Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Che Guevara

2007-06-23T03:23:04Z

Che: /* Pic is foolish */

Cut from intro:

:There has been no evidence to support the claims that he was plotting but some conservatives have suspected him of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.

What is the point of this? US bad, Che good, or what?

This man murdered hundreds of Cuban civilians who opposed the murderous despotic reign of Castro. The paragraph above sounds like a whitewash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Another cut:

:He is also the voice of the conscience of [[Eva Peron]] in [[Andrew Lloyd Weber|Andrew Lloyd Weber's]] ''[[Evita]]''. In the cinematic version of the musical, "Che" is played by [[Antonio Banderas]], and Evita by [[Madonna]].

Wikipedia's article also has problems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ouch! It's totally true. Watch Evita. But it's not strictly important. Unless you love the musical like I do.-'''AmesG'''<su[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:''Evita''!? We're gonna use the Screen Writers Guild now as sources? Might as well fold shop and all of us move back to Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Wait, who's following the policy with Osama? Isn't the US government going hell for leather to try to kill Osama? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 13:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nope. And never did. Studying the legend of Che, you now understand '''''why''''' it was never a priority to kill bin Laden. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So stated US goals of killing him are lies? Or are you interpreting past the text? Because I thought you were a literalist type of character.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Since Guevara's killing in 1967 it has been debated among Intelligence analysts and policymakers the merits of killing a terrorist leader only to have him idolized in death as a maryr to a cause. After 1975, by Executive Order, such assassinations now are explicitly forbidden without Presidential authorization. In Israel, matters are handled somewhat differently, in that these sorts of decisions are Cabinet decisions, and not the responsibility of one man like under US law (see ''By Way of Deception'' by Victor Ostrovsky [http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky/dp/0971759502]). Arafat, for example, while condemned to death ''in absentia'' by the Israeli cabinet, nonetheless a death warant was never issued by the Prime Minister for his arrest and/or execution, and this is because of pressure from the US State Department not to make a Che Guevara type martyr out of him. Similiarly with bin Laden. Killing him serves no purpose now. It does not undo the events of 9/11 or bring 3000 back from the grave. It probably would elevate him in death to something larger than he ever was in life. So he can be made more of an example as a coward, living in hiding in caves, a hunted man for the rest of his life, which serves more to deter any future bin Laden wanna be's than making a martyr out of him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So is that your position as to why the US hasn't caught him yet? Then why did they catch Saddam? Was that a "mistake," because your policy seems to suggest that dangers to society are better alive than dead no matter what.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent parallel; Saddam too, like bin Ladan, was made an example of, living in a hole as a hunted man. And when he was caught, it wasn't the US that executed him. There is no doubt that if bin Laden is caught, he will be tried to. But killing him out in the jungle for revenge purposes, or of fear that he might lead a mass movement again, is not a likely scenario. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Er, killing him in out in the jungle? Where, exactly, do you think he is? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:55, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Image==

...but apparently you are here to push forward your silly "anti-Che" agenda. The t-shirt pic is completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia entry. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:RobS, I tried to post on your talk page but it was blocked with a spam protection filter. Please read my comments and respond. Cheers [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Living legends==

Are you honest to God saying that the US is deliberately leaving Osama alive so he doesn't become an martyr? That's rich. [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
==Liberal Activist?==
Che was a militant communist, he was the farthest thing from liberal. How can he be in this category. --[[User:JeffreyJamesRideout|JeffreyJamesRideout]] 20:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
==Pic is foolish==
I don't care if you hate the guy or not, that picture is immature and juvenile. --[[User:VincentValentine|VincentValentine]] 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I like it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

But isn't this supposed to be a serious encyclopedia? The pic seems like a joke --[[User:VincentValentine|VincentValentine]] 22:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:I think I'll get the t-shirt myself! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
That's why they call us Conservapedia--we don't 'baah' with the herd. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

Mayhaps, but when people see this, they're going to think this site is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia wouldn't allow a childish image like that. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:Childish? And how would characterize honoring a terrorist? On second thought, that should be rephrased--I wouldn't wish to insult children by equalting their behaviour to romanticized T-shirts of Che Guevara. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::Then how about an actual photograph? The article rips him apart, put the picture costs you credibility. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:58, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::As you said, "Wikipedia wouldn't allow it," I couldn't think of a better argument to keep it than that. We just need to expand a bit about our misguided youth on campus, and the societal factors that lead them astray, to pay actual money for his T-shirts, and worse yet walk around as if they are "hip" or proud to wear such a thing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::::It is really a rather childish. You could always use [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/ff/Famousphotoche-cropped.jpg this pic]. --[[User:Che|Che]] 23:23, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== The guy actually wasn't that bad… ==

