of Columbia]], on April 16, 1862, nearly six months before issuing the [[Emancipation Proclamation]]. Usually the grounds they give for this relate to his oft-expressed reluctance to support abolition. Yet they ignore Lincoln's own explanation of this contradiction. For example:

:"I confess that '''I hate to see the poor creatures hunted down down, and caught''', and carried back to their stripes and unwarranted toils; but '''I bite my lip and keep quiet'''. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip, on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. '''That sight was a continual torment to me'''; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave-border. I'''t is hardly fair for you to assume, that I have no such interest''' in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much '''the great body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings''', in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union."

<blockquote>
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Letter To Henry L. Pierce and Others" (April 6, 1859), p. 376.

</blockquote>

<blockquote>
"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." -- Said during a debate with rival Stephen A. Douglas in 1958.
</blockquote>

== References ==
*[http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm Gettysburg Address]
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lincoln, Abraham}}
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]
[[Category:Abraham Lincoln]]

User talk:PF Fox

2007-04-29T04:44:45Z

BushRules12: Booty

Block Warning: Do not make edits that subtly change the meaning of the article like you did on fascism, or you will be blocked. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:48, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Fascism ==

A sentence which reads this way: "Allowing only information which supports the far-left state is a common means of fascist control. This is especially pertinant in websites such as Wikipedia which allow liberal-only information through."

Combined with a later sentence in the same entry which reads like this: "Communism represents the extreme left of the political spectrum, while Fascism represents the extreme right."

...renders the entire entry meaningless. If Fascism represents the "extreme right", how can "allowing only information which supports the far-left state" be "a common means of fascist control?"

==Nazi article==
Conservatism and ultra-conservatism ''are'' right-wing. There is also a radical fringe on the far, far right that is neither conservative nor even ultra-conservative. Nazism falls there so it is a correct statement to say Nazis were not conservative. Not everything on the right wing is conservative. Libertarianism falls on the right side of the spectrum too but it is a very distinct thing from conservatism. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 16:32, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==205==
Before you begin using what WP:ATTFAQ describes as obsolete and depracated cource, I invite yo to review this document. [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/%22Operations_of_the_MGB_Residency_at_New_York%2C_1944-45%22]

And what specific point of mine is this supposed to address? Please be specific.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:23, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ellen Schrecker has deprecated herself, not to mention other obsolete information; since 1995, all the previous 50 years of published material needs to be reviewed.
:Have you read the Moynihan Commission Report? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:27, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

On specifically what points did she deprecate herself? And what did I post from those other sources that proved to be untrue?
No, I have not read the Moynihan Commission report. What specifically does it say that renders what I've posted here invalid?
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Please do not remove Talk page comments==
Please do not remove Talk page comments. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:46, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

If I did this it was not deliberate, and I apologize. This system is still new to me. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:49, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:Transcripts may have a proper place; but you've filled it up with Schecker material which she herself has deprecated, and the evidence of trolling I predicted around that article, cited above, you had removed from the Talk page. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

The majority of my material did not come from Schrecker, as my own notes indicate. And please tell me what I'd posted that she "deprecated." I'd also like to know how the transcripts from the McCarthy hearings -- including the audio -- qualify as "deprecated" material.
--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==

What exactly would you like to add? Post it on my talk page.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 02:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archives ==

I noticed you just added comments to [[User talk:Aschlafly/Archive4]]. This isn't appropriate, seeing as how it is an archived discussion. It's history. Editing it is like, going back to the civil war and letting the south win! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 12:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I am trying to put things in their right places, and my comments were a continuation of that discussion. I'll move them someplace more recent. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:52, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal? ==

Can you [[User:Richard/Conservapedia_Liberal_List#Suspected_Liberalpedian | confirm your liberal status]]?

==[[Salvador Allende]]==

I may have been unclear on the talk page, based on your response. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Salvador_Allende&diff=70726&oldid=70714]

I was asking if stipulating a single standard helps us write the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:57, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Civility==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&diff=73073&oldid=73068 This] makes two snide remarks in a row.

Such remarks are derogatory in a malicious, superior way. [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/snide]

Perhaps it's just a customary way of speaking where you come from, but I dislike the tone of it. I'd rather you say something pleasant and respectful and to the point, like:
*I feel the burden of proof is on you, not the other editor.

I have blocked you with an expiry time of 2 hours for incivility.

Don't make comments like this. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Ed_Poor&curid=10983&diff=73085&oldid=73081&rcid=75727] Focus instead on improving articles - or be elsewhere.

We are not equals, and this is not a game of tit for tat. Sysops at this web site have authority to make the sort of judgments I have been making in the last few days. The only comments I've gotten from senior staff is that I'm too lenient. I suggest you find a better use for your time than hanging around here, sniping at regular contributors. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:15, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:I'm blocking you again, because (1) you seem to have some useful ideas but (2) you still are "attacking the person" instead of "addressing the point".

