<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=DennyW66</id>
		<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=DennyW66"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/DennyW66"/>
		<updated>2026-06-15T19:36:28Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.24.2</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Football_sports&amp;diff=860852</id>
		<title>Football sports</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Football_sports&amp;diff=860852"/>
				<updated>2011-04-09T22:26:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 860851 by Bomar (talk) Do this again and you'll be blocked&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''&amp;quot;Football sports&amp;quot;''' include [[American Football]], [[Canadian Football]], [[Soccer]], two kinds of [[rugby (sport)|rugby]], and [[Australian Rules Football]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[American football]]''' was created in the [[United States]] in the nineteenth century and was derived from Rugby. Originally played at the college level, professional teams were created in 1920.  This version uses a smaller ball than rugby and is the most popular form of football in the U.S.  The main difference from rugby is that the game is broken up into a series of plays, each ending when the ball touches the ground, and that for each play the offensive team is allowed one forward pass.  In addition the ball does not need to be grounded to score, but simply carried into the end zone.  The ultimate competition for this sport is the [[National Football League]]. Other professional leagues exist, many with rules variations. An example is the Canadian Football League, which has a larger field and three downs instead of four. Another is the Arena Football League, where games are played indoors on a shortened field.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Rugby''' was derived in [[England]] at around the same time as Soccer, initially at [[Rugby School]]. This version uses an elliptical ball with the main aim being to ground the ball over the opponents' goal line to score a try.  Kicking and passing are permitted, but all passes must be backward.  There are two versions of the sport, [[Rugby Union]] and [[Rugby League]]. Each uses a different numbers of players and slightly different rules.  Rugby is popular in the [[U.K.]], [[France]], [[Ireland]], [[Australia]], [[South Africa]], [[New Zealand]] and throughout the South Pacific.  The ultimate competition for this sport is the [[Rugby World Cup]] held every four years.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Comparison chart==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=wikitable style=&amp;quot;text-align:center&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|+ Six codes of football&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! || Soccer || Rugby League || Rugby Union || [[American Football]] || Canadian Football || Australian Rules &lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Number of players || 11 || 13 || 15 || 11 || 12 || 18&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Ball shape &lt;br /&gt;
| spherical &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=5 align=center | elliptical; although American and Canadian footballs are more pointed&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Handling &lt;br /&gt;
| goalkeeper only &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center | all players&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center | all players not deemed ineligible until after the pass&lt;br /&gt;
| all players&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Passing &lt;br /&gt;
| kicked or headed&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center | backwards only, thrown &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center | lateral + one forward pass per play, thrown&lt;br /&gt;
| kicked or punched&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Touchdown &lt;br /&gt;
| n/a &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center | ball grounded in touch zone, called a &amp;quot;try&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center | ball in endzone in player's possession with two feet grounded &lt;br /&gt;
| n/a&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Point value&lt;br /&gt;
|n/a&lt;br /&gt;
|4&lt;br /&gt;
|5&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center |6&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Conversion&lt;br /&gt;
|n/a&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center |2&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center |1 if kicked, 2 for touchdown&lt;br /&gt;
|n/a&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Goal &lt;br /&gt;
| into opponent's net &lt;br /&gt;
|colspan=4 align=center |kicked over/between opposing goal posts &lt;br /&gt;
| kicked between opposing goal posts&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Point value&lt;br /&gt;
|1&lt;br /&gt;
|1 drop; 2 penalty&lt;br /&gt;
|3 drop; 3 penalty&lt;br /&gt;
| colspan=2 align=center |3&lt;br /&gt;
|6 for a goal; 1 for a behind&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://cultureofsoccer.com/2007/03/06/soccer-by-any-other-name-2/]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Soccer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[National Football League]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rugby]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[American Football]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Football]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Soccer]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Rugby]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=New_York_City&amp;diff=860578</id>
		<title>New York City</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=New_York_City&amp;diff=860578"/>
				<updated>2011-04-08T04:24:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Nyc1.jpg|thumb|450px|the center of the metropolitan area, which stretches into Connecticut (to the northeast) and New Jersey (to the west)]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''New York City''', officially the '''City of New York''', is a city and metropolitan area in the state of [[New York]], located on the East coast of the [[United States of America]].  With a population of 19 million in the three-state metropolitan area (and 8,140,000 in the city as in 2005), it is the most populous urban area in the [[United States]]. The city is divided into five different counties, called boroughs.  Manhattan is the financial, commercial, and tourist center.   Brooklyn is the most populous of the boroughs, and suburban Queens (Queen's County) is the largest in area.  The other two boroughs are The Bronx, a downscale residential area, and suburban Staten Island.  The modern city was formed in 1898 through a merger of the original New York City with Brooklyn.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New York is the cultural capital of the world; it has global importance in fashion, finance, news, diplomacy, education, medicine and arts.  The city is a world-class tourist destination. It contains many landmarks, including the [[Statue of Liberty]], [[Wall Street]], in [[Lower Manhattan]], and many others. The city (along with its #2 rival Chicago) invented the skyscraper, and still has some of the tallest buildings in the world, like [[Empire State Building]]; the [[World Trade Center]] towers were destroyed by terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks. [[File:Gotham1.jpg|thumb|220px]]&lt;br /&gt;
==Transportation==&lt;br /&gt;
New York owes its success  to its status as the major hub of world transportation by air and water. It grew because it has one of the world's finest natural harbors.  It is ice-free year-round and deep enough to enable large ships to reach its piers regardless of the tide.  The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey was established in 1921 by the two states in order to administer jointly the shared waterfront. Most traffic is now handled through containers.  Three major airports serve the city: John F. Kennedy International Airport (for international travel) and La Guardia Airport (for domestic travel), as well as nearby Newark International Airport. All are operated by the Port Authority, which also runs the bridges and subways.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== History ==&lt;br /&gt;
The first Dutch settlers arrived on Manhattan in 1624, naming the town New Amsterdam.  Indian claims were bought out for the equivalent of $24.  The Dutch sent settlers up the Hudson River (which is easily navigable by sailing vessels) to Albany. The Dutch colony, named New Amsterdam, was run in autocratic fashion by Governor Peter Stuyvesant.  It soon had a cosmopolitan flavor, with freedom of religion and numerous ethnic and religious groups; the Dutch brought slaves as house servants.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Slavery was finally abolished in 1799.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The city was captured in war by the British in 1664; they renamed both the city and the colony for the duke of York (who later became King [[James II]]). &lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Nyc2.jpg|thumb|450px|Manhattan neighborhoods]]&lt;br /&gt;
The use of [[Ellis Island]] as the checkpoint for millions of European immigrants in the late 1800s caused New York City's population to swell, as many settled in nearby areas.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:800px-Times Square Panorama1.jpg|thumb|800px|center|Times Square.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Politics ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
New York City is historically considered a liberal city, with the majority of the population voting Democratic. However, the mayor has recently been [[Republican]] (Rudy Giuliani) or independent (Michael Bloomberg). [[Fox News Channel]] is based in NYC.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Culture ==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Duke Ellington Statue.jpg|thumb|[[Duke Ellington]] Statue.]]&lt;br /&gt;
New York City is home to top-notch museums in [[art]], [[architecture]], photography, natural history, television, radio and technology, like: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, The Frick Collection, the National Design Museum, the Museum of Natural History, &lt;br /&gt;
and the National Academy Museum and School of Fine Arts. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ny.com/museums/mile.html Museums in New York City] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Featured cultural sites are:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Carnegie Hall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Radio City Music Hall&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Hayden Planetarium&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•New York Aquarium&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•The Morgan Library&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•New York Public Library&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Rose Center for Earth and Space&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•International Center of Photography&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Empire State Building Lobby Gallery&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•SculptureCenter&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Museum of Biblical Art&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Staten Island Institute of Arts &amp;amp; Sciences&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Center for Architecture&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
•Studio Museum in Harlem&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Boroughs==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Each of New York City's boroughs is coterminous a county in the State of New York. The five boroughs are:&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Manhattan]] (New York County)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Brooklyn]] (Kings County)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Queens]] (Queens County)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[The Bronx]] (Bronx County)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Staten Island]] (Richmond County)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All of the non-Manhattan boroughs are sometimes referred to collectively as &amp;quot;the outer boroughs&amp;quot; as they are arranged in a sort of semicircle around Manhattan.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many places have been proposed as &amp;quot;Sixth Boroughs,&amp;quot; which can carry a different meaning depending on who is asked. Some areas often cited as &amp;quot;Sixth Boroughs&amp;quot; include:&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Hudson County]], [[New Jersey]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Nassau County]], [[Long Island]], [[New York]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Westchester County]], [[New York]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Newark]], [[New Jersey]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Philadelphia]], [[Pennsylvania]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:NYC.jpg|thumb|400px|Historic Manhattan]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[The Bronx]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fiorello La Guardia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Art cities]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Washington, D.C.]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[New York Yankees]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== External links ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.ny.com/museums/museum.of.american.financial.history.html Museum of American Financial History.]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.metmuseum.org/ The Met.]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nyc-arts.org/ NYC ARTS.]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.nycwalk.com/rock.html A Walking Tour of Rockefeller Center's Public Art.]&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Prometheus Fountain at the Rockefeller Center.jpg|thumb|240px|Prometheus Fountain at the Rockefeller Center.]]&lt;br /&gt;
* Burrows, Edwin G., and Mike Wallace. ''Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Gotham-History-York-City-1898/dp/0195140494/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1262334804&amp;amp;sr=1-1 excerpt and text search], the best history; Pulitzer prize&lt;br /&gt;
* Caro, Robert. ''The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York.'' (1973) [http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0394720245/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Jackson, Kenneth, ed. ''The Encyclopedia of New York City'' (1995), the best reference book; 1350pp; [http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-New-York-City/dp/0300055366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1240594479&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Jackson, Kenneth and Sam Roberts, eds. ''The Almanac of New York City'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
* Kessner, Thomas. ''Fiorello H. LaGuardia and the Making of Modern New York'' (1989) the most detailed standard scholarly biography&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayton, Robert A. ''Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith,'' (2001), 480pp, the standard scholarly biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Statesman-Rise-Redemption-Smith/dp/1416567771/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1196822024&amp;amp;sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763098.html Information Please - Top 50 Cities in the U.S.]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New York Cities and Towns]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New York City]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Urban History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860377</id>
		<title>Essay:Worst Liberal Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860377"/>
				<updated>2011-04-06T19:10:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Formatting, capitalization&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Political==&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Frost/Nixon]]'' - A liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''W'' - A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fahrenheit 911'' - A Michael Moore movie, geared to show there was a link between Pres. Bush and the Bin Laden family.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Motorcycle Diaries'' - A fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Social==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ferris Bullers Day Off'' - Promotes the message that skipping school, education and general dishonesty is somehow &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dazed and Confused'' - Promotes promiscuity and drug abuse.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Scarface'' - Glorified drug use and gangsterism, whilst glossing over the Cuban plan to send all their scum to America, in the guise of refugees.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pineapple Express'' - Shows drug abuse to be &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Natural Born Killers'' - Riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Brokeback Mountain'' - Showing that [[liberals]] will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Boogie Nights'' - Made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Sicko'' - [[Michael Moore]]'s attack on the U.S. health care system, in which he conveniently forgets things such as long waiting lists when comparing it to the socialistic NHS system of [[Great Britain]].&lt;br /&gt;
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]], in fact.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Super Size Me'' - Blames obesity on great capitalist Paradigms like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Religulous'' - &amp;quot;Comedian&amp;quot; Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dogma'' - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
please add more!&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860376</id>
		<title>Essay:Worst Liberal Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860376"/>
				<updated>2011-04-06T19:09:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Documentary */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Political==&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Frost/Nixon]]'' - a liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''W'' - A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fahrenheit 911'' - a Michael Moore movie, geared to show there was a link between Pres. Bush and the Bin Laden family&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Motorcycle Diaries'' - a fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Social==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ferris Bullers Day Off'' - promotes the message that skipping school, education and general dishonesty is somehow &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dazed and Confused'' - promotes promiscuity and drug abuse&lt;br /&gt;
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung&lt;br /&gt;
#''Scarface'' - glorified drug use and gangsterism, whilst glossing over the Cuban plan to send all their scum to America, in the guise of refugees.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pineapple Express'' - shows drug abuse to be &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#''Natural Born Killers'' - riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Brokeback Mountain'' - showing that liberals will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Boogie Nights'' - made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Sicko'' - [[Michael Moore]]'s attack on the U.S. health care system, in which he conveniently forgets things such as long waiting lists when comparing it to the socialistic NHS system of [[Great Britain]]&lt;br /&gt;
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]], in fact.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Super Size Me'' - Blames obesity on great capitalist Paradigms like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Religulous'' - &amp;quot;Comedian&amp;quot; Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dogma'' - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
please add more!&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860375</id>
		<title>Essay:Worst Liberal Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860375"/>
				<updated>2011-04-06T19:08:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Documentary */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Political==&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Frost/Nixon]]'' - a liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''W'' - A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fahrenheit 911'' - a Michael Moore movie, geared to show there was a link between Pres. Bush and the Bin Laden family&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Motorcycle Diaries'' - a fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Social==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ferris Bullers Day Off'' - promotes the message that skipping school, education and general dishonesty is somehow &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dazed and Confused'' - promotes promiscuity and drug abuse&lt;br /&gt;
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung&lt;br /&gt;
#''Scarface'' - glorified drug use and gangsterism, whilst glossing over the Cuban plan to send all their scum to America, in the guise of refugees.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pineapple Express'' - shows drug abuse to be &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#''Natural Born Killers'' - riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Brokeback Mountain'' - showing that liberals will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Boogie Nights'' - made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Sicko'' - [[Michael Moore]]'s attack on the U.S. health care system, in which he conveniently forgets things such as long waiting lists when comparing it to the socialistic NHS system of [[Great Britain]]&lt;br /&gt;
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]], in fact.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Super Size Me'' - Blames obesity on great capitalist Paradigms like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].&lt;br /&gt;
# '''Religulous''' - &amp;quot;Comedian&amp;quot; Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dogma'' - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
please add more!&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860374</id>
		<title>Essay:Worst Liberal Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Worst_Liberal_Movies&amp;diff=860374"/>
				<updated>2011-04-06T19:08:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Documentary */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;While many [[Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies|great conservative movies]] are produced every year, [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] continues to create many movies which promote, normalize and aggrandize bad behavior and poor values. Below is a list of some of the more egregious examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Political==&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Frost/Nixon]]'' - a liberal movie meant to further tarnish the reputation of [[Richard Nixon]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''W'' - A movie designed to denigrate the role of Christianity in US politics and particularly in the life of George W. Bush.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fahrenheit 911'' - a Michael Moore movie, geared to show there was a link between Pres. Bush and the Bin Laden family&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Motorcycle Diaries'' - a fawning monument to communist [[Che Guevara]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Social==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ferris Bullers Day Off'' - promotes the message that skipping school, education and general dishonesty is somehow &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dazed and Confused'' - promotes promiscuity and drug abuse&lt;br /&gt;
#''Blow'' - Glorifies the life of drug dealer, and suspected murderer, George Jung&lt;br /&gt;
#''Scarface'' - glorified drug use and gangsterism, whilst glossing over the Cuban plan to send all their scum to America, in the guise of refugees.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pineapple Express'' - shows drug abuse to be &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#''Natural Born Killers'' - riddled with violence, drug abuse and sexual references, this movies main characters are brutal serial killers who are viewed as heroes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Brokeback Mountain'' - showing that liberals will shoehorn the homosexual agenda into anything, even cowboys.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Boogie Nights'' - made the porn industry and exploitation of women look cool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Documentary==&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Sicko'' - [[Michael Moore]]'s attack on the U.S. health care system, in which he conveniently forgets things such as long waiting lists when comparing it to the socialistic NHS system of [[Great Britain]]&lt;br /&gt;
# Almost any movie by [[Michael Moore]], in fact.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''Super Size Me'' - Blames obesity on great capitalist Paradigms like [[McDonald's]] and [[Sodexo]].&lt;br /&gt;
# &amp;quot;Religulous&amp;quot; - &amp;quot;Comedian&amp;quot; Bill Maher tries to convince the audience of the folly of all religion, with special focus on Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious==&lt;br /&gt;
#''Dogma'' - mocks religion and [[Catholic]]ism in particular, with cheap smutty jokes and portraying [[God]] as female.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
please add more!&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Doc_Hollywood&amp;diff=859977</id>
		<title>Doc Hollywood</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Doc_Hollywood&amp;diff=859977"/>
				<updated>2011-04-02T16:46:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Doc Hollywood''' is a 1991 film about a young doctor ([[Michael J. Fox]]) who is torn between small town intimacy and big city wealth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:movies]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=859568</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=859568"/>
				<updated>2011-03-29T02:21:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* No U2? */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all.  I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours (&amp;quot;Stand by your man&amp;quot;), and National Review had it at #50.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''.  But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry?  Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see.  Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all.  &amp;quot;I wanna hold your hand,&amp;quot; for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland.  I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world.  That tune is fun for reminiscing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning.  [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained.  Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood.  A &amp;quot;conservative song&amp;quot; reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Last Kiss==&lt;br /&gt;
Somebody just put up &amp;quot;Last Kiss;&amp;quot; actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people.  My my, how things had changed by 1967....  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Possible Addition==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page.  I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on.  I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into &amp;quot;bricks&amp;quot; in the wall that is liberal society.  In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly.  Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought.  [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song &amp;quot;another brick in the wall&amp;quot; as conservative.  You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;Another Brick In The Wall&amp;quot; is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I'm glad the commies were thrown out&lt;br /&gt;
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way.  Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies.  He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''.  It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.'  Which is the conservative value?  And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are these truly conservative? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list.  These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example:  The Beatles - Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
While this song does indeed talk about how &amp;quot;Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao&amp;quot; will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems.  In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes.  The same idea goes for Bob Dylan.  Look at any of his other songs.  At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?&lt;br /&gt;
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time.  We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== In Your Eyes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes.  &amp;quot;In Your Eyes&amp;quot; appeals to conservative values, as in &amp;quot;a thousand churches.&amp;quot;  Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot;, in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God.  Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing.  See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been &amp;quot;basic statistical interpretation&amp;quot;. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]?  Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Land of Confusion==&lt;br /&gt;
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list?  I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's liberal lyric of &amp;quot;too many people&amp;quot; is enough reason to bounce it from the list.  Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's vehemently anti-war.  Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I just looked the lyrics.  Pretty confused stuff.  I'd agree it's not conservative.  Would you like to toss it from the list?  Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is another good candidate for this list.  It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action.  --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Agey ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I removed the new agey phrase of &amp;quot;the cycle of life, death and rebirth,&amp;quot; for the &amp;quot;Lightning Crashes,&amp;quot; by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That wasn't meant to seem &amp;quot;new agey&amp;quot; in the least, but I do understand what you're saying.  The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and &amp;quot;The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall.&amp;quot;  I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole.  I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Perhaps a rewording would work then?  How about replacing &amp;quot;the cycle of life, death and rebirth&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life&amp;quot;?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me.  Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way?  [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Song idea ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;One Man, One Woman&amp;quot; sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list?  Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Takin' Care of Business ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This song by BTO is on the list for supporting &amp;quot;Hard work ethic&amp;quot;, but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. &amp;quot;I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard. &lt;br /&gt;
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to &amp;quot;Mike Huckabee performed the song&amp;quot; &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[comment by AndrewJackson]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Adonai My Lord ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called &amp;quot;Christf---&amp;quot;...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No U2?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: &amp;quot;Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips.&amp;quot; --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps &amp;quot;40&amp;quot;; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::You're kidding right? [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/u2-honoured-to-be-involved-with-obama-celebrations-14145757.html Conservative indeed..] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 28 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Bono has had a relationship with every President since Clinton; for instance, he worked with Bush on issues relating to Africa and AIDS awareness. The band is very Christian and in no way ashamed of their Christianity. And, rare for rock stars, three of the four members of the band are married family men. They are known for their charitableness and philanthropy, which are of course [[conservative]] traits. Without a doubt, U2 is a conservative, Christian band and they should have representation on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:21, 28 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=859543</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&amp;diff=859543"/>
				<updated>2011-03-28T16:43:00Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all.  I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours (&amp;quot;Stand by your man&amp;quot;), and National Review had it at #50.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''.  But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sorry?  Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see.  Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all.  &amp;quot;I wanna hold your hand,&amp;quot; for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland.  I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world.  That tune is fun for reminiscing.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning.  [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled.  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained.  Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood.  A &amp;quot;conservative song&amp;quot; reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Last Kiss==&lt;br /&gt;
Somebody just put up &amp;quot;Last Kiss;&amp;quot; actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people.  My my, how things had changed by 1967....  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Possible Addition==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page.  I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on.  I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into &amp;quot;bricks&amp;quot; in the wall that is liberal society.  In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly.  Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought.  [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song &amp;quot;another brick in the wall&amp;quot; as conservative.  You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;Another Brick In The Wall&amp;quot; is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I'm glad the commies were thrown out&lt;br /&gt;
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) &amp;quot;liberal&amp;quot; to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way.  Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies.  He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''.  It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.'  Which is the conservative value?  And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Are these truly conservative? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list.  These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For example:  The Beatles - Revolution&lt;br /&gt;
While this song does indeed talk about how &amp;quot;Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao&amp;quot; will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems.  In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes.  The same idea goes for Bob Dylan.  Look at any of his other songs.  At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?&lt;br /&gt;
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time.  We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== In Your Eyes ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes.  &amp;quot;In Your Eyes&amp;quot; appeals to conservative values, as in &amp;quot;a thousand churches.&amp;quot;  Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot;, in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God.  Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing.  See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been &amp;quot;basic statistical interpretation&amp;quot;. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#00ff00&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Make&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#0000ff&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Tomorrow&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]?  Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Land of Confusion==&lt;br /&gt;
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list?  I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al.  [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;Hello!&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's liberal lyric of &amp;quot;too many people&amp;quot; is enough reason to bounce it from the list.  Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It's vehemently anti-war.  Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I just looked the lyrics.  Pretty confused stuff.  I'd agree it's not conservative.  Would you like to toss it from the list?  Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this is another good candidate for this list.  It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action.  --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Agey ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I removed the new agey phrase of &amp;quot;the cycle of life, death and rebirth,&amp;quot; for the &amp;quot;Lightning Crashes,&amp;quot; by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That wasn't meant to seem &amp;quot;new agey&amp;quot; in the least, but I do understand what you're saying.  The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and &amp;quot;The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall.&amp;quot;  I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole.  I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Perhaps a rewording would work then?  How about replacing &amp;quot;the cycle of life, death and rebirth&amp;quot; with &amp;quot;the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life&amp;quot;?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me.  Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way?  [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Song idea ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;One Man, One Woman&amp;quot; sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list?  Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Takin' Care of Business ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This song by BTO is on the list for supporting &amp;quot;Hard work ethic&amp;quot;, but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. &amp;quot;I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard. &lt;br /&gt;
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to &amp;quot;Mike Huckabee performed the song&amp;quot; &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;[comment by AndrewJackson]&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Adonai My Lord ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called &amp;quot;Christf---&amp;quot;...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==No U2?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: &amp;quot;Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips.&amp;quot; --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps &amp;quot;40&amp;quot;; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&amp;diff=859441</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&amp;diff=859441"/>
				<updated>2011-03-28T02:07:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 859440 by DennyW66 (talk) Accidentally posted twice&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]'''&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mother Nature==&lt;br /&gt;
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Look up &amp;quot;Gaia&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Terra Mater&amp;quot; - &amp;quot;Mother Nature&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Mother Earth&amp;quot; has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, &amp;quot;You will not die&amp;quot; yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;death&amp;quot; correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, &amp;quot;You have the name of being alive, but you are dead&amp;quot; in Revelations and, &amp;quot;Let the dead bury their own dead&amp;quot; in Luke 9)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called &amp;quot;[[peace movement]]&amp;quot;, for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The &amp;quot;save the earth&amp;quot; movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed.  Thank you for sharing it.  I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine.  Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Bully pulpit&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about &amp;quot;bully pulpit&amp;quot;?  When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, &amp;quot;bully&amp;quot; meant something like &amp;quot;excellent&amp;quot; rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Definition==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by &amp;quot;conservative words.&amp;quot; As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; - Wrong! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the term &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; the article claims &amp;quot;thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where did this number come from?  Go to Google and type in &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits.  Type in &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits.  Where did the &amp;quot;thirty-three million&amp;quot; come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's an interesting observation, Paul.  The number of Google links retrieved for the search &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; has fallen substantially.  That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Should we correct that number in the article? [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:41, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please improve as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The user who added that ([[User:DrewDice]]) was subsequently blocked for prevarication. The one-million figure Andy added seems about right in my searches. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Before you round the number down, consider rounding it up. [http://www.google.com/search?q=anti+Christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;lr=lang_en&amp;amp;as_qdr=all&amp;amp;prmd=inl&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=eQldTN2RGIWBlAeU8uCbCA&amp;amp;ved=0CBEQpwU&amp;amp;source=lnt&amp;amp;tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:] The answer is 74.6 million. Google anti Christian with no quotes, no hyphens, English language only.  --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:24, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::That is true, but such a Google search would include Christian sites about &amp;quot;[[pro-life|anti-abortion]]&amp;quot; stances or &amp;quot;[[homosexuality|anti-Biblical]]&amp;quot; lifestyles. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 21:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::A good indication that my search results are accurate can be judged by the first 10 page results, nothing but anti-Christian in the title. Does it include anti-abortion and anti-American? Possibly, we are talking 78 million pages but I didn't see any through the top 10. I frown on the smaller number of 1 million.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 17 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. A good indication that your search results are inaccurate can be judged by using the &amp;quot;Search within results&amp;quot; function. Half a million of your results pertain to the Christian &amp;quot;anti defamation&amp;quot; commission. Another half million are for &amp;quot;anti abortion&amp;quot;. 184,000 deal with &amp;quot;anti immigration&amp;quot;. And the list goes on and on...173,000 are about the punk rock band &amp;quot;Anti-flag&amp;quot;. I'm sure hundreds of thousands more results are about things that people named Christian don't like. The only way to accurately gauge the use of the phrase &amp;quot;anti Christian&amp;quot; on Google is to search for that phrase, not its components. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 11:50, 18 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::I did a search for anti-Christian both with and without the hyphen when Paul Burnett first brought the issue up, and both returned the same number of hits (about the 7.5 million he mentioned). I think that Jpatt may have misread the number and moved the decimal place over. Even now, I'm only getting 10.8 million hits, both by typing in what Jpatt described or by clicking his link. I'm changing the article now to say 10 million, but I think the number should ultimately be removed. It just changes to quickly for the article to stay up-to-date unless somebody is going to check every morning. Also, on the first page of ten results, on is a list of anti-Christian movies, one is lamenting the anti-Christian bias in America, and one is against anti-Christian defamation. If you want to only use the first 10 results as a sample of the 10 million (which anybody who's taken a statistics course would tell you is a horrible idea), about 30% of those results are nothing hostile towards Christianity. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::JPatt's search results extended further into the past than a normal google search. For the same reasons I explained to him, your 10 million number is inaccurate (you can verify by searching within your results). I'm changing it back to 1 million for the time being, but maybe you're right that it should be removed outright. No one doubts that it is a widely-used term. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 17:54, 20 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::There are 10.8 million results when you search anti-Christian on Google. The claim being made was not that there were X million results hostile towards Christianity, just that there were X million results. No attempt was made at qualifying them, and the statement in the article does not indicate any attempt at qualifying them. It doesn't matter if only one in ten of those results is actually something anti-Christian; the claim is only about how many results there are. I'm changing it back to 10 million, because that's how many results there are (not good results, or relevant results, just results in any form). With that being said, it is a fairly pointless claim to make, because we don't know how many of those results actually '''are''' anti-Christian, we only know that they make some reference to &amp;quot;anti-Christian.&amp;quot; [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 20:17, 21 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::::I'm blanking the description on this term. The number of Google results is subject to wide variation, and the number of Google results is hardly an informative piece of information, as per discussion above. The term '''is''' included in the unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionary ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antichristian Link]). I don't know of a suitable replacement description, so I'm just going to leave it open to somebody else. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 13:52, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Adding Obama Portmanteaus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Underdog ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree that &amp;quot;underdog&amp;quot; is a conservative term, and I will promote it now.  Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excellent scholarship ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here.  Conservatives words express insights that are conservative.  These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a &amp;quot;1-2-4-8&amp;quot; geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Definition by example seems best here.  Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express   [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list.  You wouldn't request a definition for &amp;quot;List of Words beginning with G&amp;quot;, so why are you demanding a definition for &amp;quot;Conservative term&amp;quot;? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you?  We're not using them in any aberrant way.  --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. &amp;quot;List of Words beginning with G&amp;quot; is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot; means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the &amp;quot;excellent scholarship presented in this essay&amp;quot; smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a &amp;quot;conservative word&amp;quot; was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;AmandaBunting&amp;quot; (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk.  We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology.  It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn.   [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you.  Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maggie Thatcher ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:&lt;br /&gt;
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time&lt;br /&gt;
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values&lt;br /&gt;
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists&lt;br /&gt;
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries.  Perhaps because &amp;quot;Maggie&amp;quot; was actually not very conservative by American standards?  She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Possibility ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite &amp;quot;medicines&amp;quot; of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting and informative suggestion.  However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful.  I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kiss of Death ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;Kiss of Death&amp;quot; clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name].  In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word.  Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
-	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==&lt;br /&gt;
	 &lt;br /&gt;
While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense.  Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;Carpetbagger&amp;quot; is a fascinating suggestion.  [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples.  Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well...hmm.  There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live.  His defense, as I recall, was &amp;quot;Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district.&amp;quot;  (It wasn't.)  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Research method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestion? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Selection bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;What's the probability to get a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Century&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Probability&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;For a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) ×  (1/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (2/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (4/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (8/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;  = 675675 × 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;34&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; / 15&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;  =0.0265&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;That you were able to repeat this  process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Selection bias exists in any study.  The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results.  Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century. &lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===An unbiased test===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;If you  mark each conservative word with an &amp;quot;r&amp;quot; (and perhaps each liberal word with an &amp;quot;l&amp;quot;), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Century&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Number of Words&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;151&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;84&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;161&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;104&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s.  Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts.  That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)&lt;br /&gt;
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Table of random words===&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;collapsible collapsed&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!500 words&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1    economics&lt;br /&gt;
2    storeroom&lt;br /&gt;
3    hunkers&lt;br /&gt;
4    sufficing&lt;br /&gt;
5    coffeehouses&lt;br /&gt;
6    stalagmites&lt;br /&gt;
7    therapy&lt;br /&gt;
8    sanitation&lt;br /&gt;
9    cheapskates&lt;br /&gt;
10    Caesareans&lt;br /&gt;
11    ringmaster&lt;br /&gt;
12    acclimate&lt;br /&gt;
13    penology&lt;br /&gt;
14    verandah&lt;br /&gt;
15    caregivers&lt;br /&gt;
16    fed&lt;br /&gt;
17    disengaged&lt;br /&gt;
18    whitecaps&lt;br /&gt;
19    dissertation&lt;br /&gt;
20    consignment&lt;br /&gt;
21    chainsaws&lt;br /&gt;
22    speeds&lt;br /&gt;
23    kinfolk&lt;br /&gt;
24    caribous&lt;br /&gt;
25    hobbyists&lt;br /&gt;
26    coefficients&lt;br /&gt;
27    protuberance&lt;br /&gt;
28    morphemes&lt;br /&gt;
29    Caroline&lt;br /&gt;
30    millionaires&lt;br /&gt;
31    recyclable&lt;br /&gt;
32    wilts&lt;br /&gt;
33    unreconstructed&lt;br /&gt;
34    chandeliers&lt;br /&gt;
35    palomino&lt;br /&gt;
36    joysticks&lt;br /&gt;
37    volleys&lt;br /&gt;
38    cajoling&lt;br /&gt;
39    bucksaws&lt;br /&gt;
40    spars&lt;br /&gt;
41    portaged&lt;br /&gt;
42    acoustically&lt;br /&gt;
43    humanize&lt;br /&gt;
44    hybridize&lt;br /&gt;
45    tipsters&lt;br /&gt;
46    overprices&lt;br /&gt;
47    marksmanship&lt;br /&gt;
48    fezes&lt;br /&gt;
49    depressant&lt;br /&gt;
50    auctioned&lt;br /&gt;
51    flamethrower&lt;br /&gt;
52    biking&lt;br /&gt;
53    artistic&lt;br /&gt;
54    agribusiness&lt;br /&gt;
55    jottings&lt;br /&gt;
56    pedicures&lt;br /&gt;
57    Cordilleras&lt;br /&gt;
58    slots&lt;br /&gt;
59    recording&lt;br /&gt;