He was quite humane, gave Bolivian soldiers medical care, etc. Just because someone is a socialist doesn't automatically mean they're evil. --[[User:Che|Che]] 23:09, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

Essay:Boy Scouts Rout ACLU

2007-06-23T03:14:18Z

Che: Undo revision 205997 by Special:Contributions/SpiritofAeris (User talk:SpiritofAeris) - okay…

The Boy Scouts just won a stunning victory against the ACLU, in defense of the Scouts’ honoring of God. A 3-0 ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the federal government can continue to sponsor the national Jamboree event of the Scouts. ''Winkler v. Gates'', 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 7677 (7th Cir. Apr. 4, 2007).

Every four years for 70 years, the United States government has sponsored on military property a Jamboree for tens of thousands of Boy Scouts. The Boy Scouts are perhaps the largest voluntary youth group in America, and many future Scouts serve our nation in the military and in public office.

Seven Presidents have attended the Jamboree since 1937, beginning with President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This event lasts ten days and attracts over 40,000 Boy Scouts and about 300,000 visitors. The 2010 Jamboree will commemorate the Boy Scouts' 100th anniversary in America.

But the ACLU demanded that a court prohibit this. An ACLU group in Chicago argued that the Boy Scouts is a religious organization, and that the federal government violates the Establishment Clause by sponsoring an event for a religious organization. A few months before the scheduled 2005 Jamboree, the ACLU persuaded a federal judge to prohibit the government sponsorship, though the judge did make an exception to allow the Jamboree to go forward in Virginia that year.

The government appealed this decision to the Seventh Circuit, where there have been numerous other Establishment Clause cases. This time the Seventh Circuit ruled in favor of government and the Boy Scouts, and ordered that the ACLU's lawsuit be dismissed.

The Seventh Circuit panel consisted of Clinton-appointed Judge Diane Wood, the conservative Judge Diane Sykes, and Nixon-appointed Judge William Bauer. Judge Sykes did not give an inch to the ACLU in this case, and her strongly conservative concurrence may have helped pull the entire panel to the right.

Judge Wood, writing for herself and the third Judge, ruled in favor of the government and the Boy Scouts without ever reaching the issue of religion. She found that the ACLU plaintiffs lacked legal standing to challenge the government-supported Jamboree. The Jamboree does not hurt the ACLU plaintiffs in any meaningful way, so there was no legitimate injury for the court to address.

"Today's decision allows everyone to get back to planning the centennial Jamboree celebrating Boy Scouts' 100th birthday," declared the Scouts' attorney, George A. Davidson.

This victory makes one wonder if other ACLU lawsuits can be defeated using similar arguments. This Court relied on how the Jamboree can be defended using the Military and Property Clauses of the Constitution, rather than the Taxing and Spending Clause. This Court concluded that when government action is based on the Military or Property Clauses, ordinary taxpayers have no legal standing to challenge an endorsement of religion.

There were virtually no reported federal lawsuits by the ACLU against the Boy Scouts before 1999. But after the Boy Scouts began asserting their right to exclude openly homosexual Scout leaders, there have been numerous efforts by the ACLU to deny access by the Boy Scouts to government property and benefits.

In San Diego, the ACLU persuaded a federal trial judge to invalidate a 25-year lease guaranteeing the Boy Scouts affordable access to local parks. ''Barnes-Wallace v. BSA'', 275 F.Supp.2d 1259 (S.D. Cal. 2003). The ACLU plaintiffs in that case may not have any greater claim to legal standing than the plaintiffs in the Jamboree case. This decision remains on appeal, and perhaps the Scouts can turn their Jamboree victory into a victory here also.

Talk:Che Guevara

2007-06-23T03:09:19Z

Che: The guy actually wasn't that bad…

Cut from intro:

:There has been no evidence to support the claims that he was plotting but some conservatives have suspected him of planning terrorism against the United States. He was shot in Bolivia by the Bolivian Special Forces in 1967. These Bolivian soldiers were trained, equipped and guided by U.S. Green Beret and CIA operatives.

What is the point of this? US bad, Che good, or what?

This man murdered hundreds of Cuban civilians who opposed the murderous despotic reign of Castro. The paragraph above sounds like a whitewash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:29, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Another cut:

:He is also the voice of the conscience of [[Eva Peron]] in [[Andrew Lloyd Weber|Andrew Lloyd Weber's]] ''[[Evita]]''. In the cinematic version of the musical, "Che" is played by [[Antonio Banderas]], and Evita by [[Madonna]].