:Don't say ''you fear it'' but something like this:
:*Please include this information; or,
:*According to (blank) McCarthy did (this action) which had (that result).

:We're not afraid of ideas here. It's not like some children's school library that censors ''Uncle Tom's Cabin'' or ''Huckleberry Finn'' because it might have a scary or offense passage. But like a library, there's a certain standard of decorum. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:02, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::The concept of "civility" seems entirely subjective. Maybe we should find a way to codify what you mean, so this user and others have a clue about its ramifications. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 16:03, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Meet me at [[Conservapedia talk:Civility]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 16:06, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what the issue is, but [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed]] is a reasonable guy.--[[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 20:32, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: *blush* thanks, because I would hate to be accused of making ''an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles'' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::You were not who I had in mind, Ed, but I'm sorry, my comments about this "political spectrum" nonsense stand. It's interesting to note that it's almost never invoked when the Communists are referred to as "leftists" -- only when the Nazis (or for that matter, the Klan) are referred to as being on the "right." Why do you think that is? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::A good question, which has long puzzled me. According to my calculations, Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism. So I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want to be associated with [[the left]]. Maybe it's because Hitler's side lost, and Life Magazine published pictures of plaintive yet attractive white people from his death camps.

:::Anyway, I added the Communist-Nazi left-right spectrum [[Political spectrum|here]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:51, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I find nothing "puzzling" about it. My experience has been that lately the people most eager to conflate liberalism/leftism with Communism are also the one's most unwilling to acknowledge the fact that Hitler was a right-winger, probably because they assume that since THEY conflate liberalism with Communism, others MUST conflate conservatism with Nazism. Rather than give up their own over-simplified vision of the left they struggle vainly to alter the meaning of "right wing" so that they don't sit on the same bench -- however far down that bench -- as Nazism. Now that the middle of the Twentieth century is falling from living memory, they are trying out a form of revisionism that would have gotten them laughed out of the room if they'd offered it twenty or thirty years ago, in the presence of people who'd actually fought and remembered the Third Reich.

::::I'd be interested in knowing what manner of arithmatic goes into determining that "Communism is twenty times worse than Nazism." (Is it the same math that defines 3,000 murdered people as "a few?") I can only tell you that as someone who remembers the black civil rights era, I can readily see why people would want to be identified with liberalism and the left. I did not know Martin Luther King Jr., or Viola Liuzzo, or Michael Schwerner personally, but I have known other liberals and leftists who I've admired, who fought bravely in World War II (and in some cases, even before that, in the Spanish Civil War,) who literally put their lives on the line working with the poor in Central and South America, forming unions in the American south, striving to ensure black Americans could practice their right to vote in Missisippi and Alabama during the '60s. These were liberals and leftists, Ed. Not conservatives. They were also principled and brave people who were on the correct side of important issues, most of them protecting rights that presumably all Americans -- liberal and conservative -- consider vital. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Don't say stuff like this:
#having a decent regard for the truth.
#If the person uttering this untruth is saying it through ignorance, they need to actually read up on the subject
#they are fracturing the 9th Commandment. ''--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:08, 10 April 2007 (EDT)''

It's not civil. It's inflammatory.

You'd do better to say:
*I disagree with you about what 'wing' Hitler was on.
*We need to get this right.
*Children look up to grown-ups as examples.

Okay? See you tomorrow. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:04, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::If the truth is inflammatory here, that's a pity.

::How does that 9th Commandment go again? Seem to remember the words "false witness" in there somewhere...--[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 12:43, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==IRC==
Colin and TK are on IRC, irc.freenode.net in channel #conservapedia You're more than welcome to join.
[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 15:44, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
You'd have to get an IRC program, chatzilla for firefox, mIrc.com works well too, but it depends what OS you have and all that.[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

==Standards of scholarship for this site==

You seem to be on a crusade. You have repeatedly inserted your POV (or a widely held POV that you apparently hold) '''as if it were''' an undisputed fact.

Please stop this, or I will suspend your account. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:09, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::Please explain in what manner I've pushed my POV so that I can avoid it in the future. How is Jara's very well-documented death a matter of PF Fox's POV? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:10, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

==Trolling==
Please note, I do block for trolling. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Salvador_Allende&diff=102666&oldid=102658] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:24, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

::And how am I guilty of trolling? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:13, 12 April 2007 (EDT)

:::You write as if you don't understand my remarks about Pinochet. This appears to be a pose. You are blocked for the rest of the week. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You have impressed senior staff with your significant contributions. Welcome back! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:15, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 10:23, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

== Booty ==

Booty is the most important element of dancing. Do you agree--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 00:44, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

User talk:RSchlafly

2007-04-29T03:40:32Z

BushRules12: Question about your beliefs

good edit to Einstein article.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:14, 9 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks Roger. Whatever I can do to help, let me know. Are there any plans for coordinated projects similiar to like they have over in, you know, that other place? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Review==
Roger, here's some material you may wish to review regarding "expansion of due process", [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fourteenth_Amendment&diff=21204&oldid=14972]