60    unrealistic&lt;br /&gt;
61    rationalism&lt;br /&gt;
62    peacekeeping&lt;br /&gt;
63    aromatherapy&lt;br /&gt;
64    jackknife&lt;br /&gt;
65    champagne&lt;br /&gt;
66    horrendous&lt;br /&gt;
67    Quasimodo&lt;br /&gt;
68    excavator&lt;br /&gt;
69    chowders&lt;br /&gt;
70    arts&lt;br /&gt;
71    configure&lt;br /&gt;
72    civic&lt;br /&gt;
73    telegraphy&lt;br /&gt;
74    sweepstakes&lt;br /&gt;
75    euphoric&lt;br /&gt;
76    strategy&lt;br /&gt;
77    subgroup&lt;br /&gt;
78    shouting&lt;br /&gt;
79    gusher&lt;br /&gt;
80    telemarketing&lt;br /&gt;
81    glucose&lt;br /&gt;
82    booties&lt;br /&gt;
83    preponderated&lt;br /&gt;
84    manures&lt;br /&gt;
85    outspokenness&lt;br /&gt;
86    wiener&lt;br /&gt;
87    embeds&lt;br /&gt;
88    amped&lt;br /&gt;
89    sternums&lt;br /&gt;
90    empathy&lt;br /&gt;
91    cognomina&lt;br /&gt;
92    colitis&lt;br /&gt;
93    kimono&lt;br /&gt;
94    retched&lt;br /&gt;
95    singletons&lt;br /&gt;
96    megaphoned&lt;br /&gt;
97    respelled&lt;br /&gt;
98    Hindus&lt;br /&gt;
99    squiggle&lt;br /&gt;
100    irrigates&lt;br /&gt;
101    reconstructions&lt;br /&gt;
102    deceptiveness&lt;br /&gt;
103    colonialism&lt;br /&gt;
104    missioned&lt;br /&gt;
105    dyes&lt;br /&gt;
106    maladroit&lt;br /&gt;
107    tents&lt;br /&gt;
108    turfs&lt;br /&gt;
109    generalization&lt;br /&gt;
110    seamanship&lt;br /&gt;
111    duffers&lt;br /&gt;
112    scruffier&lt;br /&gt;
113    pollinate&lt;br /&gt;
114    bobcats&lt;br /&gt;
115    achieved&lt;br /&gt;
116    exerted&lt;br /&gt;
117    flapjack&lt;br /&gt;
118    Independence&lt;br /&gt;
119    lucidity&lt;br /&gt;
120    indenturing&lt;br /&gt;
121    enumerable&lt;br /&gt;
122    disenchanted&lt;br /&gt;
123    flashback&lt;br /&gt;
124    trilogies&lt;br /&gt;
125    colloquially&lt;br /&gt;
126    Colby&lt;br /&gt;
127    killjoys&lt;br /&gt;
128    lifelines&lt;br /&gt;
129    hydrotherapy&lt;br /&gt;
130    psychoanalysis&lt;br /&gt;
131    memorializing&lt;br /&gt;
132    bronchitis&lt;br /&gt;
133    rink&lt;br /&gt;
134    automobiles&lt;br /&gt;
135    dandy&lt;br /&gt;
136    schoolmarms&lt;br /&gt;
137    debriefing&lt;br /&gt;
138    glands&lt;br /&gt;
139    oceanography&lt;br /&gt;
140    jetted&lt;br /&gt;
141    hurdler&lt;br /&gt;
142    dependability&lt;br /&gt;
143    tactician&lt;br /&gt;
144    rotor&lt;br /&gt;
145    liturgies&lt;br /&gt;
146    quantified&lt;br /&gt;
147    wests&lt;br /&gt;
148    quitters&lt;br /&gt;
149    ocarinas&lt;br /&gt;
150    betting&lt;br /&gt;
151    apathetically&lt;br /&gt;
152    smoggier&lt;br /&gt;
153    Xenia&lt;br /&gt;
154    saris&lt;br /&gt;
155    dupe&lt;br /&gt;
156    voodooism&lt;br /&gt;
157    optimize&lt;br /&gt;
158    particularization&lt;br /&gt;
159    funereally&lt;br /&gt;
160    masterminding&lt;br /&gt;
161    capsizes&lt;br /&gt;
162    orchestrates&lt;br /&gt;
163    uncivilized&lt;br /&gt;
164    emphasized&lt;br /&gt;
165    skyrocket&lt;br /&gt;
166    plagiarist&lt;br /&gt;
167    politicoes&lt;br /&gt;
168    streptococci&lt;br /&gt;
169    pantsuits&lt;br /&gt;
170    waving&lt;br /&gt;
171    decontaminates&lt;br /&gt;
172    teensy&lt;br /&gt;
173    taxonomy&lt;br /&gt;
174    proselytizes&lt;br /&gt;
175    drollness&lt;br /&gt;
176    expectoration&lt;br /&gt;
177    legmen&lt;br /&gt;
178    modulations&lt;br /&gt;
179    diploma&lt;br /&gt;
180    Brandy&lt;br /&gt;
181    radar&lt;br /&gt;
182    pushiest&lt;br /&gt;
183    drill&lt;br /&gt;
184    lush&lt;br /&gt;
185    temperas&lt;br /&gt;
186    musicals&lt;br /&gt;
187    wheal&lt;br /&gt;
188    horticulture&lt;br /&gt;
189    cancan&lt;br /&gt;
190    jocularity&lt;br /&gt;
191    caramels&lt;br /&gt;
192    bipolar&lt;br /&gt;
193    sophisticated&lt;br /&gt;
194    injudicious&lt;br /&gt;
195    emulsion&lt;br /&gt;
196    ignore&lt;br /&gt;
197    cannonballed&lt;br /&gt;
198    swastika&lt;br /&gt;
199    overachievers&lt;br /&gt;
200    rubella&lt;br /&gt;
201    chuckhole&lt;br /&gt;
202    ersatz&lt;br /&gt;
203    breeziness&lt;br /&gt;
204    climaxes&lt;br /&gt;
205    explosiveness&lt;br /&gt;
206    empathizing&lt;br /&gt;
207    jumps&lt;br /&gt;
208    secularizing&lt;br /&gt;
209    sequoia&lt;br /&gt;
210    bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
211    prettying&lt;br /&gt;
212    bouldered&lt;br /&gt;
213    authorship&lt;br /&gt;
214    vocalizing&lt;br /&gt;
215    tarpons&lt;br /&gt;
216    camisoles&lt;br /&gt;
217    cowpox&lt;br /&gt;
218    tans&lt;br /&gt;
219    breathable&lt;br /&gt;
220    machines&lt;br /&gt;
221    tycoon&lt;br /&gt;
222    flicking&lt;br /&gt;
223    squishes&lt;br /&gt;
224    semiprofessional&lt;br /&gt;
225    feline&lt;br /&gt;
226    seedling&lt;br /&gt;
227    hankie&lt;br /&gt;
228    entitlement&lt;br /&gt;
229    abscissa&lt;br /&gt;
230    derisive&lt;br /&gt;
231    romance&lt;br /&gt;
232    overprice&lt;br /&gt;
233    beads&lt;br /&gt;
234    stipple&lt;br /&gt;
235    Kitty&lt;br /&gt;
236    jewelled&lt;br /&gt;
237    mascaraed&lt;br /&gt;
238    dissociation&lt;br /&gt;
239    moments&lt;br /&gt;
240    Spica&lt;br /&gt;
241    quaking&lt;br /&gt;
242    legislation&lt;br /&gt;
243    wobbly&lt;br /&gt;
244    scorches&lt;br /&gt;
245    books&lt;br /&gt;
246    gastrointestinal&lt;br /&gt;
247    finked&lt;br /&gt;
248    renegotiates&lt;br /&gt;
249    flautists&lt;br /&gt;
250    wrongheadedness&lt;br /&gt;
251    allergenic&lt;br /&gt;
252    squishiest&lt;br /&gt;
253    kickoffs&lt;br /&gt;
254    mecca&lt;br /&gt;
255    disses&lt;br /&gt;
256    woodwinds&lt;br /&gt;
257    discotheques&lt;br /&gt;
258    replacements&lt;br /&gt;
259    tomahawks&lt;br /&gt;
260    voluptuaries&lt;br /&gt;
261    salon&lt;br /&gt;
262    eliciting&lt;br /&gt;
263    resale&lt;br /&gt;
264    soporific&lt;br /&gt;
265    dosage&lt;br /&gt;
266    smokestacks&lt;br /&gt;
267    rationalists&lt;br /&gt;
268    subsumed&lt;br /&gt;
269    futzes&lt;br /&gt;
270    minutemen&lt;br /&gt;
271    stingrays&lt;br /&gt;
272    marathoner&lt;br /&gt;
273    vagina&lt;br /&gt;
274    propellers&lt;br /&gt;
275    rooftops&lt;br /&gt;
276    sensationalist&lt;br /&gt;
277    bluejackets&lt;br /&gt;
278    individualize&lt;br /&gt;
279    hyphenating&lt;br /&gt;
280    Xanthippe&lt;br /&gt;
281    federated&lt;br /&gt;
282    amortize&lt;br /&gt;
283    airfare&lt;br /&gt;
284    hyphenates&lt;br /&gt;
285    syncopates&lt;br /&gt;
286    sermonizing&lt;br /&gt;
287    biochemistry&lt;br /&gt;
288    babysat&lt;br /&gt;
289    yellows&lt;br /&gt;
290    riskier&lt;br /&gt;
291    cassocks&lt;br /&gt;
292    stated&lt;br /&gt;
293    Cordoba&lt;br /&gt;
294    Slinky&lt;br /&gt;
295    eventfully&lt;br /&gt;
296    nines&lt;br /&gt;
297    blabbermouths&lt;br /&gt;
298    fraternizes&lt;br /&gt;
299    bucked&lt;br /&gt;
300    Boolean&lt;br /&gt;
301    bivalve&lt;br /&gt;
302    ricochetted&lt;br /&gt;
303    toys&lt;br /&gt;
304    toted&lt;br /&gt;
305    commissars&lt;br /&gt;
306    cushioning&lt;br /&gt;
307    redeploy&lt;br /&gt;
308    poignancy&lt;br /&gt;
309    variegating&lt;br /&gt;
310    snuffbox&lt;br /&gt;
311    stoplight&lt;br /&gt;
312    biochemists&lt;br /&gt;
313    bicycling&lt;br /&gt;
314    disenfranchised&lt;br /&gt;
315    nosing&lt;br /&gt;
316    enlightenment&lt;br /&gt;
317    knockout&lt;br /&gt;
318    resurgent&lt;br /&gt;
319    pediments&lt;br /&gt;
320    skyscrapers&lt;br /&gt;
321    treatments&lt;br /&gt;
322    polio&lt;br /&gt;
323    flashbulbs&lt;br /&gt;
324    empower&lt;br /&gt;
325    rounding&lt;br /&gt;
326    pervasive&lt;br /&gt;
327    humped&lt;br /&gt;
328    oxymora&lt;br /&gt;
329    freebie&lt;br /&gt;
330    passageway&lt;br /&gt;
331    barfing&lt;br /&gt;
332    motorists&lt;br /&gt;
333    triglycerides&lt;br /&gt;
334    Mayans&lt;br /&gt;
335    stopped&lt;br /&gt;
336    kidnapper&lt;br /&gt;
337    pensioning&lt;br /&gt;
338    foreclosures&lt;br /&gt;
339    Yankees&lt;br /&gt;
340    manifestoing&lt;br /&gt;
341    predictor&lt;br /&gt;
342    Delawares&lt;br /&gt;
343    librettos&lt;br /&gt;
344    panoply&lt;br /&gt;
345    angstroms&lt;br /&gt;
346    jodhpurs&lt;br /&gt;
347    backpedal&lt;br /&gt;
348    sugars&lt;br /&gt;
349    preclude&lt;br /&gt;
350    unravelling&lt;br /&gt;
351    Lilliput&lt;br /&gt;
352    motivator&lt;br /&gt;
353    enslavement&lt;br /&gt;
354    pencilling&lt;br /&gt;
355    flukey&lt;br /&gt;
356    amoral&lt;br /&gt;
357    depository&lt;br /&gt;
358    unemotional&lt;br /&gt;
359    stumpy&lt;br /&gt;
360    cartons&lt;br /&gt;
361    gal&lt;br /&gt;
362    ignitions&lt;br /&gt;
363    malingered&lt;br /&gt;
364    spotlighted&lt;br /&gt;
365    photographic&lt;br /&gt;
366    abnegated&lt;br /&gt;
367    dashing&lt;br /&gt;
368    atrocious&lt;br /&gt;
369    inanities&lt;br /&gt;
370    derricks&lt;br /&gt;
371    mountaineer&lt;br /&gt;
372    inseminate&lt;br /&gt;
373    sacrosanct&lt;br /&gt;
374    modernize&lt;br /&gt;
375    specializations&lt;br /&gt;
376    obliging&lt;br /&gt;
377    heckles&lt;br /&gt;
378    baccalaureates&lt;br /&gt;
379    bluebirds&lt;br /&gt;
380    lengthiest&lt;br /&gt;
381    octets&lt;br /&gt;
382    physiotherapist&lt;br /&gt;
383    disorganizing&lt;br /&gt;
384    toffees&lt;br /&gt;
385    unfurling&lt;br /&gt;
386    abnegate&lt;br /&gt;
387    bathrobe&lt;br /&gt;
388    socked&lt;br /&gt;
389    crepe&lt;br /&gt;
390    polkas&lt;br /&gt;
391    overwriting&lt;br /&gt;
392    punned&lt;br /&gt;
393    platoons&lt;br /&gt;
394    infrared&lt;br /&gt;
395    ensuring&lt;br /&gt;
396    decimate&lt;br /&gt;
397    baggiest&lt;br /&gt;
398    plungers&lt;br /&gt;
399    trampolining&lt;br /&gt;
400    centigram&lt;br /&gt;
401    Topsy&lt;br /&gt;
402    epochal&lt;br /&gt;
403    boogies&lt;br /&gt;
404    showrooms&lt;br /&gt;
405    pianofortes&lt;br /&gt;
406    Orphic&lt;br /&gt;
407    logbooks&lt;br /&gt;
408    amphibious&lt;br /&gt;
409    rapprochements&lt;br /&gt;
410    terms&lt;br /&gt;
411    Kalmyk&lt;br /&gt;
412    petering&lt;br /&gt;
413    geocentric&lt;br /&gt;
414    stills&lt;br /&gt;
415    ethnologist&lt;br /&gt;
416    exec&lt;br /&gt;
417    flairs&lt;br /&gt;
418    likableness&lt;br /&gt;
419    rods&lt;br /&gt;
420    melange&lt;br /&gt;
421    graduated&lt;br /&gt;
422    ante&lt;br /&gt;
423    voluminously&lt;br /&gt;
424    impaled&lt;br /&gt;
425    cognacs&lt;br /&gt;
426    yups&lt;br /&gt;
427    comfiest&lt;br /&gt;
428    strychnine&lt;br /&gt;
429    subsoiled&lt;br /&gt;
430    conics&lt;br /&gt;
431    Salish&lt;br /&gt;
432    windsocks&lt;br /&gt;
433    rutabaga&lt;br /&gt;
434    vacuumed&lt;br /&gt;
435    maestri&lt;br /&gt;
436    podiatrist&lt;br /&gt;
437    restructured&lt;br /&gt;
438    metrically&lt;br /&gt;
439    motorcade&lt;br /&gt;
440    zipping&lt;br /&gt;
441    unmoral&lt;br /&gt;
442    electioneered&lt;br /&gt;
443    minibikes&lt;br /&gt;
444    trillion&lt;br /&gt;
445    sudsier&lt;br /&gt;
446    actuator&lt;br /&gt;
447    acing&lt;br /&gt;
448    masochism&lt;br /&gt;
449    softeners&lt;br /&gt;
450    cocksucker&lt;br /&gt;
451    brig&lt;br /&gt;
452    verbs&lt;br /&gt;
453    buccaneer&lt;br /&gt;
454    confessed&lt;br /&gt;
455    filibustered&lt;br /&gt;
456    rearmed&lt;br /&gt;
457    melodramatics&lt;br /&gt;
458    swivelled&lt;br /&gt;
459    veggies&lt;br /&gt;
460    monochrome&lt;br /&gt;
461    hellos&lt;br /&gt;
462    escalators&lt;br /&gt;
463    Seyfert&lt;br /&gt;
464    bushwhack&lt;br /&gt;
465    encapsulation&lt;br /&gt;
466    combining&lt;br /&gt;
467    realists&lt;br /&gt;
468    playgrounds&lt;br /&gt;
469    teenage&lt;br /&gt;
470    glandular&lt;br /&gt;
471    tot&lt;br /&gt;
472    cyclical&lt;br /&gt;
473    tinsmith&lt;br /&gt;
474    commitment&lt;br /&gt;
475    undersells&lt;br /&gt;
476    orthopaedics&lt;br /&gt;
477    yardstick&lt;br /&gt;
478    Vivian&lt;br /&gt;
479    peppy&lt;br /&gt;
480    swatted&lt;br /&gt;
481    earlobes&lt;br /&gt;
482    snapshots&lt;br /&gt;
483    nitpicker&lt;br /&gt;
484    unities&lt;br /&gt;
485    depressants&lt;br /&gt;
486    briefing&lt;br /&gt;
487    halo&lt;br /&gt;
488    watermarking&lt;br /&gt;
489    electronics&lt;br /&gt;
490    inadequates&lt;br /&gt;
491    ghosted&lt;br /&gt;
492    rapscallions&lt;br /&gt;
493    snorkeler&lt;br /&gt;
494    percentages&lt;br /&gt;
495    relapsing&lt;br /&gt;
496    facet&lt;br /&gt;
497    inconsistently&lt;br /&gt;
498    takeout&lt;br /&gt;
499    acidify&lt;br /&gt;
500    password&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!word&lt;br /&gt;
!date&lt;br /&gt;
!class&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|monsignor||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|productive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1612||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alertly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1618||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inconsistent||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1620||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|numerical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interlock||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|platoons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1637||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|forevermore||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1641||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|identification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|untenable||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reversible||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1648||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|authentication||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1652||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|monotheistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1660||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|constructive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1680||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alphabetize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|misconduct||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1705||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propagandists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1718||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|revelations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1729||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|guaranteed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1731||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cohesiveness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1731||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|systematizing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|letdown||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1768||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dissident||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diagramming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1785||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|backhanded||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1800||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|autocratically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1823||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|socialistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mormonisms||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|westernize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trademarks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propagandized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|graffito||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Americans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|optimize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1857||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|outdistancing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1857||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rogues||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|birthrates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|slob||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quantifier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|implode||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1881||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|housemother||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scantier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sierras||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|arena||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toddled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eventful||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|catheter||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|primarily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|labeling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|copings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pooh||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1602||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|respectively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1602||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|embroiling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haloes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Iliad||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|enthusiasm||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dragoons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|promised||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|recollecting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stentorian||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rivaling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impregnates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|touchy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impassive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|immediacy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|literary||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|animosities||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|volatile||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vegetates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|acclaiming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onlooker||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sides||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wisher||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|melancholia||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tab||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|typical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|casuist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bucolic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|footfalls||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1610||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bison||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lambing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ticketed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incompatibilities||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|demonstrators||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reproduces||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|longish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|amalgamations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1612||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bailing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1613||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|caste||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1613||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|convulses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1614||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abscess||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1615||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|valise||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1615||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cult||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1617||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hesitancy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1617||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drill||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|blotchy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|urban||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|appositeness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1621||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ingratiated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1621||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ingrate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1622||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diplomata||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1622||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|exporters||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1623||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drolly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1623||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adrift||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1624||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|powwow||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1624||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oaf||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|preconceptions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ruse||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abominating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dodo||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|discriminated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|biassing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|enslaved||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|backwaters||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palindromic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palindromes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tussles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|correspondents||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1630||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underrates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underrate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|characterized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1633||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|etcher||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|labium||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fluctuates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|morocco||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|circumnavigated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Anglican||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1635||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|graphically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1637||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|millenniums||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1638||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|domesticating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1639||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pharmaceutical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1640||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1640||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|feints||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scavenge||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|malls||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|salaciously||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1645||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|additional||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|nonuser||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|predisposing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|temperamentally||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|invigorate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|protuberances||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disinclines||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|castanet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|piloting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1649||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|leniently||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1652||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|melange||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1653||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dialling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1653||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|naively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1654||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|siesta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1655||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|collectives||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1655||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quibbles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dawdler||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cosmologies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cosmology||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|morbid||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inconvenienced||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|numerating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1657||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incapacitate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1657||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|overwrite||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1658||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|horrendous||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1659||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tableau||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1660||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|derisively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1662||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1664||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diverging||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rotundity||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cultivators||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maroon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1666||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stunning||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1667||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interleave||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1668||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|globes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1668||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hick||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1669||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|realty||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|belated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|punning||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haphazardly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1671||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wader||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1673||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|resilient||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1674||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|auk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1674||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|priggish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1676||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bungalow||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1676||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masqueraded||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1677||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|configuring||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1677||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masterstroke||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1679||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|yaws||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1679||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ganglions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1681||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kidnaps||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1682||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shivery||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1683||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|whaler||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1684||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bewilder||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1684||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|roughshod||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1688||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bluebird||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1688||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toothbrushes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1690||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|romance||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1690||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adeptness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dowsing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|processioned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|missioned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1692||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vessels||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1694||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flabbiness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1694||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|penmanship||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1695||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Ojibwa||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1700||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|actualized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1701||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|established||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1702||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|copped||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1704||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|liability||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1705||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sniggers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dyspeptic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|crunch||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hibiscuses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stencil||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1707||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quadruplet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|primness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stocks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|leaseholds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1710||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rheumatic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1711||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|papilla||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1713||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|presentiments||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1714||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tantrum||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1714||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|needling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1715||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impersonating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1715||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|settees||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1716||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hustling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1720||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unassuming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1722||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Houyhnhnm||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|knotholes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Lilliput||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soporifics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1727||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Shinto||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1727||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bludgeons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1730||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pillboxes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1730||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pantheistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1732||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vampires||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1732||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palaver||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1735||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Stilton||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1736||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incriminates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1736||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|philanders||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1737||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|exiled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1737||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coterie||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1738||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cantaloupe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wham||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|swipe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|icings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1740||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|segueing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1740||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|insulates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1741||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flatiron||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1743||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|uncharacteristic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1748||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cornmeal||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1749||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|develop||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1750||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|spindling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1750||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|measurements||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pompon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fanciers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lumberyard||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1753||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|riffles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1754||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|personification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1755||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesquites||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1759||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maniacs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1763||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pronouncing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1764||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|frivolity||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1764||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aboriginals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Afghans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|paws||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mynas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|modernization||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1770||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coagulants||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1770||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hairpin||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1771||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fagged||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Ta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propertied||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fagging||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1773||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gibbon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1774||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gecko||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1774||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|passé||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1775||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clannish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1776||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gnu||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1777||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gasses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1779||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|balalaika||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1780||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|congressman||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1780||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fumigate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1781||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|varying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1781||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|minutiae||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1782||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|effervesce||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1784||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bangle||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|letups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|thyroids||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|loots||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1788||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Hollands||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1788||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dolly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1790||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|weakfish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1791||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rutabagas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1791||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|equalizer||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1792||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|steeplechase||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1793||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|daredevils||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|commentated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|embeds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|telegraphy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1795||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1795||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|allover||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1796||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|titanium||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1796||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quizzically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stashes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kilogram||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|belittled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1798||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bibliographies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1802||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fezes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1803||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dressmaking||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1803||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|condoned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coarsening||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gumbos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|peewee||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1806||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lassos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1807||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pueblos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1808||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|blinder||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1809||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eddied||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scurrying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|milliliter||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|miffed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1811||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quintet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1811||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aluminum||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shawling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tossup||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|opalescent||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1813||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vocalic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Swahili||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|nocturnes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underpaying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1817||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diarist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1818||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|intellectualizes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1819||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stethoscope||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1820||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bloodstain||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1820||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|squawk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1821||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|suffragist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1822||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|caffeine||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1823||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flysheet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|augmented||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|subway||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|crotchety||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pullout||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|beadier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1826||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mammal||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1826||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|chaffed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clinics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|recruitment||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1828||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesmerizing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|constitutionals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cahoots||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|homeopathic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pterodactyl||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cadres||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hex||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|chipmunks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Horus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toothpastes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cottonmouths||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underplays||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1833||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dorsals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1834||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cetaceans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1835||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wholeheartedly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1836||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|creepily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1836||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|étude||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Confucianism||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scatting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|smokestacks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pretzel||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|upheaval||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Bunker||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mushier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bushings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|OK||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesa||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1840||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wastrel||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1841||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pyromaniac||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Assam||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Spitz||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wisteria||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cubbyhole||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kinkiest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Limoges||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|taillights||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|subgroups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1845||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|garnisheeing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Joe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tobogganed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|snobby||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|strapless||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cheekily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|orgiastic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|funnest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tactlessness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tailcoats||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gynecologists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cartography||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tenderfeet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1849||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|laterals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|educations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trunks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hangars||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colloids||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|delimits||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|delimited||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|davenport||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1853||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Russians||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abnormality||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rainfall||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Brewer||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hazings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vendetta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pullouts||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|warlords||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1856||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seismographs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1858||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interbreeding||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|emulsification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pub||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soulfulness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Darwinian||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flautist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pipelines||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ewe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bellboy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trapezes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ewes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|railroading||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1862||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|isomorphic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1862||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|canapé||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1863||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|columns||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1863||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|octets||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1864||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coffeecakes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1865||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|goulash||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1866||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sudsier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1866||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maverick||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1867||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|safaris||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rangier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mailbox||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rotting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1870||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|saprophyte||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1870||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|agenda||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1871||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|roomers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1871||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masterminds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1872||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|deforest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|spaghetti||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|intercollegiate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Helicon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1875||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dermatitis||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|semiprivate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toniest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1877||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|supplies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1878||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quirking||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1878||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wagged||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onionskin||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bacillus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clobber||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|steamrollered||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alumna||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|locoweed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toeholds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1880||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|paternalism||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1881||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adrenals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|syndicating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|winery||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interface||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|infantryman||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1883||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|worldlier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1883||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shyest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|showdowns||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oilfield||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|words||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fixating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|micron||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stagehand||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|contraceptives||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1886||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sensitization||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1887||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|parachutists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1888||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sandblaster||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1888||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|erogenous||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1889||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lactating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1889||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|psychopathics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1890||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reactor||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1890||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unsnaps||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1892||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|decolletes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inbound||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|marihuana||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|encapsulated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|erythrocytes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sequinned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|defrosted||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1895||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sacks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1895||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|phonemes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mescaline||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|midyear||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|redwoods||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|happenstances||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sandhog||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eggs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1898||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|taxicab||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1899||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|concoction||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1675||&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative.  But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words.  Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
