Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:42:10Z

CaptainRoemer:

Why does this article keep getting censored? {{unsigned|CaptainRoemer}}

:I think it would be fairer to say that it has been expanded. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:57, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Also, may I point out that, as one of the senior members of this site pointed out, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Clinton&diff=311724&oldid=311714 See Alsos may or may not have anything at all to do with the article subject]. Nonetheless, our additions ''are'' relevant. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

==Factual, but wrong==
If that is factual, it is a disgusting and evil violation of free speech that we should fight to the death. Fighting that is way more important than keeping Hillary or Obama from becoming president; they'd be preferable to McCain in my opinion.[[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Not a violation of "free speech", just a case of the nazis deciding they didn't want anybody to hear what they had to say anymore. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::If anything, it's an example of their freedom of conscience that they are allowed to close down shop. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]
:::The JDO is also a terrorist organization. Don't you neocons hate terrorism? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:34, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it? They don't terrify me. Do they terrify you? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::To our dear friend the captain: '[http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/724/hello.jpg BAWWWWW], they were mean first'. Cut these schoolyard excuses out. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]
:::::I just checked - the US govt doesn't classify the JDO as a terrorist organization. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::::Exactly - neither, say, does the Iranian one, who one would think would. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]
:::::::That's because the American government supports death to whites and worships dubya. [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:38:42Z

CaptainRoemer:

Why does this article keep getting censored? {{unsigned|CaptainRoemer}}

:I think it would be fairer to say that it has been expanded. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:57, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

::Also, may I point out that, as one of the senior members of this site pointed out, [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Clinton&diff=311724&oldid=311714 See Alsos may or may not have anything at all to do with the article subject]. Nonetheless, our additions ''are'' relevant. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

==Factual, but wrong==
If that is factual, it is a disgusting and evil violation of free speech that we should fight to the death. Fighting that is way more important than keeping Hillary or Obama from becoming president; they'd be preferable to McCain in my opinion.[[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:26, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
:Not a violation of "free speech", just a case of the nazis deciding they didn't want anybody to hear what they had to say anymore. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::If anything, it's an example of their freedom of conscience that they are allowed to close down shop. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]
:::The JDO is also a terrorist organization. Don't you neocons hate terrorism? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:34, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::Is it? They don't terrify me. Do they terrify you? [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:35, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
::::To our dear friend the captain: '[http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/724/hello.jpg BAHHHHHHH], they were mean first'. Cut these schoolyard excuses out. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

Talk:White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:34:04Z

CaptainRoemer:

White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:29:13Z

CaptainRoemer: It's factual, remember, FBI-supporting RWer?

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate, [[segregation|segregated]] homeland whose membership would be contingent on ethnicity - white, European/American ethnicity, to be precise.

Its supporters claim that it is not a sanitised face for the white supremacist movement<ref>Swain, Carol M. (2002). The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration.</ref>, claiming that while supremacist advocate political and social dominance for whites, nationalists believe only in separatism. This view is challenged by many anti-racist groups, such as the [[SPLC]]<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=790</ref>, and [[Searchlight]]. The anti-Nazi activities of the [[Jewish Defense Organization]], including publishing the names, addresses and telephone numbers of white nationalists online, has caused many such groups to close. That is a violation of free speech no actual conservative would support.

==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White supremacy]]
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[American Nazi Party]]
*[[Prussian Blue]]

==References==
<references/>

White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:28:05Z

CaptainRoemer:

Talk:White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:26:12Z

CaptainRoemer:

White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:23:12Z

CaptainRoemer: LOL, angered the FBI, right?

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate, [[segregation|segregated]] homeland whose membership would be contingent on ethnicity - white, European/American ethnicity, to be precise.

Its supporters claim that it is not a sanitised face for the white supremacist movement<ref>Swain, Carol M. (2002). The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration.</ref>, claiming that while supremacist advocate political and social dominance for whites, nationalists believe only in separatism. This view is challenged by many anti-racist groups, such as the [[SPLC]]<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=790</ref>, and [[Searchlight]].
==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White supremacy]]
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[American Nazi Party]]
*[[Prussian Blue]]

==References==
<references/>

White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:22:17Z

CaptainRoemer: remove SHIT. No, I don't take back saying that, and I NEVR WILL. A site that supports hate speech laws is GOING TO BE DESTROYED by ME.

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate, [[segregation|segregated]] homeland whose membership would be contingent on ethnicity - white, European/American ethnicity, to be precise.

Its supporters claim that it is not a sanitised face for the white supremacist movement<ref>Swain, Carol M. (2002). The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration.</ref>, claiming that while supremacist advocate political and social dominance for whites, nationalists believe only in separatism. This view is challenged by many anti-racist groups, such as the [[SPLC]]<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=790</ref>, and [[Searchlight]].
==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White supremacy]]
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[American Nazi Party]]
*[[Prussian Blue]]

==References==
<references/>

White nationalism

2008-05-03T15:14:49Z

CaptainRoemer:

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate, [[segregation|segregated]] homeland whose membership would be contingent on ethnicity - white, European/American ethnicity, to be precise.