:''it can be argued that the legislative intent of the Amendment was especially to grow with the times, which it certainly has done.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Gospel of Thomas ==

It is true that the [[Gospel of Thomas]] is not part of the Bible, and not recognized outside the Coptic Christian church; I simply wanted to clarify that it nevertheless is a valuable source of information about early Christian beliefs, and that many Christians today do find great value in it. [[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 15:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is my understanding that Christians have historically regarded these apocryphal gospels as being tainted with heresy. Yes, fascinating, but fascinating in the way that heresy is fascinating. I didn't want the Thomas entry to imply that Thomas is a good source of Christian beliefs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Thanks for your reply. I have amended the entry, both on the [[Gospels]] and the [[Gospel of Thomas]], to make this more explicitly clear.

::[[User:Boethius|Boethius]] 17:42, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== reply ==

I banned him because 3 times in row he posted to my userpage the same cross examination type garbage much of which (if not all) was unrelated to the article in question. I warned him to stop though and he ignored me. Three strikes and your out.

Secondly, are you related to Aschlafly? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

: Yes, Aschlafly is my brother. I had nothing to do with creating Conservapedia; I first learned about it from reading blogs. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:56, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That is wrong! your own brother didnt tell you! Mr. Schlafly! how could you! j/k :) welcome aboard. --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 17:58, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Scientology]] ==

Hello RSchlafly. In your recent modification to the article, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientology&diff=43627&oldid=43502], you introduced that "not everyone considers it to be a religion". But that would be true of any religion that can be named, some people, somewhere, will consider it to not be a 'true' religion. Are we really trying to present such value judgements to our readers? Can't we simply be brief and to the point and inform readers, then let readers do as they like with their information? If we remain conservative and steadfast and present good, clean information, clear of bias and potential confusions or criticsm, our readers are better served, don't you think ? Yes, there are controversial issues the Church of Scientology has involved itself in but are those actually necessary to a brief, clear description of the religion? Can we discuss, please ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 14:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: I was understating the controversy. I think that it is fair to say that most people do not consider Scientology a religion. IRS did not, until just a few years ago. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Okay. How does one explain news items like this one [http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/16921716.htm] ("Scientology Religion") in the Kansas City Star ? Or the 7000+ hits a person gets by googling "Scientology" (its religous locations) at google maps? Or the many website pages about the Scientology Religion? There is nothing like that for a "Scientology Cult" search, with the exception of thousands of pages of criticsm. If an organization presents itself as a religion, is accepted by most governments as a religion, is presented in newspapers as a religion, then shouldn't we present it as a religion, too ? On the other hand, if an article is to be large, then other points of view could be presented ? But if small, then why not as direct and simple as possible ? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 17:14, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I did your test, and I found 113,000 google hits for "scientology religion", and 168,000 hit for "scientology cult". This does indeed suggest that more people call it a cult than a religion. But that is just one controversy. Care to say anything about psychotherapy? The Xenu story? Battles over leaks of the OT documents? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:42, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Sure, I'll talk with you about anything you like. psychotherapy sucks, no one who knows the myth talks, the Church defends itself vigorously in court. The critics are loud, the critics can publish cheaply. A simplicity of the situation exists, but how can a person view the simplicity, there's the question, would you say? [[User:Terryeo|Terryeo]] 09:39, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

==McCarthy==
Much of the material [[User:PF Fox]] is "obsolete and deprecated", as per WP's new WP:ATTFAQ' I fought for this along time ago. Plus there is evidence of trolling on the talk page, as I forecasted. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Joseph_McCarthy&diff=next&oldid=32278] I would propose a roll back to my version, with whatever material you may wish to save from the recent editing, and then Page Protection. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:58, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

: My inclination is to start a section titled, "Criticism of McCarthy's methods", and start it by saying: "It is often alleged that McCarthy's methods were irresponsible, inhumane, and reckless. Here are some examples of where his committee supposedly ruined lives." Then let PF Fox put in his most egregious examples, as long as they are factual. You want to do it? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 16:04, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've protected the page. That sounds like a good idea. Let's have PF Fox place his proposed language on the Talk page while I work on completing the Venona materials. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:15, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Newton ==
I have copied the conversation below onto the [[Isaac Newton]] talk page. I think it makes more sense to have it there for future reference. If we need to continue the conversation, let's do so over there. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 07:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I bet Isaac Newton cared about his title of "sir." Not to split hairs. Publicly evaluating a person's legacy based on your opinion of it is a bad idea, and sounds like opinion forbidden by the Commandments.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 01:02, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