!16s&lt;br /&gt;
!17s&lt;br /&gt;
!18s&lt;br /&gt;
!&amp;amp;Sigma;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!conservative words&lt;br /&gt;
|15||9||17||41&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!all words&lt;br /&gt;
|176||114||210||500&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!percentage of conservative words&lt;br /&gt;
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this:  roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature.  That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the &amp;quot;''best''&amp;quot; new conservative words.  Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Destruction of words ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g,  only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes  constant after a while...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like &amp;quot;population control&amp;quot;) fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the&lt;br /&gt;
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of&lt;br /&gt;
the conservative words:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!century&lt;br /&gt;
!17th&lt;br /&gt;
!18th&lt;br /&gt;
!19th&lt;br /&gt;
!20th&lt;br /&gt;
!21st&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!claimed&lt;br /&gt;
|20||40||80||160||13&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!recount&lt;br /&gt;
|20||40||81||150||14&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was&lt;br /&gt;
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!century&lt;br /&gt;
!17th&lt;br /&gt;
!18th&lt;br /&gt;
!19th&lt;br /&gt;
!20th&lt;br /&gt;
!21st&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!pre Segway&lt;br /&gt;
|14||28||56||112||6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!post Segway&lt;br /&gt;
|15||28||56||124||6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!my count&lt;br /&gt;
|15||29||57||114||6&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words.  Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture.  None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours.  The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Too Good to be True ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imagine the hypothesis: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;There are as many male writers as there are female&lt;br /&gt;
ones&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,&lt;br /&gt;
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and&lt;br /&gt;
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,&lt;br /&gt;
the hypothesis is true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last&lt;br /&gt;
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we&lt;br /&gt;
reach round 300?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,&lt;br /&gt;
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of&lt;br /&gt;
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being&lt;br /&gt;
finished, but we can't conclude anything!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the&lt;br /&gt;
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors&lt;br /&gt;
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly&lt;br /&gt;
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two&lt;br /&gt;
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability&lt;br /&gt;
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random&lt;br /&gt;
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next&lt;br /&gt;
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's&lt;br /&gt;
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it&lt;br /&gt;
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,&lt;br /&gt;
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact&lt;br /&gt;
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names&lt;br /&gt;
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating&lt;br /&gt;
''best conservative new words''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,&lt;br /&gt;
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the&lt;br /&gt;
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be  bigger than for each other combination,&lt;br /&gt;
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields  odds of&lt;br /&gt;
1:2,000,000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not&lt;br /&gt;
believable, and don't support your claims made  in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Disbelief of something because it is &amp;quot;too good to be true&amp;quot; is not a strong argument against it.  Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example.  Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Of course it is not a random process.  That would be silly.  But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn.  We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells.  Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A summary with graphs... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Conservapedia's Law&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of &amp;quot;1-2-4-8&amp;quot;. This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of &amp;amp;asymp; 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see  ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as  newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled  a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;not&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; show a geometric progression.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century &amp;amp;asymp; 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;conservative words&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, and a general distribution of the creation of words.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|However, if one maps the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;percentage&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; of words in - e.g. -  a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;That's a&lt;br /&gt;
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new&lt;br /&gt;
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I&lt;br /&gt;
would have identified as liberal in nature. &amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;But very few of these words&lt;br /&gt;
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; new conservative&lt;br /&gt;
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly&lt;br /&gt;
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to&lt;br /&gt;
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his&lt;br /&gt;
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)&lt;br /&gt;
pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.  But quantity is no substitute or quality.  You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil.  Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about.  Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that  show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's  database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that  the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your  software to which you want attend?&lt;br /&gt;
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable  claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may  rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math  behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.&lt;br /&gt;
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them,  you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as  long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the  amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English  language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the  ''best conservative words''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One way of marrying the two ideas above (that there is no increase of conservative terms over time and that there is an increase in the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; conservative terms over time) is simply to suggest that conservative terms are getting better in quality and not quantity, which is the point that Mr. Schlafly makes, I believe. An explanation that might want to be considered is that after a new term is coined, it may slowly lose its relevence over time. I would suggest that if you look at the vocabulary from the 17th century, many words have lost their relevence greatly. This presumably applies to conservative terms as well. So, a partial explanation for conservative terms increasing in &amp;quot;quality&amp;quot; over time may be the decrease in time-lag and thus an increase in relevence.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 12:15, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decrypt ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified.  It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman.  The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the &amp;quot;Bombe&amp;quot;). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.&lt;br /&gt;
:: As for &amp;quot;the British are notoriously weak in math&amp;quot;: you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so.  If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, &amp;quot;a non-Newtonian fluid&amp;quot;. He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Brilliant logic.  17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any.  As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact?  If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple &amp;quot;web-like&amp;quot; effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story.  I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work.   [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot; If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!&amp;quot;'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):&lt;br /&gt;
* Sir Isaac Newton&lt;br /&gt;
* Charles Babbage&lt;br /&gt;
* Alan Turing&lt;br /&gt;
* G.H. Hardy&lt;br /&gt;
* Bertrand Russell&lt;br /&gt;
* Roger Penrose&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrew Wiles &lt;br /&gt;
* Arthur Cayley&lt;br /&gt;
* William Rowan Hamilton&lt;br /&gt;
* George Boole&lt;br /&gt;
* Augustus De Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: While I am respectful of the contributions of those on your list, as a group they are a far cry from the greatest mathematicians and many would not be considered &amp;quot;British&amp;quot;.  Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain.  Wiles did his work in the U.S.  Russell's work was deflated by Godel, and others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Fiona seems to miss the varying degrees of &amp;quot;mathematician&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;great mathematician&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;one of the greatest mathematicians&amp;quot; as if they're all the same thing.  We saw the same thing when another contributor was unable to grasp the difference between &amp;quot;conservative words&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;best conservative words&amp;quot;.  It's as if liberals can see everything in the world only in black and white terms, as if everything falls perfectly into one of two categories, e.g. &amp;quot;mathematician&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;not-mathematician&amp;quot;. I think this is another example of [[Liberal Inability To Abstract]]. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 14:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, you stated: &amp;quot;It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The British are notoriously weak in mathematics&amp;quot;. Both these statements are not only untrue but ridiculous. I've tried to contribute to this encyclopedia but I'm not going to waste my time messing around if you fill it up with your own uninformed prejudices, refuse to do some easy reading to check your facts, and get absurdly defensive when your statements are corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on the subject in question. ''Laziness is not a conservative character trait, least of all intellectual laziness.'' Please tell me if you're going to check your facts before shooting your mouth off in future, in which case I'd be pleased to continue contributing to CP. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Benjy, please rant somewhere else instead.  We tell the truth here, whether [[Anglophile]]s accept it or not.  The relative weakness of [[Britain]] in mathematics is an objective fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Have you any proof for your assertion? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 16:37, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(EC) Hi Andy. Are you talking about mathematical ability in the general UK population, or about the number of major contributions to the field by British mathematicians? Thanks, --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 16:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::(EC) Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain.  Or list the greatest modern mathematical achievements and count how many came out of Britain.  I'm sorry liberals don't teach this, and that's why there is a need for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::According to [http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm this blog], 9 of 99 were British - and that's an all time, Ancient Greece to present list. Now you; would you care to support your position with sources? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::And ''your source'' comes from a ''blog?''  How about you, SamI, come up with non-blog, official sources yourself to support ''your'' position.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Rather a blog than my own imagination. Would Andy care to provide his sources? The burden of proof, and all that. [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::(EC)[http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html This list gives 3 British and 1 Irish out of 14.] And why do I keep having to fill out captcha boxes? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Andy said &amp;quot;Look at '''any''' list&amp;quot; (my emphasis). This is a list already on the Internet so SamI is just following Andy's advice. Please note that there are '''no''' people on that list who were born in the U.S.A. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:23, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Guess what...you, SamI, just accused Andy of using his own imagination, and since you, GeoffA, is supportive of Sam's statement, both of you are going to get official sources to support your side, otherwise I'm going to assume you are using your own imaginations just to troll here.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::I would say that the second source I posted above is fairly official. And why do we need to support our side, but Andy doesn't have to support his beyond saying 'oh, it's an objective fact'? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::How about the [[Fields Medal]] as a rough proxy? I count six awarded to UK mathematicians out of a total of 48 (12.5%), compared to thirteen awarded to Americans (~27%). Not bad for a small island. --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 17:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Well there you go &amp;quot;Karajou&amp;quot;. Since the USA has a population ~5 times larger than the UK, it looks like the UK is doing pretty well. And don't you think Andy can talk for himself without you leaping to his side? What are '''your''' sources to support his statement? [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:36, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::There are better ways to prove us wrong then by coming here and making demands; one of those ways is to provide a reasonable explanation which supports your position, backed up by valid sources, and being polite about the whole thing.  See ya in a couple hours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(outdent) Well I used the two &amp;quot;ours&amp;quot; you gave me to find some sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about this [http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/great_mathematicians.html commercial source]? Of the 20 mathematiciams, John Napier, Ada Lovelace, Lewis Carroll, Alan Turing and William Oughtred are British. That's 25%. No Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Or how about [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/11/the-10-best-mathematicians this] article listing a top 10? 1 Brit - no Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific Computing Laboratory at Hong Kong Baptist University [http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html lists] four Brits out of 14. Yes - Christains disagree with you too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another blog (I know you don't like them, but surely the &amp;quot;Best of the Public&amp;quot; is always right? Your boss thinks so) [http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2008/01/twenty-five-greatest-mathematicians-of.html here] has two Brits out of 25. No Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centre College [http://web.centre.edu/mat/century.html lists] 24 for last century alone. Four Brits and Five Yanks. That's still not bad for such a poor, small, atheistic island.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, in the magazine Mathematics Teacher (I.7. Vol.55, 1962), W.C. Eells [http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/~flora/100.html published] a list of the 100 greatest mathematicians of all time. I'm not going to go through all 100, but Newton, Napier, Wallis, Hamilton, Barrow, Taylor, Briggs, Babbage, Smith, H.J.S., Cotes, Boole, Halley and Lord Kelvin were all Brits. That's 13/100.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So. There are your sources. I note that SamI can't respond because TK blocked him/her. Since I fully expect the same fate to befall me after this post for having proved you wrong, I'll say goodbye now. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect you or Andy to provide sources to back up ''your'' point of view. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 19:43, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Granted, GeoffA, I would agree with your point that we should provide sources to back up our point of view.  But we're not going to do it for someone on demand.  And there lies the end of the lesson.  Hope you learned something about tact.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Is there something in the water over there in the U.K., or is it your atheism?  Perhaps its the generally gloomy economic picture and remnants of the class system that make you as you are!  Godspeed to all of you. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:38, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brits, we're talking about '''''mathematicians''''' in this thread.  Do you know what a mathematician is?  That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell).  One more tip: the Irish (Hamilton) do not consider themselves to be British.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain'': The [[Oxford calculators]] were pre-modern, but English. [[John Napier]] or [[Richard Recorde]] where Scottish or Welsh - though they weren't English, they were inhabitants of the British Isles, and therefore British in the same sense as most Haitians are Hispaniolians as well. Both are modern mathematicians - in the usual sense of the word ''&amp;quot;modern&amp;quot;'' when talking about periods of history. You may describe them as ''early modern''. Sir Isaac Newton - who lived even later - was e a modern mathematician, too. And as a subject of Queen Anne of Great Britain, he was most certainly British.&lt;br /&gt;
*''Do you know what a mathematician is? '' A mathematician is someone who contributes to the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are not squeamish: you could be covered with green fur and be a baker - if you solve an open Hilbert problem, they will you love you, and count you as a mathematician. Penrose, Lovelace, Babbage, Turing and Russell were great mathematicians, even if they were part-time physicists, geeks or hacks. {{unsigned|RonLar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Additionally, the overlap between mathematics and physics is huge - especially applied mathematics. Sophie Germain, a ''woman'' mathematician who appears on several of those lists, contributed a huge amount of work to the subject of elastics, and her work was used extensively, for instance in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. She is universally considered to be a mathematician, but you would apparently describe her as a physicist or even an architect. Russell was deeply involved in the Hilbert Program, which though ultimately unsuccessful provided modern mathematics with a solid framework. His work ''Principia Mathematica'' is one of the most important works on the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I cannot understand why you have such a closed mind on this subject. You have plenty of evidence that contradicts your opinion, so it's now only fair that you present evidence to support your hypothesis or at least consider revising it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Please note, that I am not claiming that Britain is the pre-eminent country for producing mathematicians. Germany would probably win that prize across modern history, and if you take the last 50 years or so, it's probably the U.S.A. (although I have no hard evidence for that statement). I merely take issue with your statement that &amp;quot;The British are notoriously weak in mathematics&amp;quot;. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 08:43, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Brits]] who protest so stridently illustrate to me the problem of [[Anglophilia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;curiouser and curiouser&amp;quot; -  for me, it looks as the [[Anglophobe]]s are justignoring the evidence:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;|Field Medalists by Country&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!country&lt;br /&gt;
!#&lt;br /&gt;
!medalist&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!USA&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|13 ||Jesse Douglas, John Milnor, Paul Joseph Cohen, Stephen Smale, John G. Thompson, Charles Fefferman, Daniel Quillen, William Thurston, Shing-Tung Yau, Michael Freedman, Edward Witten, Curtis T. McMullen, David Mumford&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!France&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|9||Laurent Schwartz, Jean-Pierre Serre, René Thom, Alexander Grothendieck, Alain Connes, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Laurent Lafforgue, Wendelin Werner&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Soviet Union/Russia&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|8||Sergei Novikov, Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfel'd, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Vladimir Voevodsky, Andrei Okounkov, (Grigori Perelman)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!UK&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|6||Klaus Roth, Michael Atiyah, Alan Baker, Simon Donaldson, Richard Borcherds, Timothy Gowers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Japan&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|3||Kunihiko Kodaira, Heisuke Hironaka, Shigefumi Mori&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|2||Pierre Deligne, Jean Bourgain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Finland&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Lars Ahlfors&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Atle Selberg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Lars Hörmander&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Enrico Bombieri&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Gerd Faltings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Vaughan F. R. Jones&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Terence Tao&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:04, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Klaus Roth was Prussian. Michael Atiyah is Sudanese/Egyptian. Simon Donaldson does his work in ''four-dimensions'' when this world obviously only has ''three''. I imagine if I made up the math as I went, I could get a Fields medal as well? And Richard Borcherds is from South Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
:So spectacularly, you provide ''maybe'' two candidates for British mathematicians.  Hardly impressive, considering ''Finland'' managed to get one. And who cares about this &amp;quot;Field's Medal&amp;quot; anyways? It's just some award experts give to each other to make each other feel better, and exclude the best of the public. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 20:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::For the record, &amp;quot;Cathy,&amp;quot; the cobordism work of Donaldson was not only essential to the classification theorems which have revolutionized modern topology, but also have important applications in quantum mechanics and other fields that deal with &amp;quot;this world.&amp;quot;  For somebody who apparently has such extensive knowledge in the history of 20th century mathematics, you are certainly lacking in understanding if you believe Donaldson &amp;quot;made up the math as he went.&amp;quot;  As for the Fields medal (no apostrophe) being something that the best of the public are excluded from, you should be aware that best of the public exemplar Gregori Perelman was OFFERED a Fields medal and turned it down.  &lt;br /&gt;
::Before you continue your pattern of jumping into talk page arguments with on-the-spot research, I suggest you make significant and substantive edits to our mainspace articles.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 20:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connive is too early ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With an origin date of 1601, &amp;quot;connive&amp;quot; is too early, I think.  We start at 1612, after publication of the [[KJV]] and completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works.  But &amp;quot;connive&amp;quot; is a fascination suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:42, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I was debating to put it in the Conservative Downgraded terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:56, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That would work!  It's always good to preserve information for everyone's benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Layer Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These would take it to a 21-42-84-168 progression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cogent (1650-1660): to the point; relevant; pertinent. &lt;br /&gt;
Yankee (1750-1760): a native or inhabitant of the United States. &lt;br /&gt;
Minuteman (1765-1775): (sometimes lowercase) a member of a group of American militiamen just before and during the Revolutionary War who held themselves in readiness for instant military service. &lt;br /&gt;
Secularism (1850-1855): the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. &lt;br /&gt;
Theonomy (1885-1890): the state of an individual or society that regards its own nature and norms as being in accord with the divine nature.&lt;br /&gt;
Populism (1890-1895): grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. &lt;br /&gt;
Secular Humanism (1980-1985): any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.&lt;br /&gt;
Ecoterrorism (1980-1985): violence carried out to further the political or social objectives of the environmentalists .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any thoughts?  &amp;quot;Secularism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;secular humanism&amp;quot; might provoke some objections, and I know that &amp;quot;isms&amp;quot; raise some red flags, but I would argue that they're important terms.  They clearly identify these types of thought as organized and agenda-driven movements, and identify that agenda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ben, your suggestions are fabulous.  My only reservations are with &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;, which today means a Northeasterner and is often derogatory in the singular, and &amp;quot;Populism&amp;quot;, which is increasingly conservative today but probably not so when it originated.  Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, Yankee has certainly had a varied history--it wasn't a term of endearment when spoken by a Southerner during the Civil War or Reconstruction!  On the other hand, it also gives us Yankee ingenuity and &amp;quot;Yankee Doodle.&amp;quot;  The soldiers of the Greatest Generation were &amp;quot;Yanks.&amp;quot;  I think it would be a shame to let the fact that it's sometimes used in derogatory fashion undercut the rich heritage of the term.  (After all, &amp;quot;Red Stater&amp;quot; is a term of derision to liberals, but a badge of honor to those who live there!)  Populism...well, it's harder to argue that one; some highly leftist movements have been identified as &amp;quot;populist&amp;quot; in the pass.  I cheerfully concede your point!  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::This is a fascinating issue and discussion.  I'm wondering if a word can be more derogatory as a singular noun (&amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;) than as an adjective or when used in the plural.  Southerners, who tend to be conservative, would have no trouble with &amp;quot;Yankee Doodle&amp;quot; but I suspect when they call someone a &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;, it's meant to be an insult.  Interestingly, the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) lists the first (original) meaning of &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot; to mean a New Englander rather than an American.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggested Way To Format Page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to suggest that the formatting on the page might be easier to follow if it were organised into centuries, instead of purely alphabetically. I suggest this because, when I first looked at this page, I could not follow the progression clearly. If it was organised firstly into centuries, and then alphabetically, people just passing could see the progression quickly, thus making them more likely to read it thoroughly. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I do not consider myself very good at editting pages, I do not trust myself to make this change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will understand and accept any critiscm of this idea, as it was a spur of the moment thought. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 16:15, 12 October 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional liberal terms? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about &amp;quot;ethnocentrism&amp;quot; (1905-1910) and &amp;quot;multiculturalism&amp;quot; (1960-1965)?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Superb suggestions.  Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
==Refudiate==&lt;br /&gt;
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made &amp;quot;corpse man&amp;quot; a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Perhaps time will tell.  The term &amp;quot;Big Bang&amp;quot; was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can &amp;quot;mature&amp;quot; to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charisma? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term.  It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait.  Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:&lt;br /&gt;
::'''literally &amp;quot;a gift from God&amp;quot;, charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''&lt;br /&gt;
:This nixes the &amp;quot;magic&amp;quot; from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't &amp;quot;magic&amp;quot;. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps &amp;quot;difficult to classify&amp;quot; may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
==New words added==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) &amp;amp; Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:All your additions look superb except &amp;quot;deference,&amp;quot; which I'm not sure is [[conservative]].  Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for &amp;quot;God-fearing&amp;quot;).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote:  &amp;quot;giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality.&amp;quot;--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment &amp;amp; then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;atheistic&amp;quot; is good.  Let's go with that.  I didn't see why &amp;quot;patriarchy&amp;quot; was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Copacetic&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;Copacetic&amp;quot; is the very satisfactory result of conservative values.  It is associated with good and honest living.  I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, I saw your addition &amp;quot;silent majority&amp;quot; and it made me immediately think of &amp;quot;Moral Majority&amp;quot;. [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Great suggestion.  Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obambulate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with &amp;quot;Obama&amp;quot;, it simply means &amp;quot;to walk around&amp;quot;. I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&amp;diff=859440</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&amp;diff=859440"/>
				<updated>2011-03-28T02:05:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Obambulate */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]'''&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mother Nature==&lt;br /&gt;
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Look up &amp;quot;Gaia&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Terra Mater&amp;quot; - &amp;quot;Mother Nature&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Mother Earth&amp;quot; has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, &amp;quot;You will not die&amp;quot; yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;death&amp;quot; correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, &amp;quot;You have the name of being alive, but you are dead&amp;quot; in Revelations and, &amp;quot;Let the dead bury their own dead&amp;quot; in Luke 9)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called &amp;quot;[[peace movement]]&amp;quot;, for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The &amp;quot;save the earth&amp;quot; movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed.  Thank you for sharing it.  I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine.  Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Bully pulpit&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about &amp;quot;bully pulpit&amp;quot;?  When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, &amp;quot;bully&amp;quot; meant something like &amp;quot;excellent&amp;quot; rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Definition==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by &amp;quot;conservative words.&amp;quot; As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; - Wrong! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the term &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; the article claims &amp;quot;thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where did this number come from?  Go to Google and type in &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits.  Type in &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits.  Where did the &amp;quot;thirty-three million&amp;quot; come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's an interesting observation, Paul.  The number of Google links retrieved for the search &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; has fallen substantially.  That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Should we correct that number in the article? [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:41, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please improve as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The user who added that ([[User:DrewDice]]) was subsequently blocked for prevarication. The one-million figure Andy added seems about right in my searches. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Before you round the number down, consider rounding it up. [http://www.google.com/search?q=anti+Christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;lr=lang_en&amp;amp;as_qdr=all&amp;amp;prmd=inl&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=eQldTN2RGIWBlAeU8uCbCA&amp;amp;ved=0CBEQpwU&amp;amp;source=lnt&amp;amp;tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:] The answer is 74.6 million. Google anti Christian with no quotes, no hyphens, English language only.  --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:24, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::That is true, but such a Google search would include Christian sites about &amp;quot;[[pro-life|anti-abortion]]&amp;quot; stances or &amp;quot;[[homosexuality|anti-Biblical]]&amp;quot; lifestyles. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 21:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::A good indication that my search results are accurate can be judged by the first 10 page results, nothing but anti-Christian in the title. Does it include anti-abortion and anti-American? Possibly, we are talking 78 million pages but I didn't see any through the top 10. I frown on the smaller number of 1 million.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 17 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. A good indication that your search results are inaccurate can be judged by using the &amp;quot;Search within results&amp;quot; function. Half a million of your results pertain to the Christian &amp;quot;anti defamation&amp;quot; commission. Another half million are for &amp;quot;anti abortion&amp;quot;. 184,000 deal with &amp;quot;anti immigration&amp;quot;. And the list goes on and on...173,000 are about the punk rock band &amp;quot;Anti-flag&amp;quot;. I'm sure hundreds of thousands more results are about things that people named Christian don't like. The only way to accurately gauge the use of the phrase &amp;quot;anti Christian&amp;quot; on Google is to search for that phrase, not its components. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 11:50, 18 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::I did a search for anti-Christian both with and without the hyphen when Paul Burnett first brought the issue up, and both returned the same number of hits (about the 7.5 million he mentioned). I think that Jpatt may have misread the number and moved the decimal place over. Even now, I'm only getting 10.8 million hits, both by typing in what Jpatt described or by clicking his link. I'm changing the article now to say 10 million, but I think the number should ultimately be removed. It just changes to quickly for the article to stay up-to-date unless somebody is going to check every morning. Also, on the first page of ten results, on is a list of anti-Christian movies, one is lamenting the anti-Christian bias in America, and one is against anti-Christian defamation. If you want to only use the first 10 results as a sample of the 10 million (which anybody who's taken a statistics course would tell you is a horrible idea), about 30% of those results are nothing hostile towards Christianity. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::JPatt's search results extended further into the past than a normal google search. For the same reasons I explained to him, your 10 million number is inaccurate (you can verify by searching within your results). I'm changing it back to 1 million for the time being, but maybe you're right that it should be removed outright. No one doubts that it is a widely-used term. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 17:54, 20 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::There are 10.8 million results when you search anti-Christian on Google. The claim being made was not that there were X million results hostile towards Christianity, just that there were X million results. No attempt was made at qualifying them, and the statement in the article does not indicate any attempt at qualifying them. It doesn't matter if only one in ten of those results is actually something anti-Christian; the claim is only about how many results there are. I'm changing it back to 10 million, because that's how many results there are (not good results, or relevant results, just results in any form). With that being said, it is a fairly pointless claim to make, because we don't know how many of those results actually '''are''' anti-Christian, we only know that they make some reference to &amp;quot;anti-Christian.&amp;quot; [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 20:17, 21 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::::I'm blanking the description on this term. The number of Google results is subject to wide variation, and the number of Google results is hardly an informative piece of information, as per discussion above. The term '''is''' included in the unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionary ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antichristian Link]). I don't know of a suitable replacement description, so I'm just going to leave it open to somebody else. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 13:52, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Adding Obama Portmanteaus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Underdog ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree that &amp;quot;underdog&amp;quot; is a conservative term, and I will promote it now.  Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excellent scholarship ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here.  Conservatives words express insights that are conservative.  These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a &amp;quot;1-2-4-8&amp;quot; geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Definition by example seems best here.  Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express   [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list.  You wouldn't request a definition for &amp;quot;List of Words beginning with G&amp;quot;, so why are you demanding a definition for &amp;quot;Conservative term&amp;quot;? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you?  We're not using them in any aberrant way.  --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. &amp;quot;List of Words beginning with G&amp;quot; is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot; means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the &amp;quot;excellent scholarship presented in this essay&amp;quot; smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a &amp;quot;conservative word&amp;quot; was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;AmandaBunting&amp;quot; (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk.  We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology.  It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn.   [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you.  Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maggie Thatcher ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:&lt;br /&gt;
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time&lt;br /&gt;
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values&lt;br /&gt;
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists&lt;br /&gt;
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries.  Perhaps because &amp;quot;Maggie&amp;quot; was actually not very conservative by American standards?  She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Possibility ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite &amp;quot;medicines&amp;quot; of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting and informative suggestion.  However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful.  I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kiss of Death ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;Kiss of Death&amp;quot; clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name].  In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word.  Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
-	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==&lt;br /&gt;
	 &lt;br /&gt;
While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense.  Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;Carpetbagger&amp;quot; is a fascinating suggestion.  [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples.  Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well...hmm.  There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live.  His defense, as I recall, was &amp;quot;Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district.&amp;quot;  (It wasn't.)  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Research method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestion? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Selection bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;What's the probability to get a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Century&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Probability&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;For a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) ×  (1/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (2/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (4/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (8/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;  = 675675 × 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;34&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; / 15&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;  =0.0265&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;That you were able to repeat this  process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Selection bias exists in any study.  The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results.  Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century. &lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===An unbiased test===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;If you  mark each conservative word with an &amp;quot;r&amp;quot; (and perhaps each liberal word with an &amp;quot;l&amp;quot;), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Century&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Number of Words&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;151&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;84&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;161&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;104&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s.  Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts.  That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)&lt;br /&gt;
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Table of random words===&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;collapsible collapsed&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!500 words&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1    economics&lt;br /&gt;
2    storeroom&lt;br /&gt;
3    hunkers&lt;br /&gt;
4    sufficing&lt;br /&gt;
5    coffeehouses&lt;br /&gt;
6    stalagmites&lt;br /&gt;
7    therapy&lt;br /&gt;
8    sanitation&lt;br /&gt;
9    cheapskates&lt;br /&gt;
10    Caesareans&lt;br /&gt;
11    ringmaster&lt;br /&gt;
12    acclimate&lt;br /&gt;
13    penology&lt;br /&gt;
14    verandah&lt;br /&gt;
15    caregivers&lt;br /&gt;
16    fed&lt;br /&gt;
17    disengaged&lt;br /&gt;
18    whitecaps&lt;br /&gt;
19    dissertation&lt;br /&gt;
20    consignment&lt;br /&gt;
21    chainsaws&lt;br /&gt;
22    speeds&lt;br /&gt;
23    kinfolk&lt;br /&gt;
24    caribous&lt;br /&gt;
25    hobbyists&lt;br /&gt;
26    coefficients&lt;br /&gt;
27    protuberance&lt;br /&gt;
28    morphemes&lt;br /&gt;
29    Caroline&lt;br /&gt;
30    millionaires&lt;br /&gt;
31    recyclable&lt;br /&gt;
32    wilts&lt;br /&gt;
33    unreconstructed&lt;br /&gt;
34    chandeliers&lt;br /&gt;
35    palomino&lt;br /&gt;
36    joysticks&lt;br /&gt;
37    volleys&lt;br /&gt;
38    cajoling&lt;br /&gt;
39    bucksaws&lt;br /&gt;
40    spars&lt;br /&gt;
41    portaged&lt;br /&gt;
42    acoustically&lt;br /&gt;
43    humanize&lt;br /&gt;
44    hybridize&lt;br /&gt;
45    tipsters&lt;br /&gt;
46    overprices&lt;br /&gt;
47    marksmanship&lt;br /&gt;
48    fezes&lt;br /&gt;
49    depressant&lt;br /&gt;
50    auctioned&lt;br /&gt;
51    flamethrower&lt;br /&gt;
52    biking&lt;br /&gt;
53    artistic&lt;br /&gt;
54    agribusiness&lt;br /&gt;
55    jottings&lt;br /&gt;
56    pedicures&lt;br /&gt;
57    Cordilleras&lt;br /&gt;
58    slots&lt;br /&gt;
59    recording&lt;br /&gt;
60    unrealistic&lt;br /&gt;
61    rationalism&lt;br /&gt;
62    peacekeeping&lt;br /&gt;
63    aromatherapy&lt;br /&gt;
64    jackknife&lt;br /&gt;
65    champagne&lt;br /&gt;
66    horrendous&lt;br /&gt;
67    Quasimodo&lt;br /&gt;
68    excavator&lt;br /&gt;
69    chowders&lt;br /&gt;
70    arts&lt;br /&gt;
71    configure&lt;br /&gt;
72    civic&lt;br /&gt;
73    telegraphy&lt;br /&gt;
74    sweepstakes&lt;br /&gt;
75    euphoric&lt;br /&gt;
76    strategy&lt;br /&gt;
77    subgroup&lt;br /&gt;
78    shouting&lt;br /&gt;
79    gusher&lt;br /&gt;
80    telemarketing&lt;br /&gt;
81    glucose&lt;br /&gt;
82    booties&lt;br /&gt;
83    preponderated&lt;br /&gt;
84    manures&lt;br /&gt;
85    outspokenness&lt;br /&gt;
86    wiener&lt;br /&gt;
87    embeds&lt;br /&gt;
88    amped&lt;br /&gt;
89    sternums&lt;br /&gt;
90    empathy&lt;br /&gt;
91    cognomina&lt;br /&gt;
92    colitis&lt;br /&gt;
93    kimono&lt;br /&gt;
94    retched&lt;br /&gt;
95    singletons&lt;br /&gt;
96    megaphoned&lt;br /&gt;
97    respelled&lt;br /&gt;
98    Hindus&lt;br /&gt;
99    squiggle&lt;br /&gt;
100    irrigates&lt;br /&gt;
101    reconstructions&lt;br /&gt;
102    deceptiveness&lt;br /&gt;
103    colonialism&lt;br /&gt;
104    missioned&lt;br /&gt;
105    dyes&lt;br /&gt;
106    maladroit&lt;br /&gt;
107    tents&lt;br /&gt;
108    turfs&lt;br /&gt;
109    generalization&lt;br /&gt;
110    seamanship&lt;br /&gt;
111    duffers&lt;br /&gt;
112    scruffier&lt;br /&gt;
113    pollinate&lt;br /&gt;
114    bobcats&lt;br /&gt;
115    achieved&lt;br /&gt;
116    exerted&lt;br /&gt;
117    flapjack&lt;br /&gt;
118    Independence&lt;br /&gt;
119    lucidity&lt;br /&gt;
120    indenturing&lt;br /&gt;
121    enumerable&lt;br /&gt;
122    disenchanted&lt;br /&gt;
123    flashback&lt;br /&gt;
124    trilogies&lt;br /&gt;
125    colloquially&lt;br /&gt;
126    Colby&lt;br /&gt;
127    killjoys&lt;br /&gt;
128    lifelines&lt;br /&gt;
129    hydrotherapy&lt;br /&gt;
130    psychoanalysis&lt;br /&gt;
131    memorializing&lt;br /&gt;
132    bronchitis&lt;br /&gt;
133    rink&lt;br /&gt;
134    automobiles&lt;br /&gt;
135    dandy&lt;br /&gt;
136    schoolmarms&lt;br /&gt;
137    debriefing&lt;br /&gt;
138    glands&lt;br /&gt;
139    oceanography&lt;br /&gt;
140    jetted&lt;br /&gt;
141    hurdler&lt;br /&gt;
142    dependability&lt;br /&gt;
143    tactician&lt;br /&gt;
144    rotor&lt;br /&gt;
145    liturgies&lt;br /&gt;
146    quantified&lt;br /&gt;
147    wests&lt;br /&gt;
148    quitters&lt;br /&gt;
149    ocarinas&lt;br /&gt;
150    betting&lt;br /&gt;
151    apathetically&lt;br /&gt;
152    smoggier&lt;br /&gt;
153    Xenia&lt;br /&gt;
154    saris&lt;br /&gt;
155    dupe&lt;br /&gt;
156    voodooism&lt;br /&gt;
157    optimize&lt;br /&gt;
158    particularization&lt;br /&gt;
159    funereally&lt;br /&gt;
160    masterminding&lt;br /&gt;
161    capsizes&lt;br /&gt;
162    orchestrates&lt;br /&gt;
163    uncivilized&lt;br /&gt;
164    emphasized&lt;br /&gt;
165    skyrocket&lt;br /&gt;
166    plagiarist&lt;br /&gt;
167    politicoes&lt;br /&gt;
168    streptococci&lt;br /&gt;
169    pantsuits&lt;br /&gt;
170    waving&lt;br /&gt;
171    decontaminates&lt;br /&gt;
172    teensy&lt;br /&gt;
173    taxonomy&lt;br /&gt;
174    proselytizes&lt;br /&gt;
175    drollness&lt;br /&gt;
176    expectoration&lt;br /&gt;
177    legmen&lt;br /&gt;
178    modulations&lt;br /&gt;
179    diploma&lt;br /&gt;
180    Brandy&lt;br /&gt;
181    radar&lt;br /&gt;
182    pushiest&lt;br /&gt;
183    drill&lt;br /&gt;
184    lush&lt;br /&gt;
185    temperas&lt;br /&gt;
186    musicals&lt;br /&gt;
187    wheal&lt;br /&gt;
188    horticulture&lt;br /&gt;
189    cancan&lt;br /&gt;
190    jocularity&lt;br /&gt;
191    caramels&lt;br /&gt;
192    bipolar&lt;br /&gt;
193    sophisticated&lt;br /&gt;
194    injudicious&lt;br /&gt;
195    emulsion&lt;br /&gt;
196    ignore&lt;br /&gt;
197    cannonballed&lt;br /&gt;
198    swastika&lt;br /&gt;
199    overachievers&lt;br /&gt;
200    rubella&lt;br /&gt;
201    chuckhole&lt;br /&gt;
202    ersatz&lt;br /&gt;
203    breeziness&lt;br /&gt;
204    climaxes&lt;br /&gt;
205    explosiveness&lt;br /&gt;
206    empathizing&lt;br /&gt;
207    jumps&lt;br /&gt;
208    secularizing&lt;br /&gt;
209    sequoia&lt;br /&gt;
210    bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
211    prettying&lt;br /&gt;
212    bouldered&lt;br /&gt;
213    authorship&lt;br /&gt;
214    vocalizing&lt;br /&gt;
215    tarpons&lt;br /&gt;
216    camisoles&lt;br /&gt;
217    cowpox&lt;br /&gt;
218    tans&lt;br /&gt;
219    breathable&lt;br /&gt;
220    machines&lt;br /&gt;
221    tycoon&lt;br /&gt;
222    flicking&lt;br /&gt;
223    squishes&lt;br /&gt;
224    semiprofessional&lt;br /&gt;
225    feline&lt;br /&gt;
226    seedling&lt;br /&gt;
227    hankie&lt;br /&gt;
228    entitlement&lt;br /&gt;
229    abscissa&lt;br /&gt;
230    derisive&lt;br /&gt;
231    romance&lt;br /&gt;
232    overprice&lt;br /&gt;
233    beads&lt;br /&gt;
234    stipple&lt;br /&gt;
235    Kitty&lt;br /&gt;
236    jewelled&lt;br /&gt;
237    mascaraed&lt;br /&gt;
238    dissociation&lt;br /&gt;
239    moments&lt;br /&gt;
240    Spica&lt;br /&gt;
241    quaking&lt;br /&gt;
242    legislation&lt;br /&gt;
243    wobbly&lt;br /&gt;
244    scorches&lt;br /&gt;
245    books&lt;br /&gt;
246    gastrointestinal&lt;br /&gt;
247    finked&lt;br /&gt;
248    renegotiates&lt;br /&gt;
249    flautists&lt;br /&gt;
250    wrongheadedness&lt;br /&gt;
251    allergenic&lt;br /&gt;
252    squishiest&lt;br /&gt;
253    kickoffs&lt;br /&gt;
254    mecca&lt;br /&gt;
255    disses&lt;br /&gt;
256    woodwinds&lt;br /&gt;
257    discotheques&lt;br /&gt;
258    replacements&lt;br /&gt;
259    tomahawks&lt;br /&gt;
260    voluptuaries&lt;br /&gt;
261    salon&lt;br /&gt;
262    eliciting&lt;br /&gt;
263    resale&lt;br /&gt;
264    soporific&lt;br /&gt;
265    dosage&lt;br /&gt;
266    smokestacks&lt;br /&gt;
267    rationalists&lt;br /&gt;
268    subsumed&lt;br /&gt;
269    futzes&lt;br /&gt;
270    minutemen&lt;br /&gt;
271    stingrays&lt;br /&gt;
272    marathoner&lt;br /&gt;
273    vagina&lt;br /&gt;
274    propellers&lt;br /&gt;
275    rooftops&lt;br /&gt;
276    sensationalist&lt;br /&gt;
277    bluejackets&lt;br /&gt;
278    individualize&lt;br /&gt;
279    hyphenating&lt;br /&gt;
280    Xanthippe&lt;br /&gt;
281    federated&lt;br /&gt;
282    amortize&lt;br /&gt;
283    airfare&lt;br /&gt;
284    hyphenates&lt;br /&gt;
285    syncopates&lt;br /&gt;
286    sermonizing&lt;br /&gt;
287    biochemistry&lt;br /&gt;
288    babysat&lt;br /&gt;
289    yellows&lt;br /&gt;
290    riskier&lt;br /&gt;
291    cassocks&lt;br /&gt;
292    stated&lt;br /&gt;
293    Cordoba&lt;br /&gt;
294    Slinky&lt;br /&gt;
295    eventfully&lt;br /&gt;
296    nines&lt;br /&gt;
297    blabbermouths&lt;br /&gt;
298    fraternizes&lt;br /&gt;
299    bucked&lt;br /&gt;
300    Boolean&lt;br /&gt;
301    bivalve&lt;br /&gt;
302    ricochetted&lt;br /&gt;
303    toys&lt;br /&gt;
304    toted&lt;br /&gt;
305    commissars&lt;br /&gt;
306    cushioning&lt;br /&gt;
307    redeploy&lt;br /&gt;
308    poignancy&lt;br /&gt;
309    variegating&lt;br /&gt;
310    snuffbox&lt;br /&gt;
311    stoplight&lt;br /&gt;
312    biochemists&lt;br /&gt;
313    bicycling&lt;br /&gt;