Its supporters claim that it is not a sanitised face for the white supremacist movement<ref>Swain, Carol M. (2002). The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration.</ref>, claiming that while supremacist advocate political and social dominance for whites, nationalists believe only in separatism. This view is challenged by many Zionist/Communist groups, such as the [[SPLC]]<ref>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=790</ref>, and [[Searchlight]].

==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White supremacy]]
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[American Nazi Party]]
*[[Prussian Blue]]

==References==
<references/>

Talk:John McCain

2008-05-03T15:00:51Z

CaptainRoemer:

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

White nationalism

2008-05-03T14:58:50Z

CaptainRoemer:

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate homeland for, the White European people.

It is different from white supremacy,{{fact}} supremacy advocates political and social dominanc for whites, wheras nationalists believe in separatism.{{fact}}

==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White supremacy]]
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[American Nazi Party]]
*[[Prussian Blue]]

White nationalism

2008-05-03T14:57:07Z

CaptainRoemer: Kate

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate homeland for, the White European people.

It is different from white supremacy, supremacy advocates political and social dominanc for whites, wheras nationalists believe in separatism.

==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White supremacy]]
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]
*[[American Nazi Party]]

Talk:White nationalism

2008-05-03T14:55:16Z

CaptainRoemer: i love lynx and lamb

Why does this article keep getting censored?

Talk:Middle Ages

2008-05-03T14:53:53Z

CaptainRoemer:

"many of today's faithful feel that things should get back to the way they were." - Putting a (citation needed) after a statement that is almost impossible to prove is simply a way to get around replacing fact with opinion. This shouldn't be here. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 16:47, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I agree, Dave. I'm editing it away.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:48, 9 March 2007 (EST)

It seems there may be a pattern of this. We may want to watch this article. Also, how about a more in-depth exploration of the Middle Ages? Right now it's fairly narrow and shallow--just an offhand mention of religion in the era--and some discussion of art, culture, and government would make this a lot more interesting. I'm also not sure it was monolithically religious--consider, for example, the somewhat anti-clerical sentiments in Chaucer. --[[User:John|John]] 22:51, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I added some good stuff. Just general, citing a basic history textbook and notes I just dug up from my old "My Documents" folder... good stuff. If any of you are experts on the specifics, I encourage you to contribute.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 22:57, 9 March 2007 (EST)

While I like your additions, I give it 10 minutes before they're edited away. Keep rolling that boulder up the hill...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 23:07, 9 March 2007 (EST)

I fail to see how the crusades were a tragedy. [[User:ATB|ATB]] 12:26, 10 March 2007 (EST)

==Rewrite==

Did a major rewrite of this thing, because frankly, it was a mess. Given the impossibility of saying anything definite about a period of 1000 years, I suggest using this page as an introduction for the Middle Ages, where we try to describe some of the general trends and changes during the period. Then we can go into greater detail in the pages about the sub-periods. Also, I hope other people will join in on this. I don't mind writing it myself, but I'm afraid it'll be more like an essay than a encyclopedic article in that case. ;-) [[User:AKjeldsen|AKjeldsen]] 06:47, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Hey, studied this quite closely last year at College so I may be able to lend a hand. Anything specific? [[User:Graham|Graham]] 14:31, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

==Promiscuous==
I think most conservative christians should realize that the middle ages were promiscuous, had abortion, and tolerated homosexuality. [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 10:53, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

White nationalism

2008-05-03T14:52:49Z

CaptainRoemer:

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate homeland for, the White European people.

==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White Supremacism]] (a somewhat related but different topic)
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]

White nationalism

2008-05-03T14:52:42Z

CaptainRoemer:

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate homeland for, the White European people.

==See also==
*[[Christian Identity]]
*[[White Supremacism]] ( a somewhat related but different topic)
*[[Ku Klux Klan]]

User talk:CaptainRoemer

2008-05-03T14:46:35Z

CaptainRoemer:

{{welcome}}

Although it's a half-hearted welcome. We're a tolerant website here, but we aren't ready for any torrent of hate speech, racist invective, and KKK-apologism here. You can go back to Stormfront for that sort of thing. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

:LOL, aren't you a user for that other place? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 10:42, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Yes. You'd be one of those metapedians, I imagine. --[[User:Wikinterpreter|'''wikinterpreter''']] [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter Modspeed!]

:Actually, I'm from ed. [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 10:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

User talk:CaptainRoemer

2008-05-03T14:42:16Z

CaptainRoemer:

White nationalism

2008-05-03T14:32:44Z

CaptainRoemer: Started article, waiting for it to get turned into leftist rant

'''White nationalism''' is a movement that believes in the survival of, and the creation of a separate homeland for, the White European people. Some people, notably biased liberals or simply anti-racists on either side of the spectrum, have accused it of being white supremacy and racial bigotry, but WNs do not hate other races, just love their own.