: Sure, Newton may have cared, in the way that people care about honorary degrees and awards. Maybe he got some privileges from it, I don't know. But nobility status carries no weight with the typical American reader of Conservapedia. Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless.
: Newton was a great man, and I am not putting him down. He is great for what he did, not because he was friends with some silly king or however he got the title. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:'Sir' is a title of respect. Not placing it would be equivalent to removing Doctor from the name of those holding a doctorate. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is only a title of respect among fans of British nobility. Besides, encyclopedias do not normally list people with doctorates under the title "Doctor". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Okay, can the bold text at least show that he was a peer? [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 01:50, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I assume that you are joking. I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:59, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
:A Peer of the Realm is a member of the British nobility. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:"Nobody knows what Newton did to get that title, or why the title should make anyone deserving of any respect. It is just stupid and meaningless." ... "I don't know what a peer is, except that my dictionary says that it has something to do with British nobility. I think that the average American has very low respect for British nobility." Are you serious? You don't know what Newton did that resulted in his title? I'd guess Calculus? Maybe Gravity? That deserves a heck of a lot of respect. I don't think we need to know the ins and outs of honorary titles in Britain to understand the basics of this one. According to Answers in Genesis, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i3/newton.asp] "His country officially recognized his work in 1705 when he became the first person to receive a knighthood for scientific achievement." Surely this is important enough to include his "Sir"? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 19:51, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Yes, I am serious. No American has any respect for British nobility titles. Apparently you don't know how Newton got the title either, because you are just guessing. You have a source that says that it was for "his work". Okay, that narrows it a little bit. It wasn't for his relatives. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry, I think you misunderstood my comment, as you misunderstood [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]]'s use of the term "peer". I guess we need to back up a bit. In Britian, knighthoods are given for exceptional achievement or service to the nation, much like the USA gives the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal. Newton was the first to be made a knight for scientific achievement rather than prowess on the battlefield. (From doesgodexist.org: "In 1705, Queen Anne knighted him, Sir Isaac Newton. It was the first knighthood for scientific discoveries rather than deeds on the battlefield or in government." [http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec01/IsaacNewtonAndGodsLawOfGravity.html]) Thus Newton was given his title for his *body of work*, which of course included topics like gravity and calculus. I understand that *you* have no respect for such awards. Indeed, there is some controversy over modern versions, even in Britian (see [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/23/world/main590022.shtml]). However, I think it's simply not true to say that *No* American has any respect for British nobility titles - see [[User:Robledo|Robledo]]'s examples below. Given that Newton's achievements were so great as to be awarded an honor that had previously been given only for military prowess, I think the "Sir" is worth keeping. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Honorary knighthoods (accepted & thus I'm guessing respected...)

* George Bush
* Ronald Reagan
* Colin Powell
* General Norman Schwarzkopf
* Bob Hope

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm

Any more sweepingly daft generalisations to make? :P --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 20:16, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you've made it for me. I've never heard any American call any of those men "sir". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Naturally....none of them are British citizens. Read the [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm source], son....third paragraph. *sighs* --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 21:26, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's because it is inappropriate for an American to use such a title.[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1091938.stm] Newton, however, was not American, thus the use of the title is appropriate. I know this stuff is complicated. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:28, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Exactly. To put it in context. "Bono" will never be "Sir Bono" (aside from the fact that his real name is Paul Hewson) because he is not a British citizen. So he can never be a "Sir". However, Newton ''was'' a British citizen, or a subject of the queen (or king), if you will. So he should be referred to by his correct title. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:33, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's a simple matter of respect. "Sir" is his title in his native country and therefore should be the title that he is addressed by whenever he is addressed, wherever he is addressed. Aside from that argument, he is known the world over as "Sir Isaac Newton".[[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 21:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

My students are fond of this song about Sir Issac - it's in MP3 format. [http://www.acme.com/jef/singing_science/newton-160.mp3]--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:32, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory ==

I would like to argue [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Scientific_Theory&diff=64382&oldid=63053 this] edit. It is an extremely important distinction, because scientifically, nothing can ever really be proven. Gravity, relativity, etc. are all still theories, but are backed up with massive amounts of evidence, and are used regularly as facts. In any usage outside science, "theory" usually means a "hunch", or unsubstantiated guess. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: I just don't think that it is true that usage of "theory" outside science is significantly different from its usage in science. Do you have any source for that? Theories have varying levels of substantiation, both inside and outside science. I think that the distinction is completely bogus and misleading.
: Why is this so important, anyway? The subject of what can be proven is another topic. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::Any self-respecting scientist would never use the term theory to mean an unsubstantiated guess. Theories do not have varying levels of substantiation, only the true definition and the misuse by everyone else. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 03:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: That is just not true. Physicists use the term "String Theory", even tho it is just an unsubstantiated guess. Where is the evidence that scientists use the word "theory" differently from others? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Regarding string theory, it has a large amount of "evidence" backing it up. That doesn't mean it's true, but it's certainly not an unsubstantiated guess. Regarding how scientists use the word differently, ask anybody with any sort of involvement in science, it's considered common knowledge that a scientific theory is different than a "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 03:51, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: No, there is no evidence for String Theory. The disputed section has no cited source, and is contrary to common knowledge. Are you just giving your opinion, or can you cite a source? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not a disputed fact that theory in the scientific community is not the same as a hypothesis. Sorry. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Correct, that point is not under dispute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:25, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== Theory II ==
Is there a reason for [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&diff=next&oldid=64081]] this edit? What was objectionable? --[[User:Letusratiocinate|Letusratiocinate]] 04:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I apologize for the ad hominem attack, but there is nothing disputed about what is said in those entries. And protecting articles only hurts the site. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:19, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Those entries certainly are disputed. I disputed them on the Talk pages, and here. The disputed material has no cited sources. I only protected the page because of the removal of the "disputed" tag. If you are right and I am wrong, then you should be able to give some evidence on the Talk page or here. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no disputing the difference between common usage of theory and the scientific meaning. Look it up in a dictionary and you'll see theory is defined as both. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::: The disputed section says that a common speech theory is different from a scientific theory, with the former being an "unsubstantiated guess" and the latter having to be "well-supported and accepted". My dictionaries don't say any of those things, and they don't reflect any popular or scientific usage to my knowledge. I'd be happy to use a dictionary definition, but if you want something else, then you should provide some support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Look at webster's online. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 05:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