314    disenfranchised&lt;br /&gt;
315    nosing&lt;br /&gt;
316    enlightenment&lt;br /&gt;
317    knockout&lt;br /&gt;
318    resurgent&lt;br /&gt;
319    pediments&lt;br /&gt;
320    skyscrapers&lt;br /&gt;
321    treatments&lt;br /&gt;
322    polio&lt;br /&gt;
323    flashbulbs&lt;br /&gt;
324    empower&lt;br /&gt;
325    rounding&lt;br /&gt;
326    pervasive&lt;br /&gt;
327    humped&lt;br /&gt;
328    oxymora&lt;br /&gt;
329    freebie&lt;br /&gt;
330    passageway&lt;br /&gt;
331    barfing&lt;br /&gt;
332    motorists&lt;br /&gt;
333    triglycerides&lt;br /&gt;
334    Mayans&lt;br /&gt;
335    stopped&lt;br /&gt;
336    kidnapper&lt;br /&gt;
337    pensioning&lt;br /&gt;
338    foreclosures&lt;br /&gt;
339    Yankees&lt;br /&gt;
340    manifestoing&lt;br /&gt;
341    predictor&lt;br /&gt;
342    Delawares&lt;br /&gt;
343    librettos&lt;br /&gt;
344    panoply&lt;br /&gt;
345    angstroms&lt;br /&gt;
346    jodhpurs&lt;br /&gt;
347    backpedal&lt;br /&gt;
348    sugars&lt;br /&gt;
349    preclude&lt;br /&gt;
350    unravelling&lt;br /&gt;
351    Lilliput&lt;br /&gt;
352    motivator&lt;br /&gt;
353    enslavement&lt;br /&gt;
354    pencilling&lt;br /&gt;
355    flukey&lt;br /&gt;
356    amoral&lt;br /&gt;
357    depository&lt;br /&gt;
358    unemotional&lt;br /&gt;
359    stumpy&lt;br /&gt;
360    cartons&lt;br /&gt;
361    gal&lt;br /&gt;
362    ignitions&lt;br /&gt;
363    malingered&lt;br /&gt;
364    spotlighted&lt;br /&gt;
365    photographic&lt;br /&gt;
366    abnegated&lt;br /&gt;
367    dashing&lt;br /&gt;
368    atrocious&lt;br /&gt;
369    inanities&lt;br /&gt;
370    derricks&lt;br /&gt;
371    mountaineer&lt;br /&gt;
372    inseminate&lt;br /&gt;
373    sacrosanct&lt;br /&gt;
374    modernize&lt;br /&gt;
375    specializations&lt;br /&gt;
376    obliging&lt;br /&gt;
377    heckles&lt;br /&gt;
378    baccalaureates&lt;br /&gt;
379    bluebirds&lt;br /&gt;
380    lengthiest&lt;br /&gt;
381    octets&lt;br /&gt;
382    physiotherapist&lt;br /&gt;
383    disorganizing&lt;br /&gt;
384    toffees&lt;br /&gt;
385    unfurling&lt;br /&gt;
386    abnegate&lt;br /&gt;
387    bathrobe&lt;br /&gt;
388    socked&lt;br /&gt;
389    crepe&lt;br /&gt;
390    polkas&lt;br /&gt;
391    overwriting&lt;br /&gt;
392    punned&lt;br /&gt;
393    platoons&lt;br /&gt;
394    infrared&lt;br /&gt;
395    ensuring&lt;br /&gt;
396    decimate&lt;br /&gt;
397    baggiest&lt;br /&gt;
398    plungers&lt;br /&gt;
399    trampolining&lt;br /&gt;
400    centigram&lt;br /&gt;
401    Topsy&lt;br /&gt;
402    epochal&lt;br /&gt;
403    boogies&lt;br /&gt;
404    showrooms&lt;br /&gt;
405    pianofortes&lt;br /&gt;
406    Orphic&lt;br /&gt;
407    logbooks&lt;br /&gt;
408    amphibious&lt;br /&gt;
409    rapprochements&lt;br /&gt;
410    terms&lt;br /&gt;
411    Kalmyk&lt;br /&gt;
412    petering&lt;br /&gt;
413    geocentric&lt;br /&gt;
414    stills&lt;br /&gt;
415    ethnologist&lt;br /&gt;
416    exec&lt;br /&gt;
417    flairs&lt;br /&gt;
418    likableness&lt;br /&gt;
419    rods&lt;br /&gt;
420    melange&lt;br /&gt;
421    graduated&lt;br /&gt;
422    ante&lt;br /&gt;
423    voluminously&lt;br /&gt;
424    impaled&lt;br /&gt;
425    cognacs&lt;br /&gt;
426    yups&lt;br /&gt;
427    comfiest&lt;br /&gt;
428    strychnine&lt;br /&gt;
429    subsoiled&lt;br /&gt;
430    conics&lt;br /&gt;
431    Salish&lt;br /&gt;
432    windsocks&lt;br /&gt;
433    rutabaga&lt;br /&gt;
434    vacuumed&lt;br /&gt;
435    maestri&lt;br /&gt;
436    podiatrist&lt;br /&gt;
437    restructured&lt;br /&gt;
438    metrically&lt;br /&gt;
439    motorcade&lt;br /&gt;
440    zipping&lt;br /&gt;
441    unmoral&lt;br /&gt;
442    electioneered&lt;br /&gt;
443    minibikes&lt;br /&gt;
444    trillion&lt;br /&gt;
445    sudsier&lt;br /&gt;
446    actuator&lt;br /&gt;
447    acing&lt;br /&gt;
448    masochism&lt;br /&gt;
449    softeners&lt;br /&gt;
450    cocksucker&lt;br /&gt;
451    brig&lt;br /&gt;
452    verbs&lt;br /&gt;
453    buccaneer&lt;br /&gt;
454    confessed&lt;br /&gt;
455    filibustered&lt;br /&gt;
456    rearmed&lt;br /&gt;
457    melodramatics&lt;br /&gt;
458    swivelled&lt;br /&gt;
459    veggies&lt;br /&gt;
460    monochrome&lt;br /&gt;
461    hellos&lt;br /&gt;
462    escalators&lt;br /&gt;
463    Seyfert&lt;br /&gt;
464    bushwhack&lt;br /&gt;
465    encapsulation&lt;br /&gt;
466    combining&lt;br /&gt;
467    realists&lt;br /&gt;
468    playgrounds&lt;br /&gt;
469    teenage&lt;br /&gt;
470    glandular&lt;br /&gt;
471    tot&lt;br /&gt;
472    cyclical&lt;br /&gt;
473    tinsmith&lt;br /&gt;
474    commitment&lt;br /&gt;
475    undersells&lt;br /&gt;
476    orthopaedics&lt;br /&gt;
477    yardstick&lt;br /&gt;
478    Vivian&lt;br /&gt;
479    peppy&lt;br /&gt;
480    swatted&lt;br /&gt;
481    earlobes&lt;br /&gt;
482    snapshots&lt;br /&gt;
483    nitpicker&lt;br /&gt;
484    unities&lt;br /&gt;
485    depressants&lt;br /&gt;
486    briefing&lt;br /&gt;
487    halo&lt;br /&gt;
488    watermarking&lt;br /&gt;
489    electronics&lt;br /&gt;
490    inadequates&lt;br /&gt;
491    ghosted&lt;br /&gt;
492    rapscallions&lt;br /&gt;
493    snorkeler&lt;br /&gt;
494    percentages&lt;br /&gt;
495    relapsing&lt;br /&gt;
496    facet&lt;br /&gt;
497    inconsistently&lt;br /&gt;
498    takeout&lt;br /&gt;
499    acidify&lt;br /&gt;
500    password&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!word&lt;br /&gt;
!date&lt;br /&gt;
!class&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|monsignor||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|productive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1612||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alertly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1618||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inconsistent||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1620||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|numerical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interlock||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|platoons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1637||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|forevermore||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1641||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|identification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|untenable||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reversible||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1648||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|authentication||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1652||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|monotheistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1660||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|constructive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1680||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alphabetize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|misconduct||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1705||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propagandists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1718||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|revelations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1729||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|guaranteed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1731||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cohesiveness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1731||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|systematizing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|letdown||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1768||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dissident||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diagramming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1785||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|backhanded||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1800||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|autocratically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1823||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|socialistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mormonisms||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|westernize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trademarks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propagandized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|graffito||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Americans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|optimize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1857||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|outdistancing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1857||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rogues||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|birthrates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|slob||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quantifier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|implode||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1881||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|housemother||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scantier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sierras||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|arena||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toddled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eventful||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|catheter||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|primarily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|labeling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|copings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pooh||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1602||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|respectively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1602||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|embroiling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haloes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Iliad||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|enthusiasm||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dragoons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|promised||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|recollecting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stentorian||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rivaling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impregnates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|touchy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impassive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|immediacy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|literary||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|animosities||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|volatile||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vegetates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|acclaiming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onlooker||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sides||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wisher||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|melancholia||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tab||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|typical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|casuist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bucolic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|footfalls||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1610||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bison||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lambing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ticketed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incompatibilities||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|demonstrators||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reproduces||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|longish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|amalgamations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1612||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bailing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1613||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|caste||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1613||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|convulses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1614||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abscess||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1615||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|valise||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1615||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cult||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1617||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hesitancy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1617||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drill||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|blotchy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|urban||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|appositeness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1621||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ingratiated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1621||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ingrate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1622||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diplomata||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1622||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|exporters||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1623||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drolly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1623||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adrift||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1624||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|powwow||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1624||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oaf||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|preconceptions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ruse||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abominating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dodo||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|discriminated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|biassing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|enslaved||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|backwaters||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palindromic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palindromes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tussles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|correspondents||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1630||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underrates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underrate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|characterized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1633||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|etcher||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|labium||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fluctuates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|morocco||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|circumnavigated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Anglican||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1635||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|graphically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1637||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|millenniums||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1638||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|domesticating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1639||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pharmaceutical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1640||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1640||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|feints||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scavenge||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|malls||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|salaciously||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1645||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|additional||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|nonuser||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|predisposing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|temperamentally||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|invigorate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|protuberances||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disinclines||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|castanet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|piloting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1649||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|leniently||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1652||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|melange||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1653||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dialling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1653||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|naively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1654||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|siesta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1655||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|collectives||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1655||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quibbles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dawdler||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cosmologies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cosmology||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|morbid||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inconvenienced||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|numerating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1657||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incapacitate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1657||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|overwrite||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1658||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|horrendous||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1659||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tableau||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1660||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|derisively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1662||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1664||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diverging||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rotundity||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cultivators||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maroon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1666||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stunning||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1667||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interleave||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1668||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|globes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1668||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hick||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1669||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|realty||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|belated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|punning||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haphazardly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1671||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wader||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1673||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|resilient||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1674||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|auk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1674||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|priggish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1676||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bungalow||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1676||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masqueraded||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1677||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|configuring||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1677||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masterstroke||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1679||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|yaws||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1679||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ganglions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1681||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kidnaps||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1682||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shivery||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1683||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|whaler||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1684||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bewilder||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1684||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|roughshod||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1688||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bluebird||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1688||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toothbrushes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1690||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|romance||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1690||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adeptness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dowsing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|processioned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|missioned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1692||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vessels||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1694||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flabbiness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1694||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|penmanship||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1695||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Ojibwa||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1700||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|actualized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1701||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|established||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1702||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|copped||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1704||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|liability||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1705||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sniggers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dyspeptic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|crunch||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hibiscuses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stencil||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1707||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quadruplet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|primness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stocks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|leaseholds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1710||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rheumatic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1711||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|papilla||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1713||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|presentiments||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1714||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tantrum||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1714||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|needling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1715||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impersonating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1715||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|settees||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1716||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hustling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1720||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unassuming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1722||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Houyhnhnm||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|knotholes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Lilliput||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soporifics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1727||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Shinto||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1727||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bludgeons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1730||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pillboxes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1730||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pantheistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1732||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vampires||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1732||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palaver||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1735||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Stilton||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1736||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incriminates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1736||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|philanders||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1737||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|exiled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1737||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coterie||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1738||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cantaloupe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wham||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|swipe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|icings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1740||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|segueing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1740||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|insulates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1741||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flatiron||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1743||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|uncharacteristic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1748||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cornmeal||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1749||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|develop||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1750||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|spindling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1750||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|measurements||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pompon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fanciers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lumberyard||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1753||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|riffles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1754||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|personification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1755||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesquites||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1759||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maniacs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1763||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pronouncing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1764||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|frivolity||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1764||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aboriginals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Afghans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|paws||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mynas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|modernization||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1770||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coagulants||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1770||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hairpin||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1771||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fagged||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Ta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propertied||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fagging||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1773||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gibbon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1774||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gecko||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1774||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|passé||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1775||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clannish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1776||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gnu||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1777||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gasses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1779||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|balalaika||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1780||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|congressman||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1780||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fumigate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1781||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|varying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1781||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|minutiae||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1782||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|effervesce||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1784||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bangle||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|letups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|thyroids||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|loots||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1788||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Hollands||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1788||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dolly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1790||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|weakfish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1791||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rutabagas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1791||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|equalizer||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1792||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|steeplechase||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1793||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|daredevils||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|commentated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|embeds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|telegraphy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1795||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1795||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|allover||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1796||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|titanium||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1796||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quizzically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stashes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kilogram||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|belittled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1798||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bibliographies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1802||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fezes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1803||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dressmaking||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1803||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|condoned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coarsening||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gumbos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|peewee||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1806||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lassos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1807||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pueblos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1808||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|blinder||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1809||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eddied||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scurrying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|milliliter||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|miffed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1811||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quintet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1811||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aluminum||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shawling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tossup||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|opalescent||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1813||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vocalic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Swahili||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|nocturnes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underpaying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1817||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diarist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1818||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|intellectualizes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1819||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stethoscope||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1820||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bloodstain||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1820||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|squawk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1821||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|suffragist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1822||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|caffeine||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1823||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flysheet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|augmented||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|subway||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|crotchety||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pullout||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|beadier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1826||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mammal||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1826||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|chaffed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clinics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|recruitment||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1828||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesmerizing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|constitutionals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cahoots||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|homeopathic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pterodactyl||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cadres||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hex||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|chipmunks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Horus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toothpastes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cottonmouths||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underplays||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1833||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dorsals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1834||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cetaceans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1835||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wholeheartedly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1836||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|creepily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1836||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|étude||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Confucianism||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scatting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|smokestacks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pretzel||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|upheaval||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Bunker||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mushier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bushings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|OK||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesa||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1840||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wastrel||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1841||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pyromaniac||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Assam||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Spitz||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wisteria||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cubbyhole||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kinkiest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Limoges||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|taillights||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|subgroups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1845||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|garnisheeing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Joe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tobogganed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|snobby||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|strapless||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cheekily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|orgiastic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|funnest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tactlessness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tailcoats||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gynecologists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cartography||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tenderfeet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1849||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|laterals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|educations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trunks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hangars||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colloids||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|delimits||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|delimited||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|davenport||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1853||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Russians||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abnormality||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rainfall||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Brewer||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hazings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vendetta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pullouts||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|warlords||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1856||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seismographs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1858||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interbreeding||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|emulsification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pub||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soulfulness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Darwinian||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flautist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pipelines||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ewe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bellboy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trapezes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ewes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|railroading||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1862||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|isomorphic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1862||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|canapé||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1863||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|columns||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1863||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|octets||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1864||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coffeecakes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1865||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|goulash||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1866||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sudsier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1866||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maverick||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1867||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|safaris||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rangier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mailbox||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rotting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1870||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|saprophyte||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1870||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|agenda||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1871||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|roomers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1871||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masterminds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1872||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|deforest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|spaghetti||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|intercollegiate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Helicon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1875||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dermatitis||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|semiprivate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toniest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1877||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|supplies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1878||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quirking||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1878||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wagged||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onionskin||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bacillus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clobber||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|steamrollered||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alumna||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|locoweed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toeholds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1880||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|paternalism||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1881||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adrenals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|syndicating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|winery||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interface||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|infantryman||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1883||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|worldlier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1883||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shyest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|showdowns||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oilfield||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|words||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fixating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|micron||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stagehand||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|contraceptives||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1886||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sensitization||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1887||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|parachutists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1888||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sandblaster||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1888||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|erogenous||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1889||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lactating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1889||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|psychopathics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1890||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reactor||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1890||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unsnaps||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1892||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|decolletes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inbound||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|marihuana||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|encapsulated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|erythrocytes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sequinned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|defrosted||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1895||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sacks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1895||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|phonemes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mescaline||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|midyear||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|redwoods||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|happenstances||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sandhog||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eggs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1898||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|taxicab||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1899||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|concoction||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1675||&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative.  But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words.  Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
!16s&lt;br /&gt;
!17s&lt;br /&gt;
!18s&lt;br /&gt;
!&amp;amp;Sigma;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!conservative words&lt;br /&gt;
|15||9||17||41&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!all words&lt;br /&gt;
|176||114||210||500&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!percentage of conservative words&lt;br /&gt;
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this:  roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature.  That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the &amp;quot;''best''&amp;quot; new conservative words.  Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Destruction of words ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g,  only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes  constant after a while...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like &amp;quot;population control&amp;quot;) fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the&lt;br /&gt;
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of&lt;br /&gt;
the conservative words:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!century&lt;br /&gt;
!17th&lt;br /&gt;
!18th&lt;br /&gt;
!19th&lt;br /&gt;
!20th&lt;br /&gt;
!21st&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!claimed&lt;br /&gt;
|20||40||80||160||13&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!recount&lt;br /&gt;
|20||40||81||150||14&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was&lt;br /&gt;
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!century&lt;br /&gt;
!17th&lt;br /&gt;
!18th&lt;br /&gt;
!19th&lt;br /&gt;
!20th&lt;br /&gt;
!21st&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!pre Segway&lt;br /&gt;
|14||28||56||112||6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!post Segway&lt;br /&gt;
|15||28||56||124||6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!my count&lt;br /&gt;
|15||29||57||114||6&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words.  Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture.  None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours.  The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Too Good to be True ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imagine the hypothesis: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;There are as many male writers as there are female&lt;br /&gt;
ones&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,&lt;br /&gt;
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and&lt;br /&gt;
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,&lt;br /&gt;
the hypothesis is true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last&lt;br /&gt;
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we&lt;br /&gt;
reach round 300?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,&lt;br /&gt;
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of&lt;br /&gt;
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being&lt;br /&gt;
finished, but we can't conclude anything!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the&lt;br /&gt;
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors&lt;br /&gt;
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly&lt;br /&gt;
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two&lt;br /&gt;
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability&lt;br /&gt;
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random&lt;br /&gt;
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next&lt;br /&gt;
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's&lt;br /&gt;
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it&lt;br /&gt;
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,&lt;br /&gt;
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact&lt;br /&gt;
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names&lt;br /&gt;
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating&lt;br /&gt;
''best conservative new words''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,&lt;br /&gt;
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the&lt;br /&gt;
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be  bigger than for each other combination,&lt;br /&gt;
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields  odds of&lt;br /&gt;
1:2,000,000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not&lt;br /&gt;
believable, and don't support your claims made  in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Disbelief of something because it is &amp;quot;too good to be true&amp;quot; is not a strong argument against it.  Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example.  Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Of course it is not a random process.  That would be silly.  But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn.  We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells.  Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A summary with graphs... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Conservapedia's Law&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of &amp;quot;1-2-4-8&amp;quot;. This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of &amp;amp;asymp; 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see  ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as  newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled  a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;not&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; show a geometric progression.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century &amp;amp;asymp; 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;conservative words&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, and a general distribution of the creation of words.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|However, if one maps the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;percentage&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; of words in - e.g. -  a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;That's a&lt;br /&gt;
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new&lt;br /&gt;
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I&lt;br /&gt;
would have identified as liberal in nature. &amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;But very few of these words&lt;br /&gt;
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; new conservative&lt;br /&gt;
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly&lt;br /&gt;
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to&lt;br /&gt;
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his&lt;br /&gt;
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)&lt;br /&gt;
pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.  But quantity is no substitute or quality.  You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil.  Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about.  Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that  show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's  database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that  the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your  software to which you want attend?&lt;br /&gt;