Wikipedia's article also has problems. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:49, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Ouch! It's totally true. Watch Evita. But it's not strictly important. Unless you love the musical like I do.-'''AmesG'''<su[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 12:51, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:''Evita''!? We're gonna use the Screen Writers Guild now as sources? Might as well fold shop and all of us move back to Wikipedia. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Wait, who's following the policy with Osama? Isn't the US government going hell for leather to try to kill Osama? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 13:19, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Nope. And never did. Studying the legend of Che, you now understand '''''why''''' it was never a priority to kill bin Laden. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:27, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So stated US goals of killing him are lies? Or are you interpreting past the text? Because I thought you were a literalist type of character.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:10, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
::Since Guevara's killing in 1967 it has been debated among Intelligence analysts and policymakers the merits of killing a terrorist leader only to have him idolized in death as a maryr to a cause. After 1975, by Executive Order, such assassinations now are explicitly forbidden without Presidential authorization. In Israel, matters are handled somewhat differently, in that these sorts of decisions are Cabinet decisions, and not the responsibility of one man like under US law (see ''By Way of Deception'' by Victor Ostrovsky [http://www.amazon.com/Way-Deception-Victor-Ostrovsky/dp/0971759502]). Arafat, for example, while condemned to death ''in absentia'' by the Israeli cabinet, nonetheless a death warant was never issued by the Prime Minister for his arrest and/or execution, and this is because of pressure from the US State Department not to make a Che Guevara type martyr out of him. Similiarly with bin Laden. Killing him serves no purpose now. It does not undo the events of 9/11 or bring 3000 back from the grave. It probably would elevate him in death to something larger than he ever was in life. So he can be made more of an example as a coward, living in hiding in caves, a hunted man for the rest of his life, which serves more to deter any future bin Laden wanna be's than making a martyr out of him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:39, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
So is that your position as to why the US hasn't caught him yet? Then why did they catch Saddam? Was that a "mistake," because your policy seems to suggest that dangers to society are better alive than dead no matter what.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 15:44, 13 April 2007 (EDT)
:Excellent parallel; Saddam too, like bin Ladan, was made an example of, living in a hole as a hunted man. And when he was caught, it wasn't the US that executed him. There is no doubt that if bin Laden is caught, he will be tried to. But killing him out in the jungle for revenge purposes, or of fear that he might lead a mass movement again, is not a likely scenario. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:09, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Er, killing him in out in the jungle? Where, exactly, do you think he is? [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:55, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

==Image==

...but apparently you are here to push forward your silly "anti-Che" agenda. The t-shirt pic is completely innapropriate for an encyclopedia entry. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

:RobS, I tried to post on your talk page but it was blocked with a spam protection filter. Please read my comments and respond. Cheers [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 18:12, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

==Living legends==

Are you honest to God saying that the US is deliberately leaving Osama alive so he doesn't become an martyr? That's rich. [[User:Pendayho|Pachuca]] 17:51, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
==Liberal Activist?==
Che was a militant communist, he was the farthest thing from liberal. How can he be in this category. --[[User:JeffreyJamesRideout|JeffreyJamesRideout]] 20:17, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
==Pic is foolish==
I don't care if you hate the guy or not, that picture is immature and juvenile. --[[User:VincentValentine|VincentValentine]] 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

I like it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 22:05, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

But isn't this supposed to be a serious encyclopedia? The pic seems like a joke --[[User:VincentValentine|VincentValentine]] 22:08, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:I think I'll get the t-shirt myself! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:09, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
That's why they call us Conservapedia--we don't 'baah' with the herd. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

Mayhaps, but when people see this, they're going to think this site is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia wouldn't allow a childish image like that. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:45, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:Childish? And how would characterize honoring a terrorist? On second thought, that should be rephrased--I wouldn't wish to insult children by equalting their behaviour to romanticized T-shirts of Che Guevara. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:54, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
::Then how about an actual photograph? The article rips him apart, put the picture costs you credibility. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 22:58, 21 June 2007 (EDT)
:::As you said, "Wikipedia wouldn't allow it," I couldn't think of a better argument to keep it than that. We just need to expand a bit about our misguided youth on campus, and the societal factors that lead them astray, to pay actual money for his T-shirts, and worse yet walk around as if they are "hip" or proud to wear such a thing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:01, 21 June 2007 (EDT)

== The guy actually wasn't that bad… ==

He was quite humane, gave Bolivian soldiers medical care, etc. Just because someone is a socialist doesn't automatically mean they're evil. --[[User:Che|Che]] 23:09, 22 June 2007 (EDT)