::::: I looked at Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, Compact Oxford English, Encarta, and a couple of others. They all disagree with you. You are promoting the oddball definition, so you find support for it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 05:21, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

A theory, as defined by Merriam-Webster:

1 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
2 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action
3 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave ''theory'' of light>
4 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption :CONJECTURE

As you can see, definition 3 is different than the others. This is because a ''scientific theory'' must follow what is known as the ''scientific method''. The Scientific method is "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses". Of course, gravity, relativity, the theory of light, etc. are all unproven, but they are all backed up by massive amounts of evidence. A scientific theory is supported by evidence, though in modern usage outside of science, "theory" is synonymous with "guess". --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

: Your definition shows that your last sentence is wrong on both counts. A scientific theory does ''not'' have to be supported by evidence. In modern usage outside of science, "theory" is ''not'' synonymous with "guess". I am tempted to add a paragraph explaining this point. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:17, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

== [[Theory of Relativity/draft]] ==

Please stop. Special and general relativity are separate theories. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 14:32, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

: What do you mean by that? They are certainly closely related, conceptually and historically. Putting them in separate sections already implies differences. Saying that they are separate without any explanation of the difference is just stupid and misleading. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:38, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::GR describes gravity, SR describes objects relative to each other. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 07:06, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, but they are not separate. SR is just GR without the gravity. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Wrong, dude. Please stop pretending that you and Andy are experts on everything. Andy's obviously not even an expert on theories of constitutional interpretation. Nor are you an expert on physics. Anyways, special relativity deals with time & length dilation and the [[Lorentz Transformation]]. GR is an explanation of gravity and spacetime curvature. Completely different except the name.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:20, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, I am not wrong. I can see from your comments that you know very little about either subject. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::These are difficult subjects, and I myself don't understand either one well. I can do the math of the Lorentz transformation - where fast things get heavy, though.

::We need to make this subject accessible to our readership. If this means a simple (basic?) article which mentions both ideas, that will be a good start. We can use the {{tl|main}} template (or something like it: {spinoff} or {more detail}) to refer the reader to an in-depth treatment.

::Who wants to volunteer for any part of this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 14:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:Roger is correct; not only are GR and SR not 'separate,' SR is a limiting case of GR, just as Newtonian mechanics is a limiting case of SR. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 14:29, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::How's that work? I guess I don't understand it.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:32, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::: I'll try to put in an explanation if no one else does. Currently, there are two relativity pages, and both need a lot of work. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:15, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::GR generally operates in curved spacetime; in SR spacetime is always flat. But if you plug a flat spacetime into the equations of GR, SR is what falls out. The connection is not only quite deep, but very useful too; in any smooth, curved space, one can always pick a sufficiently small patch such that curvature can be safely neglected. In practical terms, this means that any observer can always choose to work within a region of spacetime small enough to make SR an arbitrarily good approximation. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Yes, that is correct. SR approximates GR in the way that a tangent line approximates a curve. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:10, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: They were developed in very different ways and at very different times '''and''' they are taught in very different ways and at very different times in university. They deserve completely separate articles (I am educated to graduate level on both). [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::I believe the latest version of the draft is mine. I'm knowledgeable of Special Relativity and I was trying to explain it in as basic terms as possible. I don't know much about General Relativity other than what I've picked up from other people. However RSchlafly I hope you realise that gravity is a fairly complex force which adds a lot of extra levels of difficulty onto Special Relativity. If anything they should be given different sections simply because they are so abominably different in scale. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, Special Relativity is simpler. That is why it is called "special". I favor one article titled Relativity that tries to give a concise explanation. There are many textbooks on the subject if the reader really wants the full course. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Personally, I'd favour Relativity as a very short concise "these are the principles of" style article (a sentence or two on each) with links to separate articles for each of the two theories. Also, because it is specialised, "simpler" is not the word. It is "simpler" because the maths is less hardcore, two very different things. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 17:54, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