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable  claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may  rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math  behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.&lt;br /&gt;
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them,  you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as  long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the  amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English  language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the  ''best conservative words''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One way of marrying the two ideas above (that there is no increase of conservative terms over time and that there is an increase in the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; conservative terms over time) is simply to suggest that conservative terms are getting better in quality and not quantity, which is the point that Mr. Schlafly makes, I believe. An explanation that might want to be considered is that after a new term is coined, it may slowly lose its relevence over time. I would suggest that if you look at the vocabulary from the 17th century, many words have lost their relevence greatly. This presumably applies to conservative terms as well. So, a partial explanation for conservative terms increasing in &amp;quot;quality&amp;quot; over time may be the decrease in time-lag and thus an increase in relevence.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 12:15, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decrypt ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified.  It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman.  The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the &amp;quot;Bombe&amp;quot;). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.&lt;br /&gt;
:: As for &amp;quot;the British are notoriously weak in math&amp;quot;: you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so.  If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, &amp;quot;a non-Newtonian fluid&amp;quot;. He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Brilliant logic.  17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any.  As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact?  If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple &amp;quot;web-like&amp;quot; effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story.  I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work.   [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot; If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!&amp;quot;'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):&lt;br /&gt;
* Sir Isaac Newton&lt;br /&gt;
* Charles Babbage&lt;br /&gt;
* Alan Turing&lt;br /&gt;
* G.H. Hardy&lt;br /&gt;
* Bertrand Russell&lt;br /&gt;
* Roger Penrose&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrew Wiles &lt;br /&gt;
* Arthur Cayley&lt;br /&gt;
* William Rowan Hamilton&lt;br /&gt;
* George Boole&lt;br /&gt;
* Augustus De Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: While I am respectful of the contributions of those on your list, as a group they are a far cry from the greatest mathematicians and many would not be considered &amp;quot;British&amp;quot;.  Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain.  Wiles did his work in the U.S.  Russell's work was deflated by Godel, and others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Fiona seems to miss the varying degrees of &amp;quot;mathematician&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;great mathematician&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;one of the greatest mathematicians&amp;quot; as if they're all the same thing.  We saw the same thing when another contributor was unable to grasp the difference between &amp;quot;conservative words&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;best conservative words&amp;quot;.  It's as if liberals can see everything in the world only in black and white terms, as if everything falls perfectly into one of two categories, e.g. &amp;quot;mathematician&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;not-mathematician&amp;quot;. I think this is another example of [[Liberal Inability To Abstract]]. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 14:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, you stated: &amp;quot;It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The British are notoriously weak in mathematics&amp;quot;. Both these statements are not only untrue but ridiculous. I've tried to contribute to this encyclopedia but I'm not going to waste my time messing around if you fill it up with your own uninformed prejudices, refuse to do some easy reading to check your facts, and get absurdly defensive when your statements are corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on the subject in question. ''Laziness is not a conservative character trait, least of all intellectual laziness.'' Please tell me if you're going to check your facts before shooting your mouth off in future, in which case I'd be pleased to continue contributing to CP. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Benjy, please rant somewhere else instead.  We tell the truth here, whether [[Anglophile]]s accept it or not.  The relative weakness of [[Britain]] in mathematics is an objective fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Have you any proof for your assertion? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 16:37, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(EC) Hi Andy. Are you talking about mathematical ability in the general UK population, or about the number of major contributions to the field by British mathematicians? Thanks, --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 16:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::(EC) Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain.  Or list the greatest modern mathematical achievements and count how many came out of Britain.  I'm sorry liberals don't teach this, and that's why there is a need for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::According to [http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm this blog], 9 of 99 were British - and that's an all time, Ancient Greece to present list. Now you; would you care to support your position with sources? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::And ''your source'' comes from a ''blog?''  How about you, SamI, come up with non-blog, official sources yourself to support ''your'' position.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Rather a blog than my own imagination. Would Andy care to provide his sources? The burden of proof, and all that. [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::(EC)[http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html This list gives 3 British and 1 Irish out of 14.] And why do I keep having to fill out captcha boxes? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Andy said &amp;quot;Look at '''any''' list&amp;quot; (my emphasis). This is a list already on the Internet so SamI is just following Andy's advice. Please note that there are '''no''' people on that list who were born in the U.S.A. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:23, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Guess what...you, SamI, just accused Andy of using his own imagination, and since you, GeoffA, is supportive of Sam's statement, both of you are going to get official sources to support your side, otherwise I'm going to assume you are using your own imaginations just to troll here.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::I would say that the second source I posted above is fairly official. And why do we need to support our side, but Andy doesn't have to support his beyond saying 'oh, it's an objective fact'? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::How about the [[Fields Medal]] as a rough proxy? I count six awarded to UK mathematicians out of a total of 48 (12.5%), compared to thirteen awarded to Americans (~27%). Not bad for a small island. --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 17:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Well there you go &amp;quot;Karajou&amp;quot;. Since the USA has a population ~5 times larger than the UK, it looks like the UK is doing pretty well. And don't you think Andy can talk for himself without you leaping to his side? What are '''your''' sources to support his statement? [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:36, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::There are better ways to prove us wrong then by coming here and making demands; one of those ways is to provide a reasonable explanation which supports your position, backed up by valid sources, and being polite about the whole thing.  See ya in a couple hours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(outdent) Well I used the two &amp;quot;ours&amp;quot; you gave me to find some sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about this [http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/great_mathematicians.html commercial source]? Of the 20 mathematiciams, John Napier, Ada Lovelace, Lewis Carroll, Alan Turing and William Oughtred are British. That's 25%. No Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Or how about [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/11/the-10-best-mathematicians this] article listing a top 10? 1 Brit - no Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific Computing Laboratory at Hong Kong Baptist University [http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html lists] four Brits out of 14. Yes - Christains disagree with you too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another blog (I know you don't like them, but surely the &amp;quot;Best of the Public&amp;quot; is always right? Your boss thinks so) [http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2008/01/twenty-five-greatest-mathematicians-of.html here] has two Brits out of 25. No Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centre College [http://web.centre.edu/mat/century.html lists] 24 for last century alone. Four Brits and Five Yanks. That's still not bad for such a poor, small, atheistic island.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, in the magazine Mathematics Teacher (I.7. Vol.55, 1962), W.C. Eells [http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/~flora/100.html published] a list of the 100 greatest mathematicians of all time. I'm not going to go through all 100, but Newton, Napier, Wallis, Hamilton, Barrow, Taylor, Briggs, Babbage, Smith, H.J.S., Cotes, Boole, Halley and Lord Kelvin were all Brits. That's 13/100.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So. There are your sources. I note that SamI can't respond because TK blocked him/her. Since I fully expect the same fate to befall me after this post for having proved you wrong, I'll say goodbye now. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect you or Andy to provide sources to back up ''your'' point of view. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 19:43, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Granted, GeoffA, I would agree with your point that we should provide sources to back up our point of view.  But we're not going to do it for someone on demand.  And there lies the end of the lesson.  Hope you learned something about tact.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Is there something in the water over there in the U.K., or is it your atheism?  Perhaps its the generally gloomy economic picture and remnants of the class system that make you as you are!  Godspeed to all of you. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:38, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brits, we're talking about '''''mathematicians''''' in this thread.  Do you know what a mathematician is?  That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell).  One more tip: the Irish (Hamilton) do not consider themselves to be British.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain'': The [[Oxford calculators]] were pre-modern, but English. [[John Napier]] or [[Richard Recorde]] where Scottish or Welsh - though they weren't English, they were inhabitants of the British Isles, and therefore British in the same sense as most Haitians are Hispaniolians as well. Both are modern mathematicians - in the usual sense of the word ''&amp;quot;modern&amp;quot;'' when talking about periods of history. You may describe them as ''early modern''. Sir Isaac Newton - who lived even later - was e a modern mathematician, too. And as a subject of Queen Anne of Great Britain, he was most certainly British.&lt;br /&gt;
*''Do you know what a mathematician is? '' A mathematician is someone who contributes to the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are not squeamish: you could be covered with green fur and be a baker - if you solve an open Hilbert problem, they will you love you, and count you as a mathematician. Penrose, Lovelace, Babbage, Turing and Russell were great mathematicians, even if they were part-time physicists, geeks or hacks. {{unsigned|RonLar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Additionally, the overlap between mathematics and physics is huge - especially applied mathematics. Sophie Germain, a ''woman'' mathematician who appears on several of those lists, contributed a huge amount of work to the subject of elastics, and her work was used extensively, for instance in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. She is universally considered to be a mathematician, but you would apparently describe her as a physicist or even an architect. Russell was deeply involved in the Hilbert Program, which though ultimately unsuccessful provided modern mathematics with a solid framework. His work ''Principia Mathematica'' is one of the most important works on the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I cannot understand why you have such a closed mind on this subject. You have plenty of evidence that contradicts your opinion, so it's now only fair that you present evidence to support your hypothesis or at least consider revising it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Please note, that I am not claiming that Britain is the pre-eminent country for producing mathematicians. Germany would probably win that prize across modern history, and if you take the last 50 years or so, it's probably the U.S.A. (although I have no hard evidence for that statement). I merely take issue with your statement that &amp;quot;The British are notoriously weak in mathematics&amp;quot;. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 08:43, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Brits]] who protest so stridently illustrate to me the problem of [[Anglophilia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;curiouser and curiouser&amp;quot; -  for me, it looks as the [[Anglophobe]]s are justignoring the evidence:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;|Field Medalists by Country&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!country&lt;br /&gt;
!#&lt;br /&gt;
!medalist&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!USA&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|13 ||Jesse Douglas, John Milnor, Paul Joseph Cohen, Stephen Smale, John G. Thompson, Charles Fefferman, Daniel Quillen, William Thurston, Shing-Tung Yau, Michael Freedman, Edward Witten, Curtis T. McMullen, David Mumford&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!France&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|9||Laurent Schwartz, Jean-Pierre Serre, René Thom, Alexander Grothendieck, Alain Connes, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Laurent Lafforgue, Wendelin Werner&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Soviet Union/Russia&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|8||Sergei Novikov, Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfel'd, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Vladimir Voevodsky, Andrei Okounkov, (Grigori Perelman)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!UK&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|6||Klaus Roth, Michael Atiyah, Alan Baker, Simon Donaldson, Richard Borcherds, Timothy Gowers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Japan&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|3||Kunihiko Kodaira, Heisuke Hironaka, Shigefumi Mori&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|2||Pierre Deligne, Jean Bourgain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Finland&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Lars Ahlfors&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Atle Selberg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Lars Hörmander&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Enrico Bombieri&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Gerd Faltings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Vaughan F. R. Jones&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Terence Tao&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:04, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Klaus Roth was Prussian. Michael Atiyah is Sudanese/Egyptian. Simon Donaldson does his work in ''four-dimensions'' when this world obviously only has ''three''. I imagine if I made up the math as I went, I could get a Fields medal as well? And Richard Borcherds is from South Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
:So spectacularly, you provide ''maybe'' two candidates for British mathematicians.  Hardly impressive, considering ''Finland'' managed to get one. And who cares about this &amp;quot;Field's Medal&amp;quot; anyways? It's just some award experts give to each other to make each other feel better, and exclude the best of the public. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 20:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::For the record, &amp;quot;Cathy,&amp;quot; the cobordism work of Donaldson was not only essential to the classification theorems which have revolutionized modern topology, but also have important applications in quantum mechanics and other fields that deal with &amp;quot;this world.&amp;quot;  For somebody who apparently has such extensive knowledge in the history of 20th century mathematics, you are certainly lacking in understanding if you believe Donaldson &amp;quot;made up the math as he went.&amp;quot;  As for the Fields medal (no apostrophe) being something that the best of the public are excluded from, you should be aware that best of the public exemplar Gregori Perelman was OFFERED a Fields medal and turned it down.  &lt;br /&gt;
::Before you continue your pattern of jumping into talk page arguments with on-the-spot research, I suggest you make significant and substantive edits to our mainspace articles.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 20:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connive is too early ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With an origin date of 1601, &amp;quot;connive&amp;quot; is too early, I think.  We start at 1612, after publication of the [[KJV]] and completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works.  But &amp;quot;connive&amp;quot; is a fascination suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:42, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I was debating to put it in the Conservative Downgraded terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:56, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That would work!  It's always good to preserve information for everyone's benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Layer Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These would take it to a 21-42-84-168 progression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cogent (1650-1660): to the point; relevant; pertinent. &lt;br /&gt;
Yankee (1750-1760): a native or inhabitant of the United States. &lt;br /&gt;
Minuteman (1765-1775): (sometimes lowercase) a member of a group of American militiamen just before and during the Revolutionary War who held themselves in readiness for instant military service. &lt;br /&gt;
Secularism (1850-1855): the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. &lt;br /&gt;
Theonomy (1885-1890): the state of an individual or society that regards its own nature and norms as being in accord with the divine nature.&lt;br /&gt;
Populism (1890-1895): grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. &lt;br /&gt;
Secular Humanism (1980-1985): any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.&lt;br /&gt;
Ecoterrorism (1980-1985): violence carried out to further the political or social objectives of the environmentalists .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any thoughts?  &amp;quot;Secularism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;secular humanism&amp;quot; might provoke some objections, and I know that &amp;quot;isms&amp;quot; raise some red flags, but I would argue that they're important terms.  They clearly identify these types of thought as organized and agenda-driven movements, and identify that agenda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ben, your suggestions are fabulous.  My only reservations are with &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;, which today means a Northeasterner and is often derogatory in the singular, and &amp;quot;Populism&amp;quot;, which is increasingly conservative today but probably not so when it originated.  Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, Yankee has certainly had a varied history--it wasn't a term of endearment when spoken by a Southerner during the Civil War or Reconstruction!  On the other hand, it also gives us Yankee ingenuity and &amp;quot;Yankee Doodle.&amp;quot;  The soldiers of the Greatest Generation were &amp;quot;Yanks.&amp;quot;  I think it would be a shame to let the fact that it's sometimes used in derogatory fashion undercut the rich heritage of the term.  (After all, &amp;quot;Red Stater&amp;quot; is a term of derision to liberals, but a badge of honor to those who live there!)  Populism...well, it's harder to argue that one; some highly leftist movements have been identified as &amp;quot;populist&amp;quot; in the pass.  I cheerfully concede your point!  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::This is a fascinating issue and discussion.  I'm wondering if a word can be more derogatory as a singular noun (&amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;) than as an adjective or when used in the plural.  Southerners, who tend to be conservative, would have no trouble with &amp;quot;Yankee Doodle&amp;quot; but I suspect when they call someone a &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;, it's meant to be an insult.  Interestingly, the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) lists the first (original) meaning of &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot; to mean a New Englander rather than an American.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggested Way To Format Page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to suggest that the formatting on the page might be easier to follow if it were organised into centuries, instead of purely alphabetically. I suggest this because, when I first looked at this page, I could not follow the progression clearly. If it was organised firstly into centuries, and then alphabetically, people just passing could see the progression quickly, thus making them more likely to read it thoroughly. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I do not consider myself very good at editting pages, I do not trust myself to make this change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will understand and accept any critiscm of this idea, as it was a spur of the moment thought. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 16:15, 12 October 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional liberal terms? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about &amp;quot;ethnocentrism&amp;quot; (1905-1910) and &amp;quot;multiculturalism&amp;quot; (1960-1965)?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Superb suggestions.  Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
==Refudiate==&lt;br /&gt;
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made &amp;quot;corpse man&amp;quot; a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Perhaps time will tell.  The term &amp;quot;Big Bang&amp;quot; was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can &amp;quot;mature&amp;quot; to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charisma? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term.  It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait.  Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:&lt;br /&gt;
::'''literally &amp;quot;a gift from God&amp;quot;, charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''&lt;br /&gt;
:This nixes the &amp;quot;magic&amp;quot; from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't &amp;quot;magic&amp;quot;. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps &amp;quot;difficult to classify&amp;quot; may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
==New words added==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) &amp;amp; Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:All your additions look superb except &amp;quot;deference,&amp;quot; which I'm not sure is [[conservative]].  Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for &amp;quot;God-fearing&amp;quot;).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote:  &amp;quot;giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality.&amp;quot;--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment &amp;amp; then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;atheistic&amp;quot; is good.  Let's go with that.  I didn't see why &amp;quot;patriarchy&amp;quot; was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Copacetic&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;Copacetic&amp;quot; is the very satisfactory result of conservative values.  It is associated with good and honest living.  I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, I saw your addition &amp;quot;silent majority&amp;quot; and it made me immediately think of &amp;quot;Moral Majority&amp;quot;. [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Great suggestion.  Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obambulate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with &amp;quot;Obama&amp;quot;, it simply means &amp;quot;to walk around&amp;quot;. I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obambulate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with &amp;quot;Obama&amp;quot;, it simply means &amp;quot;to walk around&amp;quot;. I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&amp;diff=859439</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words&amp;diff=859439"/>
				<updated>2011-03-28T02:05:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Obambulate */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]'''&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
'''[[/archive2|Archive 2 ]]'''&lt;br /&gt;
----&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mother Nature==&lt;br /&gt;
In the New Liberal Terms section, I put the term Mother Nature in the list. Is it right?--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 18:40, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I won't argue whether or not Mother nature is a liberal term on the grounds that I think the distinction between conservative and liberal words is dubious at best, however it is most certainly not a new word. The idea of mother nature is as old as the ancient greeks or older. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 18:46, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That's a clever way to dispose of a vexing question.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:56, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well I don't want to waste your time by arguing the point Mr. Schlafly. If you want to put the term back in feel free. --[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User Talk:BenjaminS|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 19:24, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is it dubious? Also, I haven’t heard of any writings or speeches where the term Mother Nature was used hundreds of years ago. Show me at least one speech or writing where the term was used. Liberals use it to discredit Father God’s role in creation. They think that it was nature, not God, who made us. To Liberals, nature is their goddess. Funny how Wikipedia’s article on Mother Nature denies the atheistic, evolutionary and environmental implications of the term.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Look up &amp;quot;Gaia&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Terra Mater&amp;quot; - &amp;quot;Mother Nature&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Mother Earth&amp;quot; has been around thousands of years. [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The idea of personifying all of nature as a woman surely predates the liberalism of 20th century and early 21st century America. But the way in which the natural world came into existence, specifically the planet Earth which supports all life known to exist, is unknown to science: speculation is not &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; unless expressed as a theory to which a counterexample could conceivably be found (see [[falsifiability]]). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Those scientists who deny God's role in [[Creation]] are committing the same intellectual offense they accuse [[intelligent design]] theorists of. It is also not &amp;quot;science&amp;quot; to comment on metaphysical ideas, unless we grant that the scientific method can be applied to matters beyond [[physical science]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The trick which liberals are playing with their anti-conservative words is to pretend that they are talking about one thing, while they are actually talking about another. This is literally the oldest trick in [[Bible|the book]]; recall that the serpent tempting Eve told her, &amp;quot;You will not die&amp;quot; yet Jesus explained later on many occasions that &amp;quot;life&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;death&amp;quot; correspond to being able or unable to love God. So eating the forbidden fruit did indeed cause Eve's death. (See verses like, &amp;quot;You have the name of being alive, but you are dead&amp;quot; in Revelations and, &amp;quot;Let the dead bury their own dead&amp;quot; in Luke 9)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::We need precise definitions of words, to prevent being tricked and fooled by deceivers with a hidden agenda. The so-called &amp;quot;[[peace movement]]&amp;quot;, for example, never wanted [[peace]] but simply the victory of America's anti-[[democracy|democratic]] enemies. The &amp;quot;save the earth&amp;quot; movement is not at all concerned with preserving the environment for the well-being of human beings: it's an excuse to increase centralized control over resources, in a way which will destroy prosperity, hurting the world's poor more than any one else. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now it's a matter of personal belief for me that God has a feminine aspect; my church specifically teaches that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine, and that God is a being whose harmonized masculinity and femininity are reflected in men and women (see Gen. 1:27) but I won't preach here. The issue is the relationship between Nature and human beings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Liberals claim that science has proved [[Evolution]] without providing any evidence for it, let alone discussing a means by which the theory might be falsified (thus providing a highly prominent example of [[pseudoscience]]). Then they misuse this idea to hint that science has also discovered the source of the physical world ([[Big Bang]] theory) and the [[origin of life]]. Of course, when pressed, they must concede that the Theory of Evolution does not tell us how life came into being. But high school biology textbooks write about life as if it simply &amp;quot;evolved&amp;quot; from inorganic chemicals. This, by the way, is a great example of how New Liberal Words are misused to trick people. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 07:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::That's a fascinating analysis, Ed.  Thank you for sharing it.  I appreciate the suggestion that the [[Holy Spirit]] is feminine.  Usually groups of people, like nations or large audiences, are considered to be more feminine than masculine in nature.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:13, 6 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Bully pulpit&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about &amp;quot;bully pulpit&amp;quot;?  When Teddy Roosevelt coined this, &amp;quot;bully&amp;quot; meant something like &amp;quot;excellent&amp;quot; rather than overbearing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 22 May 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I guess it's kind of like the word gay. At first gay meant happy and now it means something else.--[[User:Willminator|Willminator]] 19:55, 22 April 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Definition==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this article needs a clear definition of what is meant by &amp;quot;conservative words.&amp;quot; As I was reading it, I found it unclear as to whether it's about words invented by Conservatives or words representing Conservative values. I gather it's the latter, but I had to look in the talk page to find that. Either way, the introduction to the article isn't very clear and I'm reluctant to write a definition since I'm not sure I'm on the same page as the contributors. Would someone care to do that? [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:49, 2 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 33 million sites turn up in a Google search for &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; - Wrong! ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the term &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; the article claims &amp;quot;thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where did this number come from?  Go to Google and type in &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; (in quotes) and you get 945,000 hits.  Type in &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; (NOT in quotes - which is totally sloppy Googling) and you get 7,590,000 hits.  Where did the &amp;quot;thirty-three million&amp;quot; come from? [[User:PaulBurnett|PaulBurnett]] 22:11, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: That's an interesting observation, Paul.  The number of Google links retrieved for the search &amp;quot;anti-Christian&amp;quot; has fallen substantially.  That begs the question of why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:18, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Should we correct that number in the article? [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 22:41, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Please improve as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::The user who added that ([[User:DrewDice]]) was subsequently blocked for prevarication. The one-million figure Andy added seems about right in my searches. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 23:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Before you round the number down, consider rounding it up. [http://www.google.com/search?q=anti+Christian&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;lr=lang_en&amp;amp;as_qdr=all&amp;amp;prmd=inl&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;ei=eQldTN2RGIWBlAeU8uCbCA&amp;amp;ved=0CBEQpwU&amp;amp;source=lnt&amp;amp;tbs=lr:lang_1en,cdr:1,cd_min:,cd_max:] The answer is 74.6 million. Google anti Christian with no quotes, no hyphens, English language only.  --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:24, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::That is true, but such a Google search would include Christian sites about &amp;quot;[[pro-life|anti-abortion]]&amp;quot; stances or &amp;quot;[[homosexuality|anti-Biblical]]&amp;quot; lifestyles. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 21:43, 17 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::A good indication that my search results are accurate can be judged by the first 10 page results, nothing but anti-Christian in the title. Does it include anti-abortion and anti-American? Possibly, we are talking 78 million pages but I didn't see any through the top 10. I frown on the smaller number of 1 million.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:14, 17 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::I'm sorry you feel that way. A good indication that your search results are inaccurate can be judged by using the &amp;quot;Search within results&amp;quot; function. Half a million of your results pertain to the Christian &amp;quot;anti defamation&amp;quot; commission. Another half million are for &amp;quot;anti abortion&amp;quot;. 184,000 deal with &amp;quot;anti immigration&amp;quot;. And the list goes on and on...173,000 are about the punk rock band &amp;quot;Anti-flag&amp;quot;. I'm sure hundreds of thousands more results are about things that people named Christian don't like. The only way to accurately gauge the use of the phrase &amp;quot;anti Christian&amp;quot; on Google is to search for that phrase, not its components. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 11:50, 18 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::I did a search for anti-Christian both with and without the hyphen when Paul Burnett first brought the issue up, and both returned the same number of hits (about the 7.5 million he mentioned). I think that Jpatt may have misread the number and moved the decimal place over. Even now, I'm only getting 10.8 million hits, both by typing in what Jpatt described or by clicking his link. I'm changing the article now to say 10 million, but I think the number should ultimately be removed. It just changes to quickly for the article to stay up-to-date unless somebody is going to check every morning. Also, on the first page of ten results, on is a list of anti-Christian movies, one is lamenting the anti-Christian bias in America, and one is against anti-Christian defamation. If you want to only use the first 10 results as a sample of the 10 million (which anybody who's taken a statistics course would tell you is a horrible idea), about 30% of those results are nothing hostile towards Christianity. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::JPatt's search results extended further into the past than a normal google search. For the same reasons I explained to him, your 10 million number is inaccurate (you can verify by searching within your results). I'm changing it back to 1 million for the time being, but maybe you're right that it should be removed outright. No one doubts that it is a widely-used term. [[User:KyleDD|KyleDD]] 17:54, 20 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::There are 10.8 million results when you search anti-Christian on Google. The claim being made was not that there were X million results hostile towards Christianity, just that there were X million results. No attempt was made at qualifying them, and the statement in the article does not indicate any attempt at qualifying them. It doesn't matter if only one in ten of those results is actually something anti-Christian; the claim is only about how many results there are. I'm changing it back to 10 million, because that's how many results there are (not good results, or relevant results, just results in any form). With that being said, it is a fairly pointless claim to make, because we don't know how many of those results actually '''are''' anti-Christian, we only know that they make some reference to &amp;quot;anti-Christian.&amp;quot; [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 20:17, 21 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::::I'm blanking the description on this term. The number of Google results is subject to wide variation, and the number of Google results is hardly an informative piece of information, as per discussion above. The term '''is''' included in the unabridged Merriam-Webster dictionary ([http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antichristian Link]). I don't know of a suitable replacement description, so I'm just going to leave it open to somebody else. [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 13:52, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Adding Obama Portmanteaus  ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've noticed the list does not have any of the Obama portmanteaus, like [[Obamanation]], [[Obamunism]], etc. Shouldn't these terms be added? They are great for described the unfortunate turn this country is taking. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 17:13, 27 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Underdog ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative term imho. Seeker of greatness against the odds. Cinderella story. David (underdog) slays Goliath. The meek (underdog) shall inherit the Earth. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 03:09, 10 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I agree that &amp;quot;underdog&amp;quot; is a conservative term, and I will promote it now.  Thanks for mentioning this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:42, 10 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Excellent scholarship ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the face of such well founded scholarship, Liberals will never manage to disprove the remarkable growth pattern illustrating the doubling per century of Conservative words. Nevertheless, perhaps the essay could be improved slightly by adding that Conservative words are words that express a Conservative concept or words that are used significantly more often by conservatives than Liberals. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:20, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Not sure what confusion you're trying to clear up here.  Conservatives words express insights that are conservative.  These words are freely available to liberals and conservatives alike, though liberals may indeed irrationally try (in a fool's errand) to avoid using them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:34, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The essay begins by mentioning Conservative terms, then a list of Conservative words and terms follows, nowhere in the essay is it made clear what Conservative words or terms actually are. That, I think, should occur at the beginning of the essay. Supplying a definition of what a Conservative term is, will underpin the observation that the data supplied irrefutably proves a &amp;quot;1-2-4-8&amp;quot; geometric increase for new conservative terms. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 14:51, 30 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Definition by example seems best here.  Other proposed definitions are, of course, welcome.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Other definitions are not required, your own excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express   [[conservative insights]] is more than adequate. However, [[definition]] by [[example]] begs the question, are the words in the list because they are Conservative or are the words Conservative because they are in the list? [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 15:48, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The terms are obviously Conservative independent of being in this list.  You wouldn't request a definition for &amp;quot;List of Words beginning with G&amp;quot;, so why are you demanding a definition for &amp;quot;Conservative term&amp;quot;? Are the component words of the phrase that obtuse for you?  We're not using them in any aberrant way.  --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 18:04, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Nowhere did I demand a definition, I merely suggested that providing one would underpin the excellent scholarship presented in the essay. G is a well established concept amongst literate people. &amp;quot;List of Words beginning with G&amp;quot; is a definition, therefore it logically does not require a definition. The term 'Conservative words' is not as well established as G, therefore a definition helps those unfamiliar with the term understand it and benefit from Mr Schlafly's excellent insights. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::What you say cannot be true, because in the world I live in, people know and understand what &amp;quot;conservative&amp;quot; means, and they don't need it spelled out for them. Talking about the &amp;quot;excellent scholarship presented in this essay&amp;quot; smacks of sarcasm from the tone of the rest of your post. If you were a ''real'' conservative, you wouldn't have to be asking what a &amp;quot;conservative word&amp;quot; was. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:29, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::My suggestion to elaborate was in order to elucidate the term 'Conservative words' not the word 'Conservative'. The elucidation is intended for visitors unfamiliar with the term, not for myself. Many come to Conservapedia seeking an alternative to the atheistic anti-Christian misinformation, gossip and pornography prevalent elsewhere on the internet. Elucidation enables such people to better understand and appreciate what Conservapedia has to offer, and may facillitate bringing them into the fold, so that they may also profit from the many [[Essay:Conservative Benefits|Conservative benefits]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 18:01, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If liberals are so devoid of intelligence or honesty to clearly understand the simple application of an adjective to a noun, then why should we dumb down our article just for their pea-sized brains? --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:57, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;AmandaBunting&amp;quot; (if that really is your name), I've reviewed your contributions and you're not doing much more than talk, talk talk.  We conservatives favor substantive contributions to this project, so if all you can do is complain on talk pages, Wikipedia might be a better place for you and your misguided ideology.  It's obvious you're not here to help anyone learn.   [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 18:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I am neither complaining nor have I a misguided ideology. I am simply making substantive suggestions about how I think this excellent essay may be improved. As a Conservative I would have expected more [[Chivalry|chivalrous]] behaviour here, there is [[Essay:Rules of Chivalry for Students|much you can learn]] from Conservapedia. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 16:57, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::But you didn't suggest a definition, even though one would have been (and still is) welcome from you.  Wikis are not answer boxes; they are places where people contribute ideas and ''substantive'' edits, and then others improve them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:34, 4 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I had already mentioned that other definitions are not required because you had already supplied supplied an excellent, clear and concise definition that Conservatives words express Conservative insights. I have added that to the essay, furthermore the definition itself links to the insightful article [[Conservative insights]]. [[User:AmandaBunting|AmandaBunting]] 17:38, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maggie Thatcher ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Great article. How about some of Margaret Thatcher's great new conservative terms:&lt;br /&gt;
* U-turn: What liberal politicians do all the time&lt;br /&gt;
* There is no alternative: Liberals pretend that they have an alternative to conservative values&lt;br /&gt;
* Oxygen of publicity: What liberals want to give to terrorists&lt;br /&gt;
* Fight to win: What conservatives should do!&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:03, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Get this! Adding those four terms takes the total for the 20th century to 160 - we're getting very close to a perfect geometric progression. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:07, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Thanks for the suggestions, but I'm not sure the above terms meet the high quality level of the entries.  Perhaps because &amp;quot;Maggie&amp;quot; was actually not very conservative by American standards?  She seemed fine with nationalized health care, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:29, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Possibility ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''quack'', coined 1638, to refer to charlatans deceiving others with pseudoscience. Used extensively today to describe the favorite &amp;quot;medicines&amp;quot; of new-age liberals. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 20:40, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Interesting and informative suggestion.  However, the term strikes me as name-calling rather than insightful.  I'm not sure its use would be consistent with our rules!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:26, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Kiss of Death ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The term &amp;quot;Kiss of Death&amp;quot; clearly originated earlier than 1943, as the article would suggest, as there was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiss_of_Death_%281916_film%29 a 1916 film by that name].  In fact, I'm not convinced this was the origin of the term, which has probably been in use since Judas' betrayal. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 22:01, 14 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your link to Wikipedia is broken, and the movie was probably a literal rather than figurative use of the word.  Merriam-Webster gives a date of 1943.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:24, 15 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Fixed the link; thanks for the heads-up. [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:38, 16 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
-	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Possibility for 1800's: Carpetbagger ==&lt;br /&gt;
	 &lt;br /&gt;
While the term originally related specifically to northern politicians interjecting themselves into the politics of the Reconstruction-era south, it has since come to be used for political opportunists in a more general sense.  Since this sort of behavior is common among Democrats (Hillary Clinton, anyone?) I'd argue that the term has value as a conservative word.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;Carpetbagger&amp;quot; is a fascinating suggestion.  [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Robert F. Kennedy]] were modern senatorial examples.  Perhaps there are other modern examples also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well...hmm.  There's John Garamendi, the former lieutenant governor of California, who ran for election to the House in a district where he didn't live.  His defense, as I recall, was &amp;quot;Well, I don't live there, but my front yard's in the district.&amp;quot;  (It wasn't.)  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:26, 19 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Research method ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to point out that actively looking for words to fit the geometric rate of growth, from a scientific point of view, is a biased method of research. You will ALWAYS find words in a 1-2-4-8 geometric growth rate, if that's what you actively look for. A more neutral research method would be to ***randomly*** (I can't stress it enough, it MUST be random) pick up, say, 1000 words created after 1600, and see if they match that growth rate.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This method CAN lead to a scientific result, mind you, but only after ALL words created after 1600 have been taken into account, whether they match the growth rate or not. Feel free to refute my reasoning if I made a logical flaw in it, and if you think that actively choosing words to fit a 1-2-4-8 growth rate has scientific validity, please explain me why I am wrong. Thank you! --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:35, 20 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestion? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What does everyone else think about ''militant atheist''? I had to listen to someone rail at me for being a Christian on the train this morning '''for an hour''' and it got me thinking. I've been hearing the term since I was a kid, but that would probably fall into the 20th century. William Ayers anyone? My argument in favor is that most of them try to pass themselves off as peaceful, tolerant, etc, when (only my opinion here) that isn't really the case. We should call it as we see it here. I can't provide a year, but maybe someone with more experience can? What do you think? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 13:23, 20 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Selection Bias and Proposal for an Unbiased Test ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Selection bias===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;The easiest way to see this is the history of your finds: You have repeatedly achieved what you call a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; (1-2-4-8) of new conservative words, i.e. 1 word of the 17th century, 2 of the 18th century, 4 of the 19th century and 8 of the 20th century.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;What's the probability to get a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;? Here are the probabilities for the century of origin of a random conservative words, assuming that your insight is correct: &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Century&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Probability&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8/15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;For a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, we have to take 15 words. It's easy to calculate the probability that these 15 words form a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;15!/(8!×4!×2!×1!) ×  (1/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;1&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (2/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;2&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (4/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; × (8/15)&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;  = 675675 × 2&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;34&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; / 15&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;15&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt;  =0.0265&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;2.65% is the probability to chose 15 words and get a &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;perfect layer&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; instead of 2-1-4-8 or 1-2-5-7... And how often was this remarkable deed performed?&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;That you were able to repeat this  process for a couple of times shows that you were actively (though not necessarily consciously) looking for words to match your pattern, i.e., you showed a selection bias - a kind of affirmative action for newer words...&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Selection bias exists in any study.  The issue is not whether there is selection bias (there always is), but whether the selection bias is so great that it disqualifies the results.  Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:51, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Selection bias exists in any study. '' But most scientists try to avoid it (even in the social sciences), and try to monitor its effect. They most certainly should not embrace it as a way to make their point (that is, they are called on it when they do so...)&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Unless there were a strong underlying pattern of increase by century, it would be almost impossible even with high selection bias to attain the resulting pattern of doubling by century.'' But [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] doesn't claim that ''their is a increase by century''. No, it explicitly states that ''conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc. For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century.'' While their may an increase over the centuries, the rate of this increase (doubling, i.e. an increase by 100% by century) is an artefact of the way you perform your search: That is, even if the real rate is 70% , 130% - or 83% (the [[maximum likelihood estimator]] for your current set of words taken into account the year of their creation), you end up with a perfect fit of 100% - unless you have enumerated ''all'' conservative words at least for one century. &lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:44, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===An unbiased test===&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Andy, f you are interested in testing your insight, I really would like to help you. The hidden table below contains 500 words which - according to the Merriam-Webster - originated between 1600 and 2000. The list was generated by taking words of the ubuntu-dictionary at random and checking their age automatically via the site of Merriam-Webster. This was repeated until 500 feasible words were found. &amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;If you  mark each conservative word with an &amp;quot;r&amp;quot; (and perhaps each liberal word with an &amp;quot;l&amp;quot;), we'll get an estimate of the percentage of conservative words - and a fairly unbiased distribution over the time.&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;Please be aware that the distribution of this sample doesn't follow a geometric law. Here are the number of words by century of origin:&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Century&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;th&amp;gt;Number of Words&amp;lt;/th&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;151&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;84&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;161&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20th&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;104&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Your proposed test is an interesting one, and I do see far more conservative words from the 1700s than the 1600s.  Indeed, I'm pleasantly surprised how many conservative words show up in your random selection, as I never claimed that conservative (or liberal) words were a substantial percentage of all new words generated.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. Dictionaries are good at defining old words, but not-so-good at recognizing and defining relatively new concepts.  That's what we need Conservapedia for! :-).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:07, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''That said, the defect in your proposed test is the weakness in dictionaries publishing more recent new conservative words from, say, the 1900s. '' That's hardly a fatal flaw which would render the test useless. But we can even circumvent it: Let's just concentrate on the period 1600-1899! As you acknowledge that ''dictionaries are good at defining old words'', in the next list you will find 500 words from these three centuries. I assume that [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law|Conservapedia's Law]] should hold not only for the 20th and the 21st century. (the list is a wikitable with two columns, just add a marker for a conservative word in the second column. I omitted the years of the creation of the words (all taken from the Merriam-Webster) and I would advice you against checking the age before marking a word - though of course the age of quite a few words is apparent)&lt;br /&gt;