== Copernicus ==

Your biased editing is an insult to the subjects you touch, to the site, and to your brother's ideals. Please defend your edits to the Copernicus article stating that those problems ''still exist in modern astronomy today'' (preposterous!) and your blatant POV articles to the Scalia article. Please use new arguments that I have not already refuted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:23, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

: No, you have not refuted anything. Your edits are false, malicious, misleading, and disrupted. You do not defend what you do on the Talk pages. Please stop, or I'll have to block you.
: I did not say that those problems "still exist in modern astronomy today". Reread it. I even gave a date for resolving the parallax problem. Your change called Tycho one of "previous astronomers". That is not correct, as Tycho lived after Copernicus.
: Your changes to Scalia's article are also completely unacceptable. No encyclopedia would say that. You are trying to put words in his mouth that he never said. If you have proof that Scalia is against desegregation, then document it. Otherwise, don't say it. The article is about Scalia and what he has said and done, not about your personal speculations about what his opinions might have been in the 1950s.
: You are becoming a nuisance. Use the Talk pages to make your points. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::I blocked him. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:42, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: I don't know AmesG's other work. My objection is to these edits: Scalia [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Antonin_Scalia&diff=69941&oldid=69913] Copernicus [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&diff=71299&oldid=71288] Theory [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory&curid=7019&diff=71251&oldid=71242&rcid=73770], and to his subsequent edit wars over those edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::What's wrong with the Brahe insert? He did solve many of the problems with Copernicus' theory.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:16, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Tycho Brahe did some important works, as did dozens of later eminent astronomers. I think that AmesG's comments were inappropriate because it is peculiar to single out Tycho in this context, Tycho was not a "previous astronomer", and Tycho did not solve any of the 3 problems that were mentioned in the previous sentence. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:27, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

::::*Just a little note here, a quick check of the edit history of the page reveals AmesG's edit '''''did not''''' say that Tycho was a "previous astronomer" but in fact, said the exact opposite! http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicolaus_Copernicus&oldid=71299 . HTH [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 15:03, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::As to the other two, I think Ames could've left out the Brown v. Board part and left it at that. And most of the "Theory" part is good, except for this: " In fact, it is hard to find anyone who makes this distinction, outside those who are promoting the theory of evolution to the general public." That's a flat-out falsehood. It's also unsubstantiated and opinion, not fact.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:19, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: If the statement is "flat-out falsehood", then it should be easy to prove me wrong. Just give me a couple of URLs of pages that make the distinction. I did discuss the matter on the Talk page. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:36, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Are you serious?? If anything, the burden should be on you to prove your statement. I make that distinction all the time, b/c it'd be less than honest to tell people that the word "theory" can't be used in different ways. And again, you can't cite that claim. It should be removed.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:04, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: Yes, I am quite serious. If you have some evidence that I am wrong, please post it on [[Talk:Theory]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:11, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

==ACLU and Evolution==
Thanks for the revert; however, what is wrong with reverting back to my edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=prev&oldid=76854]. (sourced ref from Ann Coulter).
I think it is wrong for liberal editors to change sourced conservative views and replace them with their own liberal opinions (in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments). This is Conservapedia, and I don't want this to turn into Wikipedia, where the libs edit out what they don't like. They preach about free speech, including burning the flag, but they won't allow sourced comments from Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 12:37, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: If some edit of yours got lost, go ahead and put it back in. I was merely trying to revert an edit of AmesG. He removed a perfectly good quote, and inserted a sentence in a half that had 3 factual errors in it. Almost every edit of his is erroneous and destructive. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:22, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== My Reply ==
A few things.
# As requested by Ed Poor, I have posted my reply to your "charges" [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG#Why_do_you_stay.3F here]. I feel that my edits to [[Copernicus]] have been vindicated.
# In re the [[Theory]] article, Shlaf, you've been argued into a corner you can't get out of on the talk page. Please answer the comments there before claiming that you're right.
# In re the [[Antonin Scalia]] article, I never intended to imply that Scalia does not support the ''Brown'' decision. I'm sure he comes up with his own way to back it up. However, the [[Earl Warren]] opinion on ''Brown'' did rest on responsivism, which Scalia disagrees with flat out, as you have proven for me. So he disagrees with the popular reason for ''Brown'', which is '''all that I argued''', regardless of what you inferred. And you haven't disproven that thesis except to say, "Wha?! Who!??! Huh!?"
# Thank you to everyone who defended me. I appreciate it.
# I still think you can't be serious regarding the [[Theory]] article.
# Peace.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits to [[Copernicus]] were entirely wrong. In fact, all of you edits have been 100% bogus. I just had to revert this edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=ACLU&diff=77179&oldid=77166] to [[ACLU]]. You just changed one line and managed to insert three errors. I believe that you should be blocked for persisting in making such destructive edits. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:53, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: As discussed on [[talk:ACLU]], yours is a bias-laden statement that makes no pretense at neutrality. Mine is legal fact. Look it up, or read the case, if it's just not too much trouble for ya. I would be thrilled to e-mail you a PDF from Lexis so you can have a go at it. I already have.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 17:39, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Good delete==