::*A dictionary is the obvious choice when talking about the number of words. But you are absolutely right that dictionaries are biased towards older words. I assume that the percentage of words in general use which were created in the 20th century is much higher than those of the 17th century! When one is interested only in the distribution of conservative words , one could sample over Conservapedia's articles, and try various methods to get the age of the newest words used. But this is of course more cumbersome than just looking into a dictionary, so I'll postpone it for a while.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:47, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Table of random words===&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;collapsible collapsed&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!500 words&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|1    economics&lt;br /&gt;
2    storeroom&lt;br /&gt;
3    hunkers&lt;br /&gt;
4    sufficing&lt;br /&gt;
5    coffeehouses&lt;br /&gt;
6    stalagmites&lt;br /&gt;
7    therapy&lt;br /&gt;
8    sanitation&lt;br /&gt;
9    cheapskates&lt;br /&gt;
10    Caesareans&lt;br /&gt;
11    ringmaster&lt;br /&gt;
12    acclimate&lt;br /&gt;
13    penology&lt;br /&gt;
14    verandah&lt;br /&gt;
15    caregivers&lt;br /&gt;
16    fed&lt;br /&gt;
17    disengaged&lt;br /&gt;
18    whitecaps&lt;br /&gt;
19    dissertation&lt;br /&gt;
20    consignment&lt;br /&gt;
21    chainsaws&lt;br /&gt;
22    speeds&lt;br /&gt;
23    kinfolk&lt;br /&gt;
24    caribous&lt;br /&gt;
25    hobbyists&lt;br /&gt;
26    coefficients&lt;br /&gt;
27    protuberance&lt;br /&gt;
28    morphemes&lt;br /&gt;
29    Caroline&lt;br /&gt;
30    millionaires&lt;br /&gt;
31    recyclable&lt;br /&gt;
32    wilts&lt;br /&gt;
33    unreconstructed&lt;br /&gt;
34    chandeliers&lt;br /&gt;
35    palomino&lt;br /&gt;
36    joysticks&lt;br /&gt;
37    volleys&lt;br /&gt;
38    cajoling&lt;br /&gt;
39    bucksaws&lt;br /&gt;
40    spars&lt;br /&gt;
41    portaged&lt;br /&gt;
42    acoustically&lt;br /&gt;
43    humanize&lt;br /&gt;
44    hybridize&lt;br /&gt;
45    tipsters&lt;br /&gt;
46    overprices&lt;br /&gt;
47    marksmanship&lt;br /&gt;
48    fezes&lt;br /&gt;
49    depressant&lt;br /&gt;
50    auctioned&lt;br /&gt;
51    flamethrower&lt;br /&gt;
52    biking&lt;br /&gt;
53    artistic&lt;br /&gt;
54    agribusiness&lt;br /&gt;
55    jottings&lt;br /&gt;
56    pedicures&lt;br /&gt;
57    Cordilleras&lt;br /&gt;
58    slots&lt;br /&gt;
59    recording&lt;br /&gt;
60    unrealistic&lt;br /&gt;
61    rationalism&lt;br /&gt;
62    peacekeeping&lt;br /&gt;
63    aromatherapy&lt;br /&gt;
64    jackknife&lt;br /&gt;
65    champagne&lt;br /&gt;
66    horrendous&lt;br /&gt;
67    Quasimodo&lt;br /&gt;
68    excavator&lt;br /&gt;
69    chowders&lt;br /&gt;
70    arts&lt;br /&gt;
71    configure&lt;br /&gt;
72    civic&lt;br /&gt;
73    telegraphy&lt;br /&gt;
74    sweepstakes&lt;br /&gt;
75    euphoric&lt;br /&gt;
76    strategy&lt;br /&gt;
77    subgroup&lt;br /&gt;
78    shouting&lt;br /&gt;
79    gusher&lt;br /&gt;
80    telemarketing&lt;br /&gt;
81    glucose&lt;br /&gt;
82    booties&lt;br /&gt;
83    preponderated&lt;br /&gt;
84    manures&lt;br /&gt;
85    outspokenness&lt;br /&gt;
86    wiener&lt;br /&gt;
87    embeds&lt;br /&gt;
88    amped&lt;br /&gt;
89    sternums&lt;br /&gt;
90    empathy&lt;br /&gt;
91    cognomina&lt;br /&gt;
92    colitis&lt;br /&gt;
93    kimono&lt;br /&gt;
94    retched&lt;br /&gt;
95    singletons&lt;br /&gt;
96    megaphoned&lt;br /&gt;
97    respelled&lt;br /&gt;
98    Hindus&lt;br /&gt;
99    squiggle&lt;br /&gt;
100    irrigates&lt;br /&gt;
101    reconstructions&lt;br /&gt;
102    deceptiveness&lt;br /&gt;
103    colonialism&lt;br /&gt;
104    missioned&lt;br /&gt;
105    dyes&lt;br /&gt;
106    maladroit&lt;br /&gt;
107    tents&lt;br /&gt;
108    turfs&lt;br /&gt;
109    generalization&lt;br /&gt;
110    seamanship&lt;br /&gt;
111    duffers&lt;br /&gt;
112    scruffier&lt;br /&gt;
113    pollinate&lt;br /&gt;
114    bobcats&lt;br /&gt;
115    achieved&lt;br /&gt;
116    exerted&lt;br /&gt;
117    flapjack&lt;br /&gt;
118    Independence&lt;br /&gt;
119    lucidity&lt;br /&gt;
120    indenturing&lt;br /&gt;
121    enumerable&lt;br /&gt;
122    disenchanted&lt;br /&gt;
123    flashback&lt;br /&gt;
124    trilogies&lt;br /&gt;
125    colloquially&lt;br /&gt;
126    Colby&lt;br /&gt;
127    killjoys&lt;br /&gt;
128    lifelines&lt;br /&gt;
129    hydrotherapy&lt;br /&gt;
130    psychoanalysis&lt;br /&gt;
131    memorializing&lt;br /&gt;
132    bronchitis&lt;br /&gt;
133    rink&lt;br /&gt;
134    automobiles&lt;br /&gt;
135    dandy&lt;br /&gt;
136    schoolmarms&lt;br /&gt;
137    debriefing&lt;br /&gt;
138    glands&lt;br /&gt;
139    oceanography&lt;br /&gt;
140    jetted&lt;br /&gt;
141    hurdler&lt;br /&gt;
142    dependability&lt;br /&gt;
143    tactician&lt;br /&gt;
144    rotor&lt;br /&gt;
145    liturgies&lt;br /&gt;
146    quantified&lt;br /&gt;
147    wests&lt;br /&gt;
148    quitters&lt;br /&gt;
149    ocarinas&lt;br /&gt;
150    betting&lt;br /&gt;
151    apathetically&lt;br /&gt;
152    smoggier&lt;br /&gt;
153    Xenia&lt;br /&gt;
154    saris&lt;br /&gt;
155    dupe&lt;br /&gt;
156    voodooism&lt;br /&gt;
157    optimize&lt;br /&gt;
158    particularization&lt;br /&gt;
159    funereally&lt;br /&gt;
160    masterminding&lt;br /&gt;
161    capsizes&lt;br /&gt;
162    orchestrates&lt;br /&gt;
163    uncivilized&lt;br /&gt;
164    emphasized&lt;br /&gt;
165    skyrocket&lt;br /&gt;
166    plagiarist&lt;br /&gt;
167    politicoes&lt;br /&gt;
168    streptococci&lt;br /&gt;
169    pantsuits&lt;br /&gt;
170    waving&lt;br /&gt;
171    decontaminates&lt;br /&gt;
172    teensy&lt;br /&gt;
173    taxonomy&lt;br /&gt;
174    proselytizes&lt;br /&gt;
175    drollness&lt;br /&gt;
176    expectoration&lt;br /&gt;
177    legmen&lt;br /&gt;
178    modulations&lt;br /&gt;
179    diploma&lt;br /&gt;
180    Brandy&lt;br /&gt;
181    radar&lt;br /&gt;
182    pushiest&lt;br /&gt;
183    drill&lt;br /&gt;
184    lush&lt;br /&gt;
185    temperas&lt;br /&gt;
186    musicals&lt;br /&gt;
187    wheal&lt;br /&gt;
188    horticulture&lt;br /&gt;
189    cancan&lt;br /&gt;
190    jocularity&lt;br /&gt;
191    caramels&lt;br /&gt;
192    bipolar&lt;br /&gt;
193    sophisticated&lt;br /&gt;
194    injudicious&lt;br /&gt;
195    emulsion&lt;br /&gt;
196    ignore&lt;br /&gt;
197    cannonballed&lt;br /&gt;
198    swastika&lt;br /&gt;
199    overachievers&lt;br /&gt;
200    rubella&lt;br /&gt;
201    chuckhole&lt;br /&gt;
202    ersatz&lt;br /&gt;
203    breeziness&lt;br /&gt;
204    climaxes&lt;br /&gt;
205    explosiveness&lt;br /&gt;
206    empathizing&lt;br /&gt;
207    jumps&lt;br /&gt;
208    secularizing&lt;br /&gt;
209    sequoia&lt;br /&gt;
210    bibliography&lt;br /&gt;
211    prettying&lt;br /&gt;
212    bouldered&lt;br /&gt;
213    authorship&lt;br /&gt;
214    vocalizing&lt;br /&gt;
215    tarpons&lt;br /&gt;
216    camisoles&lt;br /&gt;
217    cowpox&lt;br /&gt;
218    tans&lt;br /&gt;
219    breathable&lt;br /&gt;
220    machines&lt;br /&gt;
221    tycoon&lt;br /&gt;
222    flicking&lt;br /&gt;
223    squishes&lt;br /&gt;
224    semiprofessional&lt;br /&gt;
225    feline&lt;br /&gt;
226    seedling&lt;br /&gt;
227    hankie&lt;br /&gt;
228    entitlement&lt;br /&gt;
229    abscissa&lt;br /&gt;
230    derisive&lt;br /&gt;
231    romance&lt;br /&gt;
232    overprice&lt;br /&gt;
233    beads&lt;br /&gt;
234    stipple&lt;br /&gt;
235    Kitty&lt;br /&gt;
236    jewelled&lt;br /&gt;
237    mascaraed&lt;br /&gt;
238    dissociation&lt;br /&gt;
239    moments&lt;br /&gt;
240    Spica&lt;br /&gt;
241    quaking&lt;br /&gt;
242    legislation&lt;br /&gt;
243    wobbly&lt;br /&gt;
244    scorches&lt;br /&gt;
245    books&lt;br /&gt;
246    gastrointestinal&lt;br /&gt;
247    finked&lt;br /&gt;
248    renegotiates&lt;br /&gt;
249    flautists&lt;br /&gt;
250    wrongheadedness&lt;br /&gt;
251    allergenic&lt;br /&gt;
252    squishiest&lt;br /&gt;
253    kickoffs&lt;br /&gt;
254    mecca&lt;br /&gt;
255    disses&lt;br /&gt;
256    woodwinds&lt;br /&gt;
257    discotheques&lt;br /&gt;
258    replacements&lt;br /&gt;
259    tomahawks&lt;br /&gt;
260    voluptuaries&lt;br /&gt;
261    salon&lt;br /&gt;
262    eliciting&lt;br /&gt;
263    resale&lt;br /&gt;
264    soporific&lt;br /&gt;
265    dosage&lt;br /&gt;
266    smokestacks&lt;br /&gt;
267    rationalists&lt;br /&gt;
268    subsumed&lt;br /&gt;
269    futzes&lt;br /&gt;
270    minutemen&lt;br /&gt;
271    stingrays&lt;br /&gt;
272    marathoner&lt;br /&gt;
273    vagina&lt;br /&gt;
274    propellers&lt;br /&gt;
275    rooftops&lt;br /&gt;
276    sensationalist&lt;br /&gt;
277    bluejackets&lt;br /&gt;
278    individualize&lt;br /&gt;
279    hyphenating&lt;br /&gt;
280    Xanthippe&lt;br /&gt;
281    federated&lt;br /&gt;
282    amortize&lt;br /&gt;
283    airfare&lt;br /&gt;
284    hyphenates&lt;br /&gt;
285    syncopates&lt;br /&gt;
286    sermonizing&lt;br /&gt;
287    biochemistry&lt;br /&gt;
288    babysat&lt;br /&gt;
289    yellows&lt;br /&gt;
290    riskier&lt;br /&gt;
291    cassocks&lt;br /&gt;
292    stated&lt;br /&gt;
293    Cordoba&lt;br /&gt;
294    Slinky&lt;br /&gt;
295    eventfully&lt;br /&gt;
296    nines&lt;br /&gt;
297    blabbermouths&lt;br /&gt;
298    fraternizes&lt;br /&gt;
299    bucked&lt;br /&gt;
300    Boolean&lt;br /&gt;
301    bivalve&lt;br /&gt;
302    ricochetted&lt;br /&gt;
303    toys&lt;br /&gt;
304    toted&lt;br /&gt;
305    commissars&lt;br /&gt;
306    cushioning&lt;br /&gt;
307    redeploy&lt;br /&gt;
308    poignancy&lt;br /&gt;
309    variegating&lt;br /&gt;
310    snuffbox&lt;br /&gt;
311    stoplight&lt;br /&gt;
312    biochemists&lt;br /&gt;
313    bicycling&lt;br /&gt;
314    disenfranchised&lt;br /&gt;
315    nosing&lt;br /&gt;
316    enlightenment&lt;br /&gt;
317    knockout&lt;br /&gt;
318    resurgent&lt;br /&gt;
319    pediments&lt;br /&gt;
320    skyscrapers&lt;br /&gt;
321    treatments&lt;br /&gt;
322    polio&lt;br /&gt;
323    flashbulbs&lt;br /&gt;
324    empower&lt;br /&gt;
325    rounding&lt;br /&gt;
326    pervasive&lt;br /&gt;
327    humped&lt;br /&gt;
328    oxymora&lt;br /&gt;
329    freebie&lt;br /&gt;
330    passageway&lt;br /&gt;
331    barfing&lt;br /&gt;
332    motorists&lt;br /&gt;
333    triglycerides&lt;br /&gt;
334    Mayans&lt;br /&gt;
335    stopped&lt;br /&gt;
336    kidnapper&lt;br /&gt;
337    pensioning&lt;br /&gt;
338    foreclosures&lt;br /&gt;
339    Yankees&lt;br /&gt;
340    manifestoing&lt;br /&gt;
341    predictor&lt;br /&gt;
342    Delawares&lt;br /&gt;
343    librettos&lt;br /&gt;
344    panoply&lt;br /&gt;
345    angstroms&lt;br /&gt;
346    jodhpurs&lt;br /&gt;
347    backpedal&lt;br /&gt;
348    sugars&lt;br /&gt;
349    preclude&lt;br /&gt;
350    unravelling&lt;br /&gt;
351    Lilliput&lt;br /&gt;
352    motivator&lt;br /&gt;
353    enslavement&lt;br /&gt;
354    pencilling&lt;br /&gt;
355    flukey&lt;br /&gt;
356    amoral&lt;br /&gt;
357    depository&lt;br /&gt;
358    unemotional&lt;br /&gt;
359    stumpy&lt;br /&gt;
360    cartons&lt;br /&gt;
361    gal&lt;br /&gt;
362    ignitions&lt;br /&gt;
363    malingered&lt;br /&gt;
364    spotlighted&lt;br /&gt;
365    photographic&lt;br /&gt;
366    abnegated&lt;br /&gt;
367    dashing&lt;br /&gt;
368    atrocious&lt;br /&gt;
369    inanities&lt;br /&gt;
370    derricks&lt;br /&gt;
371    mountaineer&lt;br /&gt;
372    inseminate&lt;br /&gt;
373    sacrosanct&lt;br /&gt;
374    modernize&lt;br /&gt;
375    specializations&lt;br /&gt;
376    obliging&lt;br /&gt;
377    heckles&lt;br /&gt;
378    baccalaureates&lt;br /&gt;
379    bluebirds&lt;br /&gt;
380    lengthiest&lt;br /&gt;
381    octets&lt;br /&gt;
382    physiotherapist&lt;br /&gt;
383    disorganizing&lt;br /&gt;
384    toffees&lt;br /&gt;
385    unfurling&lt;br /&gt;
386    abnegate&lt;br /&gt;
387    bathrobe&lt;br /&gt;
388    socked&lt;br /&gt;
389    crepe&lt;br /&gt;
390    polkas&lt;br /&gt;
391    overwriting&lt;br /&gt;
392    punned&lt;br /&gt;
393    platoons&lt;br /&gt;
394    infrared&lt;br /&gt;
395    ensuring&lt;br /&gt;
396    decimate&lt;br /&gt;
397    baggiest&lt;br /&gt;
398    plungers&lt;br /&gt;
399    trampolining&lt;br /&gt;
400    centigram&lt;br /&gt;
401    Topsy&lt;br /&gt;
402    epochal&lt;br /&gt;
403    boogies&lt;br /&gt;
404    showrooms&lt;br /&gt;
405    pianofortes&lt;br /&gt;
406    Orphic&lt;br /&gt;
407    logbooks&lt;br /&gt;
408    amphibious&lt;br /&gt;
409    rapprochements&lt;br /&gt;
410    terms&lt;br /&gt;
411    Kalmyk&lt;br /&gt;
412    petering&lt;br /&gt;
413    geocentric&lt;br /&gt;
414    stills&lt;br /&gt;
415    ethnologist&lt;br /&gt;
416    exec&lt;br /&gt;
417    flairs&lt;br /&gt;
418    likableness&lt;br /&gt;
419    rods&lt;br /&gt;
420    melange&lt;br /&gt;
421    graduated&lt;br /&gt;
422    ante&lt;br /&gt;
423    voluminously&lt;br /&gt;
424    impaled&lt;br /&gt;
425    cognacs&lt;br /&gt;
426    yups&lt;br /&gt;
427    comfiest&lt;br /&gt;
428    strychnine&lt;br /&gt;
429    subsoiled&lt;br /&gt;
430    conics&lt;br /&gt;
431    Salish&lt;br /&gt;
432    windsocks&lt;br /&gt;
433    rutabaga&lt;br /&gt;
434    vacuumed&lt;br /&gt;
435    maestri&lt;br /&gt;
436    podiatrist&lt;br /&gt;
437    restructured&lt;br /&gt;
438    metrically&lt;br /&gt;
439    motorcade&lt;br /&gt;
440    zipping&lt;br /&gt;
441    unmoral&lt;br /&gt;
442    electioneered&lt;br /&gt;
443    minibikes&lt;br /&gt;
444    trillion&lt;br /&gt;
445    sudsier&lt;br /&gt;
446    actuator&lt;br /&gt;
447    acing&lt;br /&gt;
448    masochism&lt;br /&gt;
449    softeners&lt;br /&gt;
450    cocksucker&lt;br /&gt;
451    brig&lt;br /&gt;
452    verbs&lt;br /&gt;
453    buccaneer&lt;br /&gt;
454    confessed&lt;br /&gt;
455    filibustered&lt;br /&gt;
456    rearmed&lt;br /&gt;
457    melodramatics&lt;br /&gt;
458    swivelled&lt;br /&gt;
459    veggies&lt;br /&gt;
460    monochrome&lt;br /&gt;
461    hellos&lt;br /&gt;
462    escalators&lt;br /&gt;
463    Seyfert&lt;br /&gt;
464    bushwhack&lt;br /&gt;
465    encapsulation&lt;br /&gt;
466    combining&lt;br /&gt;
467    realists&lt;br /&gt;
468    playgrounds&lt;br /&gt;
469    teenage&lt;br /&gt;
470    glandular&lt;br /&gt;
471    tot&lt;br /&gt;
472    cyclical&lt;br /&gt;
473    tinsmith&lt;br /&gt;
474    commitment&lt;br /&gt;
475    undersells&lt;br /&gt;
476    orthopaedics&lt;br /&gt;
477    yardstick&lt;br /&gt;
478    Vivian&lt;br /&gt;
479    peppy&lt;br /&gt;
480    swatted&lt;br /&gt;
481    earlobes&lt;br /&gt;
482    snapshots&lt;br /&gt;
483    nitpicker&lt;br /&gt;
484    unities&lt;br /&gt;
485    depressants&lt;br /&gt;
486    briefing&lt;br /&gt;
487    halo&lt;br /&gt;
488    watermarking&lt;br /&gt;
489    electronics&lt;br /&gt;
490    inadequates&lt;br /&gt;
491    ghosted&lt;br /&gt;
492    rapscallions&lt;br /&gt;
493    snorkeler&lt;br /&gt;
494    percentages&lt;br /&gt;
495    relapsing&lt;br /&gt;
496    facet&lt;br /&gt;
497    inconsistently&lt;br /&gt;
498    takeout&lt;br /&gt;
499    acidify&lt;br /&gt;
500    password&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:15, 25 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Second table: 500 random words 1600-1899'''&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!word&lt;br /&gt;
!date&lt;br /&gt;
!class&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|monsignor||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|productive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1612||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alertly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1618||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inconsistent||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1620||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|numerical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interlock||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|platoons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1637||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|forevermore||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1641||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|identification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|untenable||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reversible||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1648||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|authentication||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1652||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|monotheistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1660||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|constructive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1680||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alphabetize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|misconduct||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1705||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propagandists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1718||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|revelations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1729||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|guaranteed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1731||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cohesiveness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1731||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|systematizing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|letdown||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1768||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dissident||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diagramming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1785||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|backhanded||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1800||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|autocratically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1823||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|socialistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mormonisms||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|westernize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trademarks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propagandized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|graffito||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Americans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|optimize||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1857||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|outdistancing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1857||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rogues||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|birthrates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|slob||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quantifier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|implode||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1881||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|housemother||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||C&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scantier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sierras||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|arena||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toddled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eventful||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1600||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|catheter||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|primarily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|labeling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|copings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1601||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pooh||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1602||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|respectively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1602||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|embroiling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haloes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Iliad||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|enthusiasm||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1603||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dragoons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|promised||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|recollecting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1604||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stentorian||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rivaling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impregnates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|touchy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impassive||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|immediacy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|literary||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|animosities||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|volatile||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vegetates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1605||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|acclaiming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onlooker||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sides||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1606||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wisher||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|melancholia||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tab||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1607||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|typical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|casuist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bucolic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1609||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|footfalls||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1610||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bison||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lambing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ticketed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incompatibilities||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|demonstrators||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reproduces||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|longish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1611||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|amalgamations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1612||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bailing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1613||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|caste||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1613||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|convulses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1614||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abscess||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1615||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|valise||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1615||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cult||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1617||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hesitancy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1617||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drill||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|blotchy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|urban||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1619||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|appositeness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1621||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ingratiated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1621||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ingrate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1622||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diplomata||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1622||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|exporters||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1623||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|drolly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1623||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adrift||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1624||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|powwow||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1624||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oaf||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|preconceptions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ruse||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1625||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abominating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dodo||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|discriminated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|biassing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|enslaved||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1628||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|backwaters||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palindromic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palindromes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tussles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1629||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|correspondents||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1630||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underrates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underrate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1632||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|characterized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1633||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|etcher||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|labium||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fluctuates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|morocco||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|circumnavigated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1634||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Anglican||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1635||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|graphically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1637||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|millenniums||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1638||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|domesticating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1639||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pharmaceutical||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1640||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1640||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|feints||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scavenge||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|malls||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1644||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|salaciously||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1645||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|additional||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|nonuser||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|predisposing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|temperamentally||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|invigorate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|protuberances||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1646||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disinclines||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|castanet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1647||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|piloting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1649||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|leniently||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1652||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|melange||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1653||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dialling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1653||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|naively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1654||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|siesta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1655||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|collectives||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1655||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quibbles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dawdler||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cosmologies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cosmology||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|morbid||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inconvenienced||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1656||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|numerating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1657||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incapacitate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1657||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|overwrite||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1658||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|horrendous||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1659||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tableau||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1660||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|derisively||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1662||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|disk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1664||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diverging||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rotundity||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cultivators||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1665||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maroon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1666||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stunning||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1667||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interleave||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1668||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|globes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1668||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hick||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1669||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|realty||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|belated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|punning||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1670||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|haphazardly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1671||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wader||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1673||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|resilient||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1674||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|auk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1674||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|priggish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1676||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bungalow||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1676||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masqueraded||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1677||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|configuring||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1677||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masterstroke||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1679||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|yaws||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1679||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ganglions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1681||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kidnaps||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1682||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shivery||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1683||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|whaler||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1684||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bewilder||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1684||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|roughshod||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1688||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bluebird||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1688||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toothbrushes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1690||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|romance||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1690||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adeptness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dowsing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|processioned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1691||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|missioned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1692||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vessels||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1694||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flabbiness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1694||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|penmanship||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1695||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Ojibwa||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1700||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|actualized||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1701||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|established||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1702||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|copped||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1704||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|liability||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1705||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sniggers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dyspeptic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|crunch||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hibiscuses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1706||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stencil||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1707||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quadruplet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|primness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stocks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1709||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|leaseholds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1710||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rheumatic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1711||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|papilla||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1713||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|presentiments||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1714||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tantrum||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1714||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|needling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1715||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|impersonating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1715||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|settees||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1716||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hustling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1720||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unassuming||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1722||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Houyhnhnm||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|knotholes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Lilliput||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1726||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soporifics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1727||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Shinto||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1727||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bludgeons||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1730||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pillboxes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1730||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pantheistic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1732||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vampires||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1732||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|palaver||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1735||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Stilton||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1736||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|incriminates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1736||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|philanders||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1737||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|exiled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1737||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coterie||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1738||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cantaloupe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wham||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|swipe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1739||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|icings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1740||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|segueing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1740||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|insulates||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1741||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flatiron||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1743||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|uncharacteristic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1748||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cornmeal||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1749||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|develop||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1750||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|spindling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1750||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|measurements||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pompon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fanciers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1751||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lumberyard||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1753||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|riffles||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1754||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|personification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1755||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesquites||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1759||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maniacs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1763||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pronouncing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1764||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|frivolity||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1764||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aboriginals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Afghans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1767||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|paws||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mynas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1769||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|modernization||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1770||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coagulants||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1770||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hairpin||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1771||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fagged||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Ta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|propertied||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fagging||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1772||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1773||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gibbon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1774||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gecko||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1774||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|passé||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1775||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clannish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1776||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gnu||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1777||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gasses||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1779||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|balalaika||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1780||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|congressman||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1780||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fumigate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1781||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|varying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1781||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|minutiae||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1782||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|effervesce||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1784||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bangle||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|letups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|thyroids||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1787||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|loots||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1788||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Hollands||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1788||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Dolly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1790||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|weakfish||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1791||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rutabagas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1791||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|equalizer||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1792||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|steeplechase||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1793||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|daredevils||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|commentated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|embeds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1794||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|telegraphy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1795||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1795||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|allover||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1796||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|titanium||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1796||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quizzically||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stashes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kilogram||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|belittled||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1797||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Mon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1798||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bibliographies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1802||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fezes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1803||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dressmaking||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1803||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|condoned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coarsening||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gumbos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1805||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|peewee||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1806||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lassos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1807||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Pueblos||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1808||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|blinder||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1809||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eddied||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scurrying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|milliliter||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1810||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|miffed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1811||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quintet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1811||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|aluminum||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shawling||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tossup||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1812||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|opalescent||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1813||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vocalic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Swahili||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|nocturnes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1814||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underpaying||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1817||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|diarist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1818||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|intellectualizes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1819||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stethoscope||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1820||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bloodstain||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1820||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|squawk||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1821||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|suffragist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1822||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|caffeine||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1823||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flysheet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|augmented||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|subway||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|crotchety||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pullout||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1825||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|beadier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1826||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mammal||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1826||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|chaffed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clinics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1827||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|recruitment||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1828||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mas||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesmerizing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|constitutionals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cahoots||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1829||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|homeopathic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pterodactyl||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cadres||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hex||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1830||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|chipmunks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Horus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toothpastes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cottonmouths||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1832||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|underplays||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1833||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dorsals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1834||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cetaceans||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1835||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wholeheartedly||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1836||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|creepily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1836||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|étude||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Confucianism||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1837||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|scatting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|smokestacks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pretzel||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|upheaval||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1838||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Bunker||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mushier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bushings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|OK||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1839||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mesa||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1840||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wastrel||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1841||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pyromaniac||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Assam||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Spitz||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wisteria||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cubbyhole||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1842||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|kinkiest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Limoges||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|taillights||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1844||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|subgroups||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1845||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|garnisheeing||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Joe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tobogganed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|snobby||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|strapless||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cheekily||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|orgiastic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|funnest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1846||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tactlessness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tailcoats||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|gynecologists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|cartography||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1847||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|tenderfeet||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1849||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|laterals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|educations||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trunks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1851||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hangars||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|colloids||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|delimits||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|delimited||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1852||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|davenport||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1853||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Russians||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|abnormality||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rainfall||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1854||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Brewer||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|hazings||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|vendetta||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pullouts||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1855||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|warlords||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1856||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|seismographs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1858||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interbreeding||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|emulsification||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pub||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1859||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|soulfulness||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Darwinian||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|flautist||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|pipelines||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1860||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ewe||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bellboy||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|trapezes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ewes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1861||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|railroading||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1862||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|isomorphic||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1862||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|canapé||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1863||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|columns||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1863||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|octets||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1864||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|coffeecakes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1865||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|goulash||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1866||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sudsier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1866||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|maverick||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1867||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|safaris||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rangier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mailbox||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1868||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|rotting||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1870||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|saprophyte||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1870||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|agenda||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1871||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|roomers||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1871||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|masterminds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1872||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|deforest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|spaghetti||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|intercollegiate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1874||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Helicon||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1875||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|dermatitis||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|semiprivate||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1876||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toniest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1877||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|supplies||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1878||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|quirking||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1878||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|wagged||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|onionskin||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|bacillus||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|clobber||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|steamrollered||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|alumna||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|locoweed||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1879||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|toeholds||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1880||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|paternalism||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1881||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|adrenals||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|syndicating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|winery||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|interface||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1882||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|infantryman||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1883||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|worldlier||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1883||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|shyest||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|showdowns||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|oilfield||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|words||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1884||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|fixating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|micron||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|stagehand||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1885||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|contraceptives||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1886||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sensitization||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1887||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|parachutists||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1888||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sandblaster||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1888||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|erogenous||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1889||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|lactating||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1889||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|psychopathics||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1890||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|reactor||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1890||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|unsnaps||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1892||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|decolletes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|inbound||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|marihuana||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|encapsulated||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|erythrocytes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sequinned||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1894||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|defrosted||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1895||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sacks||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1895||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|phonemes||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|mescaline||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|ions||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|midyear||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1896||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|redwoods||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|happenstances||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|sandhog||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1897||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|eggs||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1898||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|taxicab||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1899||&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|concoction||align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1675||&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 09:49, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I identified several dozen words as possibly conservative.  But the problem here is that a general sample does not catch enough real conservative words.  Still, you might assess the centuries of my selections (I didn't look at any dates before making these selections) and we can go from there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:36, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Thank you for your work! I now added the dates of the words, as found automatically at the Merriam-Webster. Here a first table:&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!&lt;br /&gt;
!16s&lt;br /&gt;
!17s&lt;br /&gt;
!18s&lt;br /&gt;
!&amp;amp;Sigma;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!conservative words&lt;br /&gt;
|15||9||17||41&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!all words&lt;br /&gt;
|176||114||210||500&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!percentage of conservative words&lt;br /&gt;
|8.52%||7.89%||8.1%||8.2%&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:29, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: That's a fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this:  roughly 8% of all new words are conservative in nature.  That is greater than the number of words I would have identified as liberal in nature.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: But very few of these words qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the &amp;quot;''best''&amp;quot; new conservative words.  Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Destruction of words ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, your model takes into account only the ''creation'' of new words. But in any living language, words fall out of use, too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imagine a country where a constant number of ''conservative words'' is created each year, but where these words have a half-time of 100 years, that is, e.g,  only half of the words used in 1600 were still in use in 1700.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a country would have the same distribution of conservative words as [[Conservapedia's Law]] implies - but the overall number of conservative words becomes  constant after a while...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:02, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The conservative words are remarkably durable and long-lasting, while the liberal terms (like &amp;quot;population control&amp;quot;) fall out of favor quite quickly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 27 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== PERFECTION: 20-40-80-160 BY CENTURY ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For my statistical analysis, I recounted the words in the table: in fact, the&lt;br /&gt;
numbers in the small table of the words per century doesn't match the list of&lt;br /&gt;
the conservative words:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!century&lt;br /&gt;
!17th&lt;br /&gt;
!18th&lt;br /&gt;
!19th&lt;br /&gt;
!20th&lt;br /&gt;
!21st&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!claimed&lt;br /&gt;
|20||40||80||160||13&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!recount&lt;br /&gt;
|20||40||81||150||14&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An examination of the page's history showed that on Oct 31, 2009 this error was&lt;br /&gt;
introduced (with ''Segway'') - and preserved ever since.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!century&lt;br /&gt;
!17th&lt;br /&gt;
!18th&lt;br /&gt;
!19th&lt;br /&gt;
!20th&lt;br /&gt;
!21st&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!pre Segway&lt;br /&gt;
|14||28||56||112||6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!post Segway&lt;br /&gt;
|15||28||56||124||6&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!my count&lt;br /&gt;
|15||29||57||114||6&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How does this confirm that ''selection bias'' is the driving force behind the [[Conservapedia's law]]? Well (ignoring the 21st century for a while), if this law holds then ~53% of the words you find should be from the 20th century, ~47% from the three earlier centuries.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But in the time from Oct 31, 2009 until Apr , 2010 when you claimed ''17-34-70-141 by century - spectacular, near-perfect geometric growth continues'', you found only 17 words from the last century, and 22 older words, that is, instead of 53% / 47% the odds of 44% / 56% !&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reaching this mile stone, your ratio rebounded...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, you always reached your goal, though this was an arbitrary one, set by a typo. This implies that you are actively targeting a ratio, and that this ratio is independent of a actual distribution of the conservative words.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 11:16, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Typos and counting errors are, of course, inevitable; your own comment above has an error in its last seven words.  Errors can be found in the greatest of works, such as [[Bernard Riemann]]'s famous mathematical lecture.  None of this undermines the value of Riemann's work ... or ours.  The best new conservative words do double by century, and it would be nearly impossible to identify such a large number closely fitting that pattern unless the underlying pattern existed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:06, 28 July 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are right: It´s not about typos - it's about the phenomenon I'll explain in the following section&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Too Good to be True ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Imagine the hypothesis: &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;There are as many male writers as there are female&lt;br /&gt;
ones&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To proof this hypothesis, round for round, a player '''A''' names a male author,&lt;br /&gt;
then a player '''B''' a female one. The round one player runs out of names - and&lt;br /&gt;
the other doesn't- the hypothesis is falsified. If both stop in the same round,&lt;br /&gt;
the hypothesis is true.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But what can be said about the validity of the hypothesis before this last&lt;br /&gt;
round? There are thousands and thousands of authors, what do we know when we&lt;br /&gt;
reach round 300?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing. At least nothing about the ratio of female and male authors! In fact,&lt;br /&gt;
imagine the game with player '''A''' naming ''two'' male authors for each of&lt;br /&gt;
player '''B''''s female writer. After 300 rounds, this game is far from being&lt;br /&gt;
finished, but we can't conclude anything!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unless this game is played to its end, it's just an exercise in futility.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Statistics try to find methods which allow to draw conclusions without exhausting the whole population1&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, what's another way to create data for validating or falsifying the&lt;br /&gt;
hypothesis? Let's think of player '''S''' who says that he will gather authors&lt;br /&gt;
at random - and that this list will beautifully exemplify the hypothesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And so it does: he gives a couple of hundred names and - lo and behold - exactly&lt;br /&gt;
half of them are males! He even goes a step further and says that each two&lt;br /&gt;
consecutive name would mirror the hypothesis.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When would you start to suspect that he is not an honest player? The probability&lt;br /&gt;
that a pair of authors consists from a man and a woman is 1/2. And in a random&lt;br /&gt;
list of names, you'll find many such pairs. But if '''S''' announces: the next&lt;br /&gt;
pair is gender-mixed, the one thereafter, too, and the next one, again - that's&lt;br /&gt;
like predicting three ''heads'' when tossing a coin three times. If he does it&lt;br /&gt;
ten times, you would be a fool not to think that something fishy is happening,&lt;br /&gt;
i.e., that the names are not taken from a random list of authors, but in fact&lt;br /&gt;
are chosen deliberately. His data is just ''too good to be true''!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Such a list has no more significance than the first couple of hundred names&lt;br /&gt;
generated by our players '''A''' and '''B'''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, I hope you see how this scenario applies to your method of generating&lt;br /&gt;
''best conservative new words''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At least four times you announced the start of a new ''layer'', and each time,&lt;br /&gt;
you were able to complete it perfectly. Though the probability to find the&lt;br /&gt;
combination 1-2-4-8 for 15 words may be  bigger than for each other combination,&lt;br /&gt;
it's at best 2.6508% . Doing this four times in a row yields  odds of&lt;br /&gt;
1:2,000,000.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Again, your findings are just ''too good to be true'', therefore, they are not&lt;br /&gt;
believable, and don't support your claims made  in [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 10:46, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Disbelief of something because it is &amp;quot;too good to be true&amp;quot; is not a strong argument against it.  Perhaps it is not precisely true as stated, but is a rough approximation, for example.  Your specific arguments against the proposition above don't withstand scrutiny.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Finding the best new conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Of course it is not a random process.  That would be silly.  But the lack of randomness does not mean that no intelligent conclusions can be drawn.  We can properly conclude that there is more oil in the Arabian Peninsula than in Pennsylvania, where oil was first discovered, despite the lack of randomness in drilling oil wells.  Our conclusion would be based on the difference in output, and the implausibility that ''any'' reasonable selection technique would produce such a differential if there were not also an underlying difference.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:06, 1 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A summary with graphs... ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On June 9, 2009, Andrew Schlafly proclaimed his [[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]: &amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;'''Conservapedia's Law&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt;''' ''is the observation that conservative insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc.&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
''For example, there is a doubling in effective new conservative terms per century. &amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt; This remarkable precise observation was bolstered over the time by a list of 300 ''conservative words''&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;''Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a geometric rate, roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of &amp;quot;1-2-4-8&amp;quot;. This implies a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth. The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible was published in 1611, and William Shakespeare had written nearly all his plays. ''&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|The pic on the right shows the percentage of terms per century in which they were first mentioned.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-001.png|thumb|Best Conservative New Words]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|The distribution of these ''conservative words'' is even more remarkable as it doesn't reflect the general trends of creating new words. To exemplify this, I took a sample of &amp;amp;asymp; 42,000 words from the word-book of my ubuntu-distribution and checked their creation date with the Merriam-Webster (the gray areas of the two diagrams overlap)&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-002.png|thumb|distribution of 42,000 words]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|To convince Andy Schlafly's that the distribution of the words in his list is just an artifact generated by [[sample bias]], I at first showed that it doesn't hold for shorter periods of time than centuries. But Andy Schlafly told me that he didn't see  ''any merit'' in my challenge: ''The entry observes that new terms are generated at higher rates during productive periods within decades, for example just after or during religious awakenings.''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-003.png|thumb|Cons. Words per Decade]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Interestingly, I couldn't observe any effect of the ''Great Religious Awakenings'', neither in the number of ''conservative words'' nor in the number of all words.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Image:Bcw-004.png|thumb|All Words per Decade]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
No methodology is given how the ''conservative words'' are detected and gathered. To put the whole thing on a sounder ground, I asked Andrew Schlafly to take an unbiased text: I gave him a list of 500 words, which were - according to the [[Merriam Webster]] - first mentioned between 1600 and 1999. Andrew Schlafly objected to this sample as  newer words are not well represented in word-books. When I propelled  a second sample, consisting of 500 words all originated between 1600 and 1899 (300 years should be enough to prove his law), he was willing to mark the words he things to be conservative.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm very grateful that Andrew Schlafly took part in my little experiment: Thank you!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{|&lt;br /&gt;
|The five hundred words were taken at random from the suitable subset of the 42,000 words which I had dated, and so the sample distribution matches the overall distribution&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-005.png|thumb|500 Words per Centuries]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|Andrew Schlafly identified 41 words (8.2%) as conservative. The distribution of these 41 words over the centuries does &amp;lt;b&amp;gt;not&amp;lt;/b&amp;gt; show a geometric progression.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[Image:Bcw-006.png|thumb|Identified as Conservative]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|In fact, their distribution mirrors the distribution of the whole sample, as each century &amp;amp;asymp; 8% of the words are identified as ''conservative''&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-007.png|thumb|Percentages]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|This linearly dependence can be found for shorter periods of time (here for steps of 20 years) - and is found to be statistically significant.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-008.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|A striking contrast to this is the absence of any connection between Andrew Schlafly's list of over 300 &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;conservative words&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;, and a general distribution of the creation of words.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-009.png|thumb|Periods of 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
|However, if one maps the &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;percentage&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt; of words in - e.g. -  a 20 years' period in the corresponding century (24% of all 20th-century word are from the 1900s, 18% from the 1920s, 26% from the 1940s, and so forth...), one finds again a positive correlation.&lt;br /&gt;
|[[File:Bcw-010.png|thumb|percentages over 20 years]]&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew Schlafly explains the discrepancies as follows:&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&amp;lt;i&amp;gt;That's a&lt;br /&gt;
fascinating analysis, but its meaning is simply this: roughly 8% of all new&lt;br /&gt;
words are conservative in nature. That is greater than the number of words I&lt;br /&gt;
would have identified as liberal in nature. &amp;lt;/br&amp;gt;But very few of these words&lt;br /&gt;
qualified for our list, which expressly consists of the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; new conservative&lt;br /&gt;
words. Those words are being generated at a geometric rate.--Andy Schlafly&lt;br /&gt;
11:55, 28 July 2010 (EDT) &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I've to take exception to this: Andrew Schlafly has shown that he is able to&lt;br /&gt;
generate candidates for his list for any time period as it is needed to fit his&lt;br /&gt;
prediction. He could as easily make a list following a 1-3-9-27 (or 2-3-5-7-11)&lt;br /&gt;
pattern.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even a claim like: ''the number of Best New Conservative Words'' is not corroborated in any way by the list of the [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]], and the geometric progressions seems to be just the approximation of a phantasy.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 13:23, 3 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that show up) are informative.  But quantity is no substitute or quality.  You never addressed my point above about how finding the ''best'' conservative words is like drilling for oil.  Even if the same percentage of drills in Pennsylvania struck oil as in the Arabian Peninsula, that would not mean that both regions are equal for drilling for oil.  Much better wells can be found in the Arabian Peninsula, and that's what this analysis is all about.  Those good Arabian wells cannot be found in Pennsylvania, even though oil was first discovered there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::*''Ron, your quantity of commentary is impressive and your graphs (the ones that  show up) are informative.'' Thanks. BTW, all the graphs are in Conservapedia's  database - you can get directly to the missing two [http://conservapedia.com/images/d/d1/Bcw-003.png bcw-003.png] and [http://conservapedia.com/images/a/a0/Bcw-004.png bcw-004.png]. It seems that  the thumbs and the previews weren't produced correctly - maybe a glitch in your  software to which you want attend?&lt;br /&gt;
::*''But quantity is no substitute or quality.'' You mad a couple of quantifiable  claims (''1-2-4-8 pattern''), so a quantitative analysis is what you get. You may  rest assured that the quality of my information is good, too, and the math  behind the analysis is sound: It's just basic statistics done with R.&lt;br /&gt;
::*''You never addressed my point above about how finding the best conservative words is like drilling for oil. '' As far as metaphors go, this isn't such a bad one: Imagine four oil fields. If you put one, two, four and eight wells on them,  you get oil out of them according to your geometric progression. This works as  long as there is enough oils in the fields, but you can say something about the  amount of oil in the fields at first when they start getting dry. The English  language is very rich, it seems that 8% of its words are conservative, so there should be an abundance even of ''best conservative words''. Until you have sucked a century dry, you cannot say anything about the distribution of the  ''best conservative words''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 08:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One way of marrying the two ideas above (that there is no increase of conservative terms over time and that there is an increase in the &amp;quot;best&amp;quot; conservative terms over time) is simply to suggest that conservative terms are getting better in quality and not quantity, which is the point that Mr. Schlafly makes, I believe. An explanation that might want to be considered is that after a new term is coined, it may slowly lose its relevence over time. I would suggest that if you look at the vocabulary from the 17th century, many words have lost their relevence greatly. This presumably applies to conservative terms as well. So, a partial explanation for conservative terms increasing in &amp;quot;quality&amp;quot; over time may be the decrease in time-lag and thus an increase in relevence.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 12:15, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Decrypt ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can I challenge 'decrypt' as a conservative word? Take the greatest decryption exercise in history, the breaking of the German Enigma code in World War 2 by British and Polish cryptographers. Alan Turing, who made the crucial breakthrough, was homosexual. Several others involved may have been communist sympathisers. The great majority were recruited from either the civil service (= Big Government) or universities (= Professor Values) and returned to those professions when WW2 was over. Bottom line: not a very conservative bunch. (Check [http://www.bletchleypark.org.uk the Bletchley Park website].) [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 18:05, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Beware of [[liberal]] revisionism, where historians try to give credit to liberals for achievements no matter how unjustified.  It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman.  The British are notoriously weak in mathematics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:11, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Andy, you don't seem to know so much about the decoding of Enigma. I gave you the reference to the Bletchley Park website so you can read about it there. The main contributions from the Poles were (1) stealing a German Enigma machine, (2) working out how Enigma encoded messages, (3) getting the Enigma machine to the Brits and (4) proposing a method for automated decoding of ciphers (the &amp;quot;Bombe&amp;quot;). The bombes that were eventually built were constructed by British engineers and used some principles but not the details of the Polish mathematicians' idea. Pretty much everything else was done by the British, including the first decipherment of Enigma, the second decipherment when the German Navy introduced a more sophisticated code, and the building of Colussus, the world's first programmable electronic computer, which played an essential role in decoding the later, more complex Enigma codes used by the U-boat fleet. Turing's role was crucial (that ain't liberal revisionism - go on, read about it). Some Poles who'd escaped to England did indeed work with the British but it just ain't true that they decoded Enigma.&lt;br /&gt;
:: As for &amp;quot;the British are notoriously weak in math&amp;quot;: you're having a laugh, as my British colleagues would say. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 19:47, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Benjy, British liberals famously support and credit each other, often undeservedly so.  If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: As to decoding the Enigma, perhaps the Brits did some machinery to help, but the mathematicians who provided the brainpower were Poles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Sir Isaac Newton was a British liberal (he was a non-standard Christian that wrote extensively on the occult) who was the first to scientifically describe gravity and his 1687 publication ''Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica'' is considered the seminal work in classical mechanics. The top physicists in the world consider Newton one of the two greatest physicists in history, and his name is still used in science today, for example, &amp;quot;a non-Newtonian fluid&amp;quot;. He may also have been homosexual, conisdering he was largely sexless in an age where homosexuality could get you burned at the stake. [[User:JohnQP|JohnQP]] 21:44, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Brilliant logic.  17th century tabloids tell us little of the women in Newton's life, therefore, there must not have been any.  As for his writings on the occult, perhaps your referring to his beliefs that some tales in Ovid's Metamorpheses were inspired by physical fact?  If I recall, he was proved right in this regard, when he demonstrated that the chemicals which corresponding to classical elements ascribed to certain mythological figures actually, in one case, produced a cracking purple &amp;quot;web-like&amp;quot; effect when combined - just as in Ovid's story.  I'd hardly call this un-Christian, especially since he also used translating the Bible as inspiration for much of his work.   [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 21:50, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I must agree with you, JacobB. This is nothing other than rank liberal revisionism of the highest order. Slandering the good name of such a noble Christian is just plainly offensive. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 21:54, 5 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''&amp;quot; If you find a great British mathematician who ranks with the best in the world, please do tell us who he is!&amp;quot;'' - Here is a small list of some whom I would consider to rank with the world's best (in no particular order):&lt;br /&gt;
* Sir Isaac Newton&lt;br /&gt;
* Charles Babbage&lt;br /&gt;
* Alan Turing&lt;br /&gt;
* G.H. Hardy&lt;br /&gt;
* Bertrand Russell&lt;br /&gt;
* Roger Penrose&lt;br /&gt;
* Andrew Wiles &lt;br /&gt;
* Arthur Cayley&lt;br /&gt;
* William Rowan Hamilton&lt;br /&gt;
* George Boole&lt;br /&gt;
* Augustus De Morgan&lt;br /&gt;
Whilst I agree that Polish mathematicians played an important role in cracking the Enigma code, but to jump from that to saying that not only are there no great British mathematicians, but that also Brits are 'notoriously weak' at maths - is clearly unfair and incorrect. [[User:FionaN|FionaN]] 07:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: While I am respectful of the contributions of those on your list, as a group they are a far cry from the greatest mathematicians and many would not be considered &amp;quot;British&amp;quot;.  Hamilton was Irish, for example, and Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain.  Wiles did his work in the U.S.  Russell's work was deflated by Godel, and others on the list don't even come close to being great mathematicians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Fiona seems to miss the varying degrees of &amp;quot;mathematician&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;great mathematician&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;one of the greatest mathematicians&amp;quot; as if they're all the same thing.  We saw the same thing when another contributor was unable to grasp the difference between &amp;quot;conservative words&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;best conservative words&amp;quot;.  It's as if liberals can see everything in the world only in black and white terms, as if everything falls perfectly into one of two categories, e.g. &amp;quot;mathematician&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;not-mathematician&amp;quot;. I think this is another example of [[Liberal Inability To Abstract]]. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 14:42, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, you stated: &amp;quot;It was Polish mathematicians who decrypted the enigma, not an Englishman&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The British are notoriously weak in mathematics&amp;quot;. Both these statements are not only untrue but ridiculous. I've tried to contribute to this encyclopedia but I'm not going to waste my time messing around if you fill it up with your own uninformed prejudices, refuse to do some easy reading to check your facts, and get absurdly defensive when your statements are corrected by people who are more knowledgeable on the subject in question. ''Laziness is not a conservative character trait, least of all intellectual laziness.'' Please tell me if you're going to check your facts before shooting your mouth off in future, in which case I'd be pleased to continue contributing to CP. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 15:40, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Benjy, please rant somewhere else instead.  We tell the truth here, whether [[Anglophile]]s accept it or not.  The relative weakness of [[Britain]] in mathematics is an objective fact.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Have you any proof for your assertion? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 16:37, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(EC) Hi Andy. Are you talking about mathematical ability in the general UK population, or about the number of major contributions to the field by British mathematicians? Thanks, --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 16:48, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::(EC) Look at any list of the greatest mathematicians of the past 200 and count how many were from Britain.  Or list the greatest modern mathematical achievements and count how many came out of Britain.  I'm sorry liberals don't teach this, and that's why there is a need for Conservapedia.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:50, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::According to [http://fabpedigree.com/james/mathmen.htm this blog], 9 of 99 were British - and that's an all time, Ancient Greece to present list. Now you; would you care to support your position with sources? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::And ''your source'' comes from a ''blog?''  How about you, SamI, come up with non-blog, official sources yourself to support ''your'' position.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:16, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Rather a blog than my own imagination. Would Andy care to provide his sources? The burden of proof, and all that. [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:21, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::(EC)[http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html This list gives 3 British and 1 Irish out of 14.] And why do I keep having to fill out captcha boxes? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Andy said &amp;quot;Look at '''any''' list&amp;quot; (my emphasis). This is a list already on the Internet so SamI is just following Andy's advice. Please note that there are '''no''' people on that list who were born in the U.S.A. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:23, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Guess what...you, SamI, just accused Andy of using his own imagination, and since you, GeoffA, is supportive of Sam's statement, both of you are going to get official sources to support your side, otherwise I'm going to assume you are using your own imaginations just to troll here.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:31, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::I would say that the second source I posted above is fairly official. And why do we need to support our side, but Andy doesn't have to support his beyond saying 'oh, it's an objective fact'? [[User:SamI|SamI]] 17:39, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::How about the [[Fields Medal]] as a rough proxy? I count six awarded to UK mathematicians out of a total of 48 (12.5%), compared to thirteen awarded to Americans (~27%). Not bad for a small island. --[[User:JoanZ|JoanZ]] 17:27, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Well there you go &amp;quot;Karajou&amp;quot;. Since the USA has a population ~5 times larger than the UK, it looks like the UK is doing pretty well. And don't you think Andy can talk for himself without you leaping to his side? What are '''your''' sources to support his statement? [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 17:36, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::There are better ways to prove us wrong then by coming here and making demands; one of those ways is to provide a reasonable explanation which supports your position, backed up by valid sources, and being polite about the whole thing.  See ya in a couple hours. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:44, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(outdent) Well I used the two &amp;quot;ours&amp;quot; you gave me to find some sources.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How about this [http://www.virtualimage.co.uk/html/great_mathematicians.html commercial source]? Of the 20 mathematiciams, John Napier, Ada Lovelace, Lewis Carroll, Alan Turing and William Oughtred are British. That's 25%. No Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Or how about [http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/apr/11/the-10-best-mathematicians this] article listing a top 10? 1 Brit - no Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Scientific Computing Laboratory at Hong Kong Baptist University [http://www.sci.hkbu.edu.hk/scilab/math/math.html lists] four Brits out of 14. Yes - Christains disagree with you too.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another blog (I know you don't like them, but surely the &amp;quot;Best of the Public&amp;quot; is always right? Your boss thinks so) [http://kaushal42.blogspot.com/2008/01/twenty-five-greatest-mathematicians-of.html here] has two Brits out of 25. No Americans.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Centre College [http://web.centre.edu/mat/century.html lists] 24 for last century alone. Four Brits and Five Yanks. That's still not bad for such a poor, small, atheistic island.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lastly, in the magazine Mathematics Teacher (I.7. Vol.55, 1962), W.C. Eells [http://afrodita.rcub.bg.ac.rs/~flora/100.html published] a list of the 100 greatest mathematicians of all time. I'm not going to go through all 100, but Newton, Napier, Wallis, Hamilton, Barrow, Taylor, Briggs, Babbage, Smith, H.J.S., Cotes, Boole, Halley and Lord Kelvin were all Brits. That's 13/100.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So. There are your sources. I note that SamI can't respond because TK blocked him/her. Since I fully expect the same fate to befall me after this post for having proved you wrong, I'll say goodbye now. I suppose it's unrealistic to expect you or Andy to provide sources to back up ''your'' point of view. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 19:43, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Granted, GeoffA, I would agree with your point that we should provide sources to back up our point of view.  But we're not going to do it for someone on demand.  And there lies the end of the lesson.  Hope you learned something about tact.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:05, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Is there something in the water over there in the U.K., or is it your atheism?  Perhaps its the generally gloomy economic picture and remnants of the class system that make you as you are!  Godspeed to all of you. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 17:38, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Brits, we're talking about '''''mathematicians''''' in this thread.  Do you know what a mathematician is?  That's not a physicist (Penrose), a computer geek (Lovelace, Babbage, Turing), or a political hack (Russell).  One more tip: the Irish (Hamilton) do not consider themselves to be British.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:25, 6 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''Newton was pre-modern and pre-Britain'': The [[Oxford calculators]] were pre-modern, but English. [[John Napier]] or [[Richard Recorde]] where Scottish or Welsh - though they weren't English, they were inhabitants of the British Isles, and therefore British in the same sense as most Haitians are Hispaniolians as well. Both are modern mathematicians - in the usual sense of the word ''&amp;quot;modern&amp;quot;'' when talking about periods of history. You may describe them as ''early modern''. Sir Isaac Newton - who lived even later - was e a modern mathematician, too. And as a subject of Queen Anne of Great Britain, he was most certainly British.&lt;br /&gt;
*''Do you know what a mathematician is? '' A mathematician is someone who contributes to the field of mathematics. Mathematicians are not squeamish: you could be covered with green fur and be a baker - if you solve an open Hilbert problem, they will you love you, and count you as a mathematician. Penrose, Lovelace, Babbage, Turing and Russell were great mathematicians, even if they were part-time physicists, geeks or hacks. {{unsigned|RonLar}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Additionally, the overlap between mathematics and physics is huge - especially applied mathematics. Sophie Germain, a ''woman'' mathematician who appears on several of those lists, contributed a huge amount of work to the subject of elastics, and her work was used extensively, for instance in the construction of the Eiffel Tower. She is universally considered to be a mathematician, but you would apparently describe her as a physicist or even an architect. Russell was deeply involved in the Hilbert Program, which though ultimately unsuccessful provided modern mathematics with a solid framework. His work ''Principia Mathematica'' is one of the most important works on the subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I cannot understand why you have such a closed mind on this subject. You have plenty of evidence that contradicts your opinion, so it's now only fair that you present evidence to support your hypothesis or at least consider revising it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Please note, that I am not claiming that Britain is the pre-eminent country for producing mathematicians. Germany would probably win that prize across modern history, and if you take the last 50 years or so, it's probably the U.S.A. (although I have no hard evidence for that statement). I merely take issue with your statement that &amp;quot;The British are notoriously weak in mathematics&amp;quot;. [[User:GeoffA|GeoffA]] 08:43, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== General reply to Brits, if any, who commented above ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[Brits]] who protest so stridently illustrate to me the problem of [[Anglophilia]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:22, 7 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;curiouser and curiouser&amp;quot; -  for me, it looks as the [[Anglophobe]]s are justignoring the evidence:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:{|class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
!colspan=&amp;quot;3&amp;quot;|Field Medalists by Country&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!country&lt;br /&gt;
!#&lt;br /&gt;
!medalist&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!USA&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|13 ||Jesse Douglas, John Milnor, Paul Joseph Cohen, Stephen Smale, John G. Thompson, Charles Fefferman, Daniel Quillen, William Thurston, Shing-Tung Yau, Michael Freedman, Edward Witten, Curtis T. McMullen, David Mumford&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!France&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|9||Laurent Schwartz, Jean-Pierre Serre, René Thom, Alexander Grothendieck, Alain Connes, Pierre-Louis Lions, Jean-Christophe Yoccoz, Laurent Lafforgue, Wendelin Werner&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Soviet Union/Russia&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|8||Sergei Novikov, Grigory Margulis, Vladimir Drinfel'd, Efim Zelmanov, Maxim Kontsevich, Vladimir Voevodsky, Andrei Okounkov, (Grigori Perelman)&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!UK&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|6||Klaus Roth, Michael Atiyah, Alan Baker, Simon Donaldson, Richard Borcherds, Timothy Gowers&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Japan&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|3||Kunihiko Kodaira, Heisuke Hironaka, Shigefumi Mori&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Belgium&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|2||Pierre Deligne, Jean Bourgain&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Finland&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Lars Ahlfors&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Norway&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Atle Selberg&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Sweden&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Lars Hörmander&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Italy&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Enrico Bombieri&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Germany&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Gerd Faltings&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!New Zealand&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Vaughan F. R. Jones&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
!Australia&lt;br /&gt;
|align=&amp;quot;right&amp;quot;|1||Terence Tao&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:04, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Klaus Roth was Prussian. Michael Atiyah is Sudanese/Egyptian. Simon Donaldson does his work in ''four-dimensions'' when this world obviously only has ''three''. I imagine if I made up the math as I went, I could get a Fields medal as well? And Richard Borcherds is from South Africa.&lt;br /&gt;
:So spectacularly, you provide ''maybe'' two candidates for British mathematicians.  Hardly impressive, considering ''Finland'' managed to get one. And who cares about this &amp;quot;Field's Medal&amp;quot; anyways? It's just some award experts give to each other to make each other feel better, and exclude the best of the public. --[[User:CathyB|CathyB]] 20:07, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::For the record, &amp;quot;Cathy,&amp;quot; the cobordism work of Donaldson was not only essential to the classification theorems which have revolutionized modern topology, but also have important applications in quantum mechanics and other fields that deal with &amp;quot;this world.&amp;quot;  For somebody who apparently has such extensive knowledge in the history of 20th century mathematics, you are certainly lacking in understanding if you believe Donaldson &amp;quot;made up the math as he went.&amp;quot;  As for the Fields medal (no apostrophe) being something that the best of the public are excluded from, you should be aware that best of the public exemplar Gregori Perelman was OFFERED a Fields medal and turned it down.  &lt;br /&gt;
::Before you continue your pattern of jumping into talk page arguments with on-the-spot research, I suggest you make significant and substantive edits to our mainspace articles.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]]&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 20:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Connive is too early ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With an origin date of 1601, &amp;quot;connive&amp;quot; is too early, I think.  We start at 1612, after publication of the [[KJV]] and completion of nearly all of [[Shakespeare]]'s works.  But &amp;quot;connive&amp;quot; is a fascination suggestion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:42, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I was debating to put it in the Conservative Downgraded terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 00:56, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::That would work!  It's always good to preserve information for everyone's benefit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:57, 24 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== New Layer Suggestions ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
These would take it to a 21-42-84-168 progression.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cogent (1650-1660): to the point; relevant; pertinent. &lt;br /&gt;
Yankee (1750-1760): a native or inhabitant of the United States. &lt;br /&gt;
Minuteman (1765-1775): (sometimes lowercase) a member of a group of American militiamen just before and during the Revolutionary War who held themselves in readiness for instant military service. &lt;br /&gt;
Secularism (1850-1855): the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element. &lt;br /&gt;
Theonomy (1885-1890): the state of an individual or society that regards its own nature and norms as being in accord with the divine nature.&lt;br /&gt;