Good delete on Flat Earth Society. I believe that both of those organizations, while the URLs exist, are hoaxes and do not belong on this site. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:19, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, those sites are hoaxes, and so was the article. I just added an article on [[Flat Earth]]. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 00:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

==Pedophilic priests==

I had previously deleted that, but sysop Ed Poor wanted to try to make it into an article. Do you think it would be maybe appropriate to make a more general article called something such as "Catholic Church abuse scandal"? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

: I was thinking of moving it to a more general Pedophila article, but someone deleted that. Not sure why. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

That could also be done. At the very least, there should be a section on the specific Catholic aspects within that article, because it was obviously a fairly significant news story. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:47, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Flat Earth==

So, are you going to explain your block of the Flat Earth page? Given that my arguments are valid and need to be addressed I would have thought that an open, and more thoughtful outcome of the situation could have arisen. Also, given that its either my version or yours, the decision to block should be made by a different sysop (i.e. not one of the involved editors!) as to whether or not the page should be blocked. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:39, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

: So tell me on the Talk page where my version is in error. I posted why your version is wrong. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:44, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
::Sorry, I had already posted this before I realised you had posted on the talk page! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:49, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I added a lot to [[Flat Earth]] and made some comments at [[talk:Flat Earth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::: Thanks. Conservapedia ought to be one place where evolutionists cannot make fun of Christians as flat earthers. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:14, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

== Mohammedans? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&curid=1925&diff=87904&oldid=87876 Mohammedans]? Never heard of it. I guess you learn something new every day... --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

It's a very old fashioned term, and considered to be offensive. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:56, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

: Yes, it is an old-fashioned term, but it used to be extremely common and it is still in dictionaries. It fell out of favor, but I don't think that it is correct to say that it is offensive. It is no more offensive than "moslem". Some people prefer "muslim" to "moslem", but there is nothing wrong with using "moslem" or "mohammedan". [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:03, 5 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Moslem vs. Muslim is a trans-Atlantic distinction. As for "Mohammedan," I studied with one of the nation's best Islamicists when I was at Rice. She specifically told us never to use "Mohammedan," and if you read any formal scholarship (after 1900) on the subject, you'll learn not to do it either. May I suggest Berkey, "the Formation of Islam"? Or, if you still disagree, we might as well revert to the Sayers translation of ''Song of Roland'', and just call Muslims ''Paynims''. It has about the same pejorative meaning.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:24, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Yes, there are those who prefer not to use the term Mohammedan, but their objection is not that it is an ethnic slur or a synonym for paynim. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:57, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Those who "prefer not to use" the term are the Muslims themselves :-/ -'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 01:04, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: And there are terrorists who prefer not to be called terrorists, and Moslems who prefer not to be called Moslems. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:37, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::My understanding is that the reason why it is not used is because it falsely implies that Muslims worship Mohammed. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 02:38, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Reasons like that are sometimes given, but they don't make much sense. Note that your reason is different from AmesG's reason. I don't think that there is any good reason. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:13, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I suppose the #1 determinant for whether the term goes in should be whether it is, in fact, commonly used or not. I can't speak for others, but I don't hear it used. Maybe in other parts of the country the term is more common, I don't know. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:31, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::: It used to be more common. You'll find it a lot if you read old books. I would not be suggesting it if I thought that it was an ethnic slur. It is not. It literally means just a follower of Mohammad. Nothing wrong with the term. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 03:44, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I think the one place I've seen it is in an old book in my church library, so that makes sense. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 03:51, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

I think it's bad because it is an ethnic slur, and insulting for the reason that MountainDew stated - it implies that Muslims worship Mohammed, which is insulting in the same way that saying that Jews worship Moses would be insulting. If you can find it in old books, guys, but not in any other books, it probably means that the term is outdated, as I've argued. I'm sure you'll find "colored" in old books describing African Americans, but I'd advise against using it in an article...-10:36, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

It is VERY offensive for muslims to be referred to as Mohammadeans, for the above reasons. They are a very adamantly monotheistic faith, and any implication that they worship a human being is considered blasphemy (and you know how they feel about that). It's like calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians. Leave it out already. Why would you want to be so offensive. [[User:palmd001|PalMD]][[User_talk:palmd001|talk]] 10:57, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

: I don't think that Mohammedan is an ethnic slur any more than "Abrahamic religion" is an ethnic slur on Jews. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:19, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::You don't think a lot of the time. Apology accepted.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:29, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::: AmesG, I was not apologizing to you.
::: PalMD, calling Christians John-ians or Luke-ians is not particularly offensive. Of course, there are people who are offended by innocuous statements. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 01:04, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Since you weren't apologizing to me before, I'll accept it now.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 18:08, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