Populism (1890-1895): grass-roots democracy; working-class activism; egalitarianism. &lt;br /&gt;
Secular Humanism (1980-1985): any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.&lt;br /&gt;
Ecoterrorism (1980-1985): violence carried out to further the political or social objectives of the environmentalists .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Any thoughts?  &amp;quot;Secularism&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;secular humanism&amp;quot; might provoke some objections, and I know that &amp;quot;isms&amp;quot; raise some red flags, but I would argue that they're important terms.  They clearly identify these types of thought as organized and agenda-driven movements, and identify that agenda.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:00, 15 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Ben, your suggestions are fabulous.  My only reservations are with &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;, which today means a Northeasterner and is often derogatory in the singular, and &amp;quot;Populism&amp;quot;, which is increasingly conservative today but probably not so when it originated.  Your thoughts?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:44, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, Yankee has certainly had a varied history--it wasn't a term of endearment when spoken by a Southerner during the Civil War or Reconstruction!  On the other hand, it also gives us Yankee ingenuity and &amp;quot;Yankee Doodle.&amp;quot;  The soldiers of the Greatest Generation were &amp;quot;Yanks.&amp;quot;  I think it would be a shame to let the fact that it's sometimes used in derogatory fashion undercut the rich heritage of the term.  (After all, &amp;quot;Red Stater&amp;quot; is a term of derision to liberals, but a badge of honor to those who live there!)  Populism...well, it's harder to argue that one; some highly leftist movements have been identified as &amp;quot;populist&amp;quot; in the pass.  I cheerfully concede your point!  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:58, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::This is a fascinating issue and discussion.  I'm wondering if a word can be more derogatory as a singular noun (&amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;) than as an adjective or when used in the plural.  Southerners, who tend to be conservative, would have no trouble with &amp;quot;Yankee Doodle&amp;quot; but I suspect when they call someone a &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot;, it's meant to be an insult.  Interestingly, the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) lists the first (original) meaning of &amp;quot;Yankee&amp;quot; to mean a New Englander rather than an American.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 16 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggested Way To Format Page ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to suggest that the formatting on the page might be easier to follow if it were organised into centuries, instead of purely alphabetically. I suggest this because, when I first looked at this page, I could not follow the progression clearly. If it was organised firstly into centuries, and then alphabetically, people just passing could see the progression quickly, thus making them more likely to read it thoroughly. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As I do not consider myself very good at editting pages, I do not trust myself to make this change.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I will understand and accept any critiscm of this idea, as it was a spur of the moment thought. [[User:Griffirg|Griffirg]] 16:15, 12 October 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Additional liberal terms? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about &amp;quot;ethnocentrism&amp;quot; (1905-1910) and &amp;quot;multiculturalism&amp;quot; (1960-1965)?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 09:34, 16 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Superb suggestions.  Please add as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:37, 16 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
==Refudiate==&lt;br /&gt;
Even though liberal dictionaries added this word, Palin admitted it was an error on her part. If it stays then we must add Corpse men for lib terms.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:01, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:Not necessarily--no dictionaries made &amp;quot;corpse man&amp;quot; a [http://www.execdigital.com/business/leader/who-s-laughing-now-sarah-palin-s-refudiate-oxford-s-top-word-2010 word of the year]. Moreover, the word seems to be getting some leverage and use on its own terms. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 14:43, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Perhaps time will tell.  The term &amp;quot;Big Bang&amp;quot; was born of mockery also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:15, 23 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Andy, could that explain the perceived scarcity of conservative words dating from the 21st century? Because I think the notion that a word can &amp;quot;mature&amp;quot; to be conservative is a fascinating and powerful insight. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:10, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Charisma? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have doubts that charisma, despite its etymology, is a conservative term.  It seems to elevate style over substance -- a definite [[liberal]] trait.  Nowhere does the Bible refer to Jesus as having charisma.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suspect the original meaning of charisma was for religious charisma.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
:I would suggest, (if we do ''indeed,'' keep it), to change the phrasing to something more on the order of:&lt;br /&gt;
::'''literally &amp;quot;a gift from God&amp;quot;, charisma is the quality of a person imbued by God to leadership, often found in [[conservative]] public figures.'''&lt;br /&gt;
:This nixes the &amp;quot;magic&amp;quot; from the sentence since as wonderful as a gift from God is, it isn't &amp;quot;magic&amp;quot;. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:20, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::Andy, that's a good point. I prefer to think of charisma as ''the style of substance'', but that's definitely not the case for everyone (especially liberals). While the etymology is undoubtedly conservative, perhaps &amp;quot;difficult to classify&amp;quot; may be a better resting place for charisma. Devon, either way, definitely an improvement on your part, thanks. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:21, 4 February 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
==New words added==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi, I have added 4 new words: deference (1660), idealist (1701), god-fearing (1835) &amp;amp; Rogue state (1993). If everyone accepts these, they will fill out the doubling pattern for those centuries. Shall I change the numbers in the summary at the top of the page?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have also added 'liberal creep' (2008). [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 01:08, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:All your additions look superb except &amp;quot;deference,&amp;quot; which I'm not sure is [[conservative]].  Please do update the counts the top (I already did increment the 1800s count for &amp;quot;God-fearing&amp;quot;).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:05, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I added 'deference' because CP has 'giving those in authority due respect' listed as a [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_values Conservative Value]. I will tweak the definition a bit to emphasis the necessary legitimacy of the superior. Thanks for the positive feedback. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 02:21, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::But look at the remainder of the chat quote:  &amp;quot;giving those in authority due respect, but not to the point of accepting orders or assertions that are contrary to logic or morality.&amp;quot;--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:34, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Let's continue this discussion later Monday morning.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:40, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hi again. Firstly, let me tell you that I am an Aussie and my timezone is GMT+10. This makes me 12-15 hours ahead of you. Our conversations may be a bit disjointed because of this. Right now it is my bedtime, so I will post this comment &amp;amp; then go, leaving it for your consideration. (Editing has been switched off for a while, is that correct? I realise that you do this most nights. I didn't expect it to be on again tonight.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To return to 'deference': to me the word embodies respect and consideration which I would regard as being conservative values, but not necessarily 'giving in'. However, I do not have the right American nuances to interpret this as you do and will not push this strongly and am happy to remove it from the list.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a couple of alternatives for consideration:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
atheistic (1625-35) An adjective pertaining to or characteristic of atheists or atheism; containing, suggesting, or disseminating atheism.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
secularize (1611) To make secular; to transfer from ecclesiastical to civil or lay use, possession, or control&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, these are useful words for conservatives. They do not describe conservatives. My reading of the list suggests that useful words are acceptable eg alarmist. Anyway, goodnight for now, catch up with you tomorrow. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 08:32, 14 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;atheistic&amp;quot; is good.  Let's go with that.  I didn't see why &amp;quot;patriarchy&amp;quot; was conservative, so I removed that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 18 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::No worries. I'll add 'atheistic'. [[User:CharlieJ|CharlieJ]] 22:36, 18 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;Copacetic&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure how conservative this word is. There's no reasoning given for its inclusion, apart from the fact that Bojangles Robinson supposedly created it (and even that is extremely weak evidence and I'm not sure what it adds. I'm going to remove it from the list if no one raises any opposition. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:37, 19 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;Copacetic&amp;quot; is the very satisfactory result of conservative values.  It is associated with good and honest living.  I do object to removal of this conservative term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:32, 20 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Moral Majority - A suggestion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy, I saw your addition &amp;quot;silent majority&amp;quot; and it made me immediately think of &amp;quot;Moral Majority&amp;quot;. [http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-majority This page credits it to Jerry Falwell in 1979]. Although in it's strictest sense it describes a movement it is still has greater symbolism. Thanks, [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:30, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Great suggestion.  Please included it ... and increment the total near the beginning for the 1900s.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Done! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:22, 21 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Obambulate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe it's just my public school education at work, but I fail to see how obambulate is conservative. Apart from its obvious similarities with &amp;quot;Obama&amp;quot;, it simply means &amp;quot;to walk around&amp;quot;. I know that Obama has been bumbling and whatnot, but it's an innocuous word that is being assigned a special significance due to coincidence. I'm not sure it belongs on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:05, 27 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=859311</id>
		<title>Talk:Homophobia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Homophobia&amp;diff=859311"/>
				<updated>2011-03-27T15:38:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 859310 by YUmmiboy (talk) You are a liberal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{unprotected|3 Nov 2007|TK}}&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Archive(s): &lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 1|01]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[/archive 2|02]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Anti-homosexual violence ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, the FBI only reports offender statistics by race; thus it is not possible to measure how much gay-on-gay or gay domestic union violence occurs versus homosexual victims of heterosexual offenders. '' &lt;br /&gt;
:The FBI hate crime statistics ONLY report offenses based on bias.  Domestic violence and other crimes where bias was not an element are not included in these statistics.  (See the various pages of the web site cited in the article.)  I'm not sure if the sentence above is trying to subtract crimes against homosexuals that did not involve bias from the 1171 number (which would not make sense, as all of the 1171 involved bias, otherwise they would not have been reported as hate crimes), or if it was an attempt to gauge how much of violence against homosexuals involves bias by comparing crimes that involve bias to crimes that don't.  Or perhaps it's something else?  I really don't understand what this section is trying to say.  [[User:RobS|RobS]], could you clarify your thinking?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Neither do the statistics include senior citizens, homeless, military personnel, or battered pregnant women by boyfriends and husbands after becoming pregnant -- all known victim classes of hate crime attacks.''  &lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I agree that the FBI doesn't include in their hate crime statistics crimes that include bias against senior citizens, or bias against the homeless, or bias against military personnel, or bias against pregnant women.  They only include crimes that include bias based on race, religion, ethnicity/national origin, disability, and sexual orientation.  I'm not sure, though, why this is relevant?  And wouldn't it be clearer to simply list the categories that *are* included, rather than those which aren't?  Perhaps I'm dense, but I don't see why crimes that include bias against senior citizens, for example, are relevant?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Violent crimes are defined as murder...&amp;lt;snip&amp;gt;...and other.  For the general population, the FBI reports a violent crime rate of 20 victims per 1000 US persons &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.htm Violent Crime Rates]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or 1 in 50 of the overall population. In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Over the same time period there were over 32,000 murders and nonnegligent manslaughters reported in the general population.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html Crime in the United States], by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants, 1986 - 2005,Table 1. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;''&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], I *think* what you are trying to say in this paragraph is that there aren't many hate crimes against homosexuals - do I have this right?  If so, I think you may be mixing apples and oranges here.  The hate crime statistics do not include *all* violent crimes against homosexuals - just those that include bias.  So if a homosexual man gets murdered by his lover because he was unfaithful, for example, it's not a hate crime, and thus will not be listed as an &amp;quot;anti-homosexual murder&amp;quot; in the hate crime statistics, but it *would* be considered a violent crime in the violent crime rate statistics.  Do you see what I mean? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:40, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hsmom, I could kiss you, I really could. Hell, here you go: ''mwah!'' RobS, however, is firmly in denial on this one. --[[User:Robledo|Robledo]] 22:51, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I have followed her intelligent comments on [[homeschooling]], and I am with you there.  Well, at least, here: hsmom for sysop! [[User:Human|Human]] 22:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Aw shucks, thanks guys - and right before Mother's Day too.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The statistical flaw in the way the FBI compiles statistics, mandated by law, is it creates and defines a &amp;quot;victim class&amp;quot;; then it only defines &amp;quot;offenders&amp;quot; by race.  A classic example of &amp;quot;mixing apples and oranges&amp;quot;, as defined by law.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::[[User:RobS|RobS]], since you haven't answered my concerns here, I've made some changes to the article.  I'm sure you'll have some changes to what I wrote too - please try to add to it or adjust it rather than just reverting to the previous version.  Let's work together to find a version that is clear and well-cited and focuses on the topic at hand (homophobia).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I still do not understand what you think statistics on offender class would do.  I would like to understand your point of view here.  I'm guessing that most of the crimes that include racial bias would be done by someone of one race to someone of another, most of the crimes that include sexual-orientation bias would be done by someone of one orientation to someone of another, etc.  Do you have a different understanding of these crimes?  Can you give a hypothetical example?  I am trying to understand your point of view.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 10:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I do not understand why you made changes to the article without explaining your thinking here.  The idea of the talk page is so that different editors can explain more fully their points of view, concerns, etc., so that other people editing the article can understand why certain edits have been made.  I would really like a fuller understanding of your concerns about the hate crime statistics, mainly because I do not think I have the same understanding as you about about which kinds of crimes are included.  I would very much like to understand your point of view about the limitations of the statistics.  Let me flesh out my current concerns about the article:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  I'm OK with this sentence.  (We could cite the number of incidences, or the number of victims, but offenses is fine with me.)  However, I think it's useful to get a sense of how many of the total hate crimes are based on sexual-orientation bias.  If you prefer not to have further information in the article itself, I think a footnote could clarify important points (such as  the fact that a few of these 1,171 offenses were actually anti-heterosexual.)  Thus I would add this reference &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation, race, religion, sexual orientation and disability, ...''  Just a grammar detail here - I think it's important to be clear that race, religion, sexual orientation and disability ARE the victim classes / bias motivations, so I'd change it to ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability)..''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''...the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  I'm still not sure I understand your point here.  The FBI also does not report the sexual orientation of victims.  Some but not all of the crimes motivated by sexual-orientation bias were anti-homosexual; a few were actually '''anti-heterosexual'''.  In addition, someone who is attacked because the attacker thinks they're gay may not in fact be gay.  However, the point of this whole section is to show that there are some people out there who take their views against homosexuality to the extreme of committing crimes, and to get a sense of how widespread this problem is.  The stats aren't a perfect fit for this purpose, so I think you're sensible to express some caveats about them.  I had expanded the caveats, but I would be fine with putting my expansion in the footnotes.  Thus I would add this footnote.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''Thus a conclusion that all offenders are heterosexual is faulty, and the methodology does not measure gay-on-gay violence.'' I agree with this statement.  However, I would add to it a little bit to say ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.''  I think some people mistakenly believe that any crime against a homosexual counts as a hate crime, and thus these statistics include ALL crimes against homosexuals, which is not the case.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about hate crimes, so I'd like to make it clear that incidences of violence against homosexuals that cannot be linked to bias based on sexual orientation (which would include most gay-on-gay violence) are not included in these statistics.  (These stats also include non-violent crime - I'm not sure if we should go into that here or not.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''In all of 2004, there was 1 anti-homosexual murder in the United States, and the FBI has reported none since.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  First, let's be clear that this does NOT mean that only one homosexual person was murdered in 2004.  It means that there was one murder which was motivated in whole or in part by bias against homosexuals.  (It does not even mean that the victim was actually homosexual.)  So we need to say ''anti-homosexual '''hate crime''' murder''.  I think it's important to give the reader a context for this number - the fact is that relatively few hate crimes in general are murders.  By giving this number in the context of the total number of hate crime murders, the reader an get a better understanding of the situation.  (For example, if there had been 300 total hate crime murders with only one being anti-homosexual, that would be quite a different situation.)  In addition, ''...and the FBI has reported none since'' is a bit misleading, because there is only one more year of statistics available, those for 2005.  Still, we don't need to clutter up the article too much, so details can be given in the footnotes.  I think we should say something like ''In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So the whole thing would read:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:''In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/table4.htm Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2005 Table 4. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Incidences and Offenses[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/incidentsoffenses.htm]  ''Of these 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual-orientation bias, 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual, 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual, 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual, 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual, and 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.  These 1,171 hate crimes made up about 14% of the total reported hate crime offenses.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''While the FBI reports statistics by victim class or bias motivation (race, religion, sexual orientation or disability), the FBI does not report the sexual orientation of known offenders.''  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''The FBI reports only the race, if known, of the offenders in these hate crimes (if the offender is known). It does not report the religion, sexual orientation, or disability status of the offenders.'' &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  ''Thus a conclusion that all offenders in sexual-orientation hate crimes are heterosexual, or all victims are homosexual, is faulty; in addition, the methodology does not attempt to measure gay-on-gay violence, or violence against homosexuals that is not motivated by sexual-orientation bias.  In 2004, there was one anti-homosexual hate crime murder in the United States, and there were none in 2005.'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;U.S. Department of Justice — Federal Bureau of Investigation, [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2004/tables/HateCrime2004.pdf Uniform Crime Reports], Offense Type by Bias Motivation, 2004 Table 4. ''In 2004, there were 5 hate crime murders in the US, one of which was anti-homosexual, two were anti-white, one anti-black, one anti-Atheism/Agnosticism.  In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, there were 6 hate crime murders, none of which was anti-homosexual; one was anti-white, two were anti-black,two were anti-Hispanic, and one was anti-Other Ethnicity/National Origin.''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:RobS|RobS]], I hope that you will explain your concerns here, so that we can work together to improve this article, incorporating both of our concerns to make the best article possible.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:06, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Very simple: my edit points out (a) flawed methodolgy of FBI stats; (b) flawed popular misconceptions based upon flawed methodology; (c) flawed methodology is mandated by law.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Recycling explanations of deliberate flawed statistics in hypertext does nothing, except serve the agenda of those promoting perversions in law to advance a biased agenda.  Please look up in the left hand corner of your screen.  You will see this Conservapedia.  Our mission is not to advance disinformation and subversion of our political process by alleging FBI statistics are credible to promote the obvious flawed conclusion, that anti-homoexual violence is perpetrated by hetrosexual offenders.  Our mission is quite the contrary.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:19, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are either completely missing her point or steadfastly ignoring it.  FBI statistics report based on bias.  Thus, anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.  A gay on gay attack does not have a bias of this type and is thus not included.  You are trying to argue that the FBI counts every crime against a gay individual as an anti-homosexual crime... if this were true, then your point on need statistics on the perpetrators would be valid, but this is not how the statistics are reported, thus your point (not the statistics) is flawed.  Your stubborn denial of this is nothing more than an attempt to push your point of view into statistics which are neutral.  [[User:QNA|QNA]] 11:48, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
*''anti-homosexual crimes are those that are commited with an anti-homosexual bias, thus by their nature are commited by someone who is not homosexual.''&lt;br /&gt;
:Wrong. Flawed.  A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals, and is not accounted for in FBI statistics, mandated by law.  And your premise underlies precisely ''why'' we cannot accept any further explanation regarding the FBI's flawed methodolgy, because it used to perpetrated a flawed popular misconception, that heterosexuals are solely responsible for anti-gay violence, which we have now '''clearly''' demonstrated, FBI statistics do not measure or account for.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:58, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::''A gay lover who beats up another gay lover because of some interpersonal dispute over their gay lifestyle, is reported as a hate crime against homosexuals.''  If this is true, then of course I would agree that the statistics are seriously flawed.  From reading the report's methodology, it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported as a hate crime.  The report explains &amp;lt;i&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The FBI collects data regarding criminal offenses that are motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity/national origin, or disability and are committed against persons, property, or society. Because motivation is subjective, it is difficult to know with certainty whether a crime resulted from the offender’s bias. Moreover, the presence of bias alone does not necessarily mean that a crime can be considered a hate crime. If law enforcement investigation reveals sufficient evidence to lead a reasonable and prudent person to conclude that the offender’s actions were motivated, in whole or in part, by his or her bias, then the incident should be reported as a hate crime.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reporting Program, Hate Crime Statistics 2005, Methodology. &amp;lt;/i&amp;gt;[http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2005/methodology.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   How do you think this happens?  Is the problem with police departments wrongly reporting normal crimes as hate crimes?  Can you provide some kind of reference that speaks to this?  Do you also believe that this is true for disabled people, blacks, etc. and that the hate crimes statistics for them are flawed?--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 12:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;--The determination is based upon the discretion of the local investigating officer.  He is not mandated to discern the sexual orientation of the offender, only the offenders race.  Therein lies the statistical flaw.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And secondly, in what state, or in what federal law, are law enforcement agencies mandated to keep statistics of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships?  If we are to contemplate things such as so-called &amp;quot;gay marriage&amp;quot;, then what may be appropriate is to investigate the level of domestic abuse in homosexual relationships.  And I believe, it may be credibly proven, homosexual relationships suffer from a distinctly higher proportion of violence than heterosexual relationships -- and the law may as of now, not take any consideration of this in compiling statistics for us to make a judgmental value.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thirdly, ''&amp;quot;it does not seem that the FBI '''intends''' for this kind of crime to be reported&amp;quot;''.  It makes no difference what the FBI's &amp;quot;intent&amp;quot; is, the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting.  Therein lies the problem, this legal mandate dictates a statistical and biased error in reporting, which likely is intended to lead the public to a faulty conclusion, i.e. that anti-homosexual violence is solely the responsibility of heterosexuals.  Given what I've stated above, if heterosexuals are to be responsible to insure against anti-homosexual violence, and if a disproportionate degree of reported &amp;quot;hate crimes&amp;quot; are perpetrated by homosexual offenders upon homosexuals, then the heterosexual community deserves accurate reporting on such, '''''before''''' heterosexuals are asked to pass judgment upon recognizing the legal validity of domestic, homosexual partnerships.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:[[User:RobS|RobS]], when you say ''the FBI is mandated by law to keep track of protected groups in hate crime reporting'' it seems like you believe that the law requires '''all''' crimes against homosexuals to be reported as anti-homosexual hate crimes.  Do I have this right?  This is not my understanding of the law, and I think all our differences hinge on this one point.  If you are right, then I would agree with much of what you are saying - the FBI statistics would be virtually meaningless.  Or are you making a more nuanced argument?  Something like &amp;quot;police officers may mistakenly perceive any crime against a homosexual as a hate crime, especially if they do not determine the sexual orientation of the offender, thus they may include crimes in the statistics that do not belong there (for example gay-on-gay domestic violence crimes)&amp;quot;.  Am I getting closer to understanding you?  Either way, do you have any references to flesh out your concerns?  --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 13:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::As I've stated above, the investigating officer or agency must make a determination.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Now, let's marry two threads here.  There has been extensive discussion on several pages about [[Homophobia]], and I believe I have effectively made the argument that many, if not most, &amp;quot;homophobes&amp;quot; who seek psychiatric treatment today are homosexual.  It would not be surprising given this, that there is a certain amount of gay-on-gay anti-homosexual violence, and much may be occurring in gay domestic relationships.  Or it could occur even randomly or anonymously in the gay lifestyle, that is to say a gay person, unhappy with himself for being attracted to members of the same sex, or blaming gays for making him attracted to them, vents his anger at himself and gays for being involved in the homosexual lifestyle.  None of these reporting statistics, mandated by law, be they &amp;quot;hate crime&amp;quot; stats, or domestic violence stats, allow for taking this into account.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I suggest moving all this junk to an article on hate crimes. It doesn't have much to do with homophobia. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:40, 6 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:RobS|RobS]], I think I am starting to get your point.  You are saying (do I have this right?), that much of the violence that appears on the surface to be anti-homosexual hate crime is in fact perpetrated by homophobic gays.  I think this is an interesting point, and I don't have a problem with including it per se, however I don't think the article as it is currently written conveys this point well at all.  I think the best approach may be to have a factual paragraph about the FBI stats and then a paragraph putting forth your perspective.  I think that approach will make your points clearer to the reader, rather than having them buried in the stats paragraph.  Can you find some references that will allow us to say &amp;quot;some conservatives are concerned that&amp;quot;, or &amp;quot;Such and such author has put forth the idea that&amp;quot; or whatever?  Because we will be able to write a stronger paragraph if it can be backed up with references.  I don't have time to work on this for the next few days, but will try to take a stab at it when I get a chance.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:48, 7 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References for Anti-homosexual violence discussion ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== &amp;quot;most common usage&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Though the term can be used for a variety of purposes, its most common usage is to criticize people opposed to homosexuality.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I happen to think this statement is correct, or at least is correct as of the last few decades. But I'd like to see sources or evidence presented that confirms it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 11:16, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I think we've proven on this talk page several times over the meaning was corrupted from the git go; it was coined to impugn critics of the APA dropping homosexuality as a mental diagnosis, it has persisted, but the failure of legistlators to criminalize what was alleged to be a mental disturbance has led to the theraputic community dropping the term.  Its ''misuse'' has persisted in popular culture, largely because common people have not got the message that both the legal and threputic professions are dropping the term.  And lastly, the accepted theraputic use of the term was applied most often to homosexuals themselves.  In sum, popular usage never understood what it meant, and has always been misused. It is little more than an attack term, when it originally was invented to make people think opponents of the homosexual agenda were crazy, not criminal, as it is misued today.  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:34, 14 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::And the citable '''source''' that supports &amp;quot;criticism of people opposed to homosexuality&amp;quot; as its most common use is... what? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::&lt;br /&gt;
::::The term '''homophobia''' describes the aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]]. Unlike other pathopsychological [[phobia]]s (e.g. [[arachnaphobia]]=a fear of [[spider]]s) this phobia isn't primarily about avoiding contact, but the deliberate insulting, humiliation and symbolic annihilation of homosexuals.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Homophobia usually manifests itself through insults, humiliation, threats and violence directed at homosexuals and may also be directed at [[heterosexuals]] perceived to be homosexual by the perpetrator.&lt;br /&gt;
:&lt;br /&gt;
::::[[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]&lt;br /&gt;
::Well, there are other uses. I happen to think the one here makes a lot of sense. [http://www.henrymakow.com/021101.html] Maybe, someday, we'll all be proud to be homophobic. I'd rather be homophobic than homos-xual any day. [[User:Mathers|Mathers]] 09:52, 19 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks. That kind of fits into the definition above. [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] 10:57, 20 September 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I suggest using the definition provided by [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]]. It should start the article. It clealy describes an aversion of a person to [[homosexuality]] and not [[Homosexuals]] as individuals. It certainly doesn't imply that those who object to [[homosexuality]] on moral and religious grounds are being irrational, i.e., literally suffering from a [[mental illness]] but clearly states that the ''phobia'' isn't primarily about avoiding contact, so by the definition above, those who object to homosexuality on moral and religious grounds are are not homophobic if they don't deliberately insult, humiliate or  threaten violence towards homosexuals. They are simply condemning the sin not the sinner, or as some Christians put it ''hate the sin not the sinner''. The rest of the article could then describe how [[gay rights]] an [[liberal]] activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective one above.&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] 07:31, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::*''activists have perverted the meaning away from the objective''&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(a) This article documents how the term was created with the specific ''intent'' for the perverted meaning you refer to.&lt;br /&gt;
::::*(b) You are dealing with the same issue in [[Gay Bowel Syndrome]], i.e. a term the medical community does not recognize yet nonetheless has currency in the lay community for what is popularly beleived to be a medical condition.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:38, 9 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the suggestion [[User:BenDoune|BenDoune]] and [[User:PhilMcAvity|PhilMcAvity]] is great. Carry on! [[User:RogerDailey|RogerDailey]] 13:33, 12 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==&amp;quot;Homophobia-phobia&amp;quot;==&lt;br /&gt;
This seems to be an unsourced personal essay or opinion by [[User:Jaques]]. No source is cited to show that this term has any significant degree of usage. Only 92 [http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&amp;amp;rls=en&amp;amp;q=Homophobia-phobia&amp;amp;ie=UTF-8&amp;amp;oe=UTF-8 Google hits] on the term (hits include both with and without the hyphen), a negligible number (compare 1,490,000 for ''homophobia,'' 34,900 for ''phobophobia'' (fear of fear), 29,200 for ''heterophobia'' (fear of heterosexuals), 14,900 for ''gamophobia'' (fear of marriage), 11,700 for ''theophobia'' (fear of God), 1310 for ''pantophobia'' (fear of everything). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobia-Phobia===&lt;br /&gt;
Because of the fear of homophobia, some homsexuals develop a phobia of homophobes, and may become paranoid to the point that he/she believe everyone who dislike him/her or say anything negative about homosexuality is a homophobe.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophobiaphobiaphobia===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condition affecting homophobes who are too frightened to admit that they are homophobic because of widespread phobia against homophobes. Not an official mental condition yet but you heard it here first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Actully, Homophobiaphobiaphobia means people who are afraid of those homosexuals who are afraid of homophobes.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 01:29, 27 May 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Homophilia===&lt;br /&gt;
Why hasn't this word been coined? It is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot; Since &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; is the literal and exact opposite of &amp;quot;Phobia&amp;quot; it should therefore follow that: &amp;quot;Homo&amp;quot; + &amp;quot;Philia&amp;quot; = &amp;quot;Homophilia.&amp;quot; If no one has any objections I would like to coin and use this word as is applicable.--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:15, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* It is nothing, as it means the same, apparently. Let's try to keep this as jargon free as possible. Oh, and FYI, please edit and sign your post, please.  Unsigned posts are removed. --[[User:TK|&amp;lt;small&amp;gt;Sysop-&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt;TK]] &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt; 17:13, 1 July 2007 (EDT) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;homophilia:&lt;br /&gt;
Another term for homosexuality , the condition in which love and lust are directed to persons of the same sex.  [http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/homophilia]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
okey-dokey--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 17:18, 1 July 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
: So, if homosexuality=homophilia, homophobia is the opposite of homophilia, and homosexuality is the opposite of heterosexuality, that means heterosexuality=homophobia?&lt;br /&gt;
::Where does bisexualphobia fit in this scheme?  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:30, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::It doesn't. I wasn't sure I had a point, but now i have: The opposite of &amp;quot;love&amp;quot; is rather &amp;quot;hate&amp;quot; than &amp;quot;fear&amp;quot; (although Darth Vader might disagree whether that makes a difference), so, grammatically homophilia is not the opposite of homophobia.&lt;br /&gt;
:::Latin is not the issue. &amp;quot;Homophila&amp;quot; is quite synonymous with &amp;quot;homosexuality&amp;quot;, I have heard it before, but usually in comparision to other paraphilias (pedo-, necro-, copro- etc). So, the word &amp;quot;homophilia&amp;quot; should, imho, be used to emphasize homosexuality as a perversion, rather than as form of love. [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 15:36, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::(a) it's not Latin, it's Greek.  (b) in the Greek idiom, there is not a duality of polar opposites, it is a triality, philia, phobia, and phagia -- attraction, repulsion, and consumption.  Here's another contrasting idiom, epipheral, ephemeral, and etherial -- what is comprehensible to the naked eye within the horizon, what is known of only momentary significance (which carries a rather sexist idea that it is 'feminine'), and what is known but not visible or something over the horizon.  In a later sense and Latinized sense, etherial also becomes something &amp;quot;up in the air,&amp;quot; for example, Christ will return in the ether.&lt;br /&gt;
::::Soooo, you seem to be applying modern understanding and modern idioms to ancient inscriptions, a rather common occurance.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:55, 2 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I'm not talking about dualities in Greek, the words are &amp;quot;opposite&amp;quot; when used in English, since &amp;quot;attraction&amp;quot; is basically the opposite of &amp;quot;repulsion&amp;quot;, which confirms the original post (It (homophilia) is technichally and mechanically the opposite of &amp;quot;Homophobia.&amp;quot;). I don't try to pretend to be able to discuss &amp;quot;ancient inscriptions&amp;quot;, what I know is what the word is used for today, and why. In the media and the gay community, the word &amp;quot;homophilia&amp;quot; ''is'' used as a synonym for &amp;quot;homosexuality&amp;quot;, although in a more pejorative sense, alluding to the word &amp;quot;paraphilia&amp;quot;. That's what matters in this context.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The more proper suffix for -philia (used in with negative connotation) is -erasty; e.g., not pedophilia, but pederasty, utilizing the eros element for sexual love, instead of phil- an element for friendly love. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:26, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===snarl===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is a 'snarl' word please? [[User:MrSmith|MrSmith]] 16:30, 31 August 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, I never heard of it either. --[[User:SpudNolan|SpudNolan]] 15:37, 30 October 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was reading the article on [[Junk science]], and thought, what if I rewrite the definition of &amp;quot;Junk science&amp;quot; to something like this?&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;The term '''junk science''' is a snarl word used by conservatives to verbally tar and feather anyone who dares to oppose a scientific theory (for example, global warming or evolution).&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
I guess that would get me banned in seconds.&lt;br /&gt;
Does anyone get my point? [[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:19, 1 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Missing your point here, I have to admit. I have dozens of liberal friends and acquaintances who employ the use of the term &amp;quot;junk science&amp;quot; every day, so quite obviously the writer of that article practiced [[deceit]].  I believe that term was used by one of the lead scientists on the United Nations global warming committee, in the Wall Street Journal, to explain the extrapolated conclusions that the UN used in its published report.  --&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#1E90FF&amp;quot; face=&amp;quot;Comic Sans MS&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;DC143C&amp;quot;&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 11:22, 3 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I'm sorry, I was trying to point out that the definition of &amp;quot;homophobia&amp;quot; was a little bit unfair to gay activists. Moreover, it is not really informative; the term is (more?) often used to describe &amp;quot;fear of being/becoming gay&amp;quot; than fear of actual gays. I'll look it up in a dictionary and write a better definition. --[[User:Eygar|Eygar]] 13:26, 3 November 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Homophobia is a fear==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am surprised this article defines homophobia as hate. It is not. It is a ''fear'' of homosexuals, their rising poltical power, they're watering down of our collective morality and their intent to dissolute our great institutions of social stability (such as marriage). This is why people are &amp;quot;phobic&amp;quot; of homosexuals. But it is NOT hate. We do not want them destroyed, like Al Qaeda wants us destroyed. We want them to see the righteous path with God and to engage in holy matrimony with a member of the opposite sex, to live fulfilling lives heeding God's decree to go forth and multiply. We want them to find the path of redemption. That is not hate but ''compassion''. Love the sinner, not the sin.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looking back through the article's history, it seems that early versions of the article did not include the &amp;quot;implied&amp;quot; definition of hate and in fact several sysops (RSchlafly, RobSmith, etc) fought valiantly against the incessant tinkering of AmesG and other liberal vandals to insert a pro-gay tolerance slant to the article's introduction and perhaps elsewhere. I've only skimmed it so far, but it looks pretty entrenched. Incidentally, the &amp;quot;hate&amp;quot; aspect was only added in February and by the &amp;quot;trustworthy&amp;quot; editor named [[User:Kiss20]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm going to try to work this article back to a more accurate definition over the next few gays. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 01:24, 28 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Actually, it seems like the liberal slant was confined to the introduction. Fixed now. What a relief. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 01:57, 28 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Thanks Foxtrot [[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 16:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
::No problem! -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 06:24, 26 February 2009 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Homophobia - Etymology and definition==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I suggest the removal of the term &amp;quot;etymology&amp;quot; from this section.  A better title would be &amp;quot;Homophobia - Morphology and definition.&amp;quot;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What makes homophobia a slur word is that the suffix &amp;quot;phobia&amp;quot; connotes a mental disorder, an irrational fear.  The morpheme phob- means fear.  But this morpheme is not merely historical in significance (etymology, diachronic linguistics).  If in fact phobia were merely a matter of historical derivation, then this term would not have the polemical debater force that it has as a slur word.  Instead of speaking of etymology, the issue is morphology and associated present semantics (synchronic linguistics).  As a suffix, a phobia is a generative suffix in contemporary usage.  When one adds -phobia to a word, immediately persons understand that an irrational fear of something is connoted. The force of this suffix has not faded in time to be merely a matter of the word's etymology.  Etymological meaning is often faded (like dios in adios -- no present reference to God is felt or communicated in saying goodbye with &amp;quot;adios&amp;quot;). ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 17:44, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Clarification:  At issue are the meanings of the morphemes in &amp;quot;homophobia.&amp;quot;  Historically, as to etymology, the word can be broken into the elements: hom- = same, -o- = connecting vowel for words of Greek derivation, phob- = fear, -ia = process, state, condition.  However, in terms of synchronic meaning, homo- = homosexual, phobia = irrational fear of, a type of mental disorder.  By way of comparison the word &amp;quot;understand&amp;quot; has the etymological elements under = under and stand = stand.  But by no stretch of the imagination does understand mean to &amp;quot;stand under.&amp;quot;  In terms of synchronic linguistics, explanations about the etymological meanings of &amp;quot;stand&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;under&amp;quot; are irrelevant to synchronic meaning.  Synchronically &amp;quot;understand&amp;quot; has but one morpheme (element that has meaning).  I hope this clarifies why I think that this section should be called &amp;quot;Morphology and definition.&amp;quot;  It is the present meaning which is much more significant that the etymology.  Alternatively, somehow the section could be revised to indicate that the meaning of -phobia is irrational fear, as a type of mental disorder and that the etymology is not faded in meaning so as to render it irrelevant semantically. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:14, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Specific Recommendation:  Replace this sentence: &lt;br /&gt;
::::&amp;quot;Homophobia is an etymologically incorrect term which most directly denotes 'an unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality', with &lt;br /&gt;
:::::&amp;quot;The term homophobia is being used in a morphologically incorrect manner as denoting . . . .&amp;quot; ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:34, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Definition of Homophobia==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Does homophobia refer to fear of offending homosexuals?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:One realizes that it is description, rather than prescription primarily at issue.  In defining a word it is more scientific to merely observe how the word is used and report on it instead of saying &amp;quot;how it should be used&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;how it must be used.&amp;quot;  Of course part of the description is observing the emotive connotations and the polemical aspect, if there is one.  Nonetheless, persons who have agendas may start using and declaring what a word means in hopes that their usage will spread to the point that lexicographers will write the definition their way.  Research would be needed to establish that the word &amp;quot;homophobia&amp;quot; is more properly defined as fear of offending homosexuals and suffering a counter attack from them. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 17:53, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Suggested Revision of first sentence:  Instead of:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The term homophobia, as applied to criticism of homosexuality, implies that all such criticism is irrational (see phobia),&amp;quot; substitute:&lt;br /&gt;
::The term homophobia, as applied to criticism or opposition to homosexuality, implies that all such criticism and opposition is based on an irrational fear and is a type of mental disorder[1] (see phobia).&amp;quot; The footnote would be a reference to 3 sections of the DSM-IV-TR. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 18:40, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mechanics, Grammar==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The writer has written: &lt;br /&gt;
;&amp;quot;. . . often take offense at this term, which had led to the use . . . &amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
Did he mean to put &amp;quot;has,&amp;quot; instead of &amp;quot;had&amp;quot;?([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 19:26, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Missing Footnote==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Has the footnote for the following paragraph gotten lost somehow?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;A study by University of Arkansas researchers . . . .&