: For what? Are you a Mohammedan who doesn't like to be called a Mohammedan? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:57, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

==Abortion poll==

Dear Ms Schlafly - I did quote the abortion poll correctly, and when you quoted it selectively I expanded your quotation to give details. Please check the link. My subsequent editing of your misleading statement has been reverted. I suggest altering it to the unarguable one that 62% of Americans do not want Roe v Wade to be returned. Unless I hear your reasons why you believe this to be less than factual, I will edit it to that version shortly. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 16:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

: Your statement did not match the most recent poll on the cited page with the poll results. Yes, your statement is less than factual. Give support on the Talk page, if you wish. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:12, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::The page I linked to had a whole series of polls. The two most recent polls said that 16% of the American public favored retaining unlimited rights to abortion, and 39% favored abortion being 'legal in most cases'. Of the remainder, 31% favored it being illegal in 'most' cases and 12% illegal in all cases. In other words, 55% favor it being legal in all or most cases and 43% favor it being illegal in all or most cases, with 2% unsure either way. The other poll referred to the retention of the rights granted under Roe v Wade and 62% favored this. This should be reflected in the article because as it stands the article misrepresents the facts. Please tell me why you think we should misrepresent facts clearly laid out in a neutral opinion poll. --[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 17:37, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

::: No, I posted actual facts. I am against misrepresenting facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

== Here is something I put on my userpage. Please spread the word among your friends ==

'''ARTICLES I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WRITTEN AT CONSERVAPEDIA:'''

'''ABORTION RELATED ARTICLES:'''

*[[Abortion alternatives]]
*[[Abortion procedures]]
*[[Culture of life]]
*[[Dilatation and curettage abortion]]
*[[Dilatation and Evacuation abortion]]
*[[National Right to Life Committee]]
*[[Prostaglandin Abortion]]
*[[Partial birth abortion]]
*[[Right to life]]
*[[Right to life books]]
*[[Right to life movement]]
*[[Right to life leaders]]
*[[Saline abortion]]
*[[Suction abortion]]
*[[Sanctity of life]]
*[[Silent scream]]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

==Sysop Pledge==

As my good deed of the day I am requesting that you place this template on your userpage. Participating sysops will earn my respect and gratitude. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 00:05, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

{{Sysop Pledge}}

==Adultery==
Could we divide the topic of adultery into, for example, the [[Sin of adultery]] and "[[Adultery]]"? I'm not sure what the two types of infraction should be called, but it might make it easier on readers if we did a sort of division. What do you think would be best? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:11, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

: What's the difference between the Sin of adultery and Adultery? What's the latter, the crime? I don't really agree with the recent edits on that page, and I guess I'll say so there. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:31, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Homosexuality article ==

Hi Roger. Could you please alter the first sentences of [[Homosexuality]] in accordance with [[talk:homosexuality#attraction or activity]] or comment there? I see you altered the Biblical Prohibition section. Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 10:15, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

==Capital punishment==

What was dubious about explaining the context of Leviticus and Deuteronomy as a covenant between the Israelis and God?

By the way, I wasn't the one who put the stupid comment about the Ten Commandments in there. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

== please vote for me ==

Please vote for me here: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Request_for_Bureaucratship [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

== Why do you hate gay people so much? ==
Just curious. I'd love to know the reasons behind your "principled" disagreement.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 10:52, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: My disagreement is with your edits, as they are frequently erroneous and destructive. It has nothing to do with you being gay or not gay. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:59, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

I never said I was gay or not (!?), but as someone who believes in equality & egalitarianism, I think it offends all of humanity, the level of distaste that your edits level against homosexuals.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 16:31, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

: I never said that I hate gay people. Your bigotry is noted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 20:02, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
::Hmm, bigotry is not accepting bigotry now? (butting in where I'm not wanted) [[User:Human|Human]] 21:32, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

::: Apparently AmesG and you want to use this page for ad hominem attacks on me. You will note that AmesG does not mention any specific edits to support his attacks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:22, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

i know i have no part in this, but doesnt it seem like "mr. equality and egalitarianism and tolerance" AmesG is showing an utter lack of tolerance?[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]]

== Question about your beliefs ==

Have you heard how they genetically alter fruit to make new fruits? I strongly disagree with this practice because it messes with the Earth the way it was created. Next it will be human cloning. This is just a stepping stone. Whats your opinion? (By the way I love your user page! It is so exciting. Mine is boring.) Thanks your friend--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:40, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Communism

2007-04-29T03:17:57Z

BushRules12: Communist could be good

I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].

Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth.

Not that democracy is Heaven, but:
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.

Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.

It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]] 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.

Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Picture ==

I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==

(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)

Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness.

These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)

:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people?

:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

== Communist could be good ==

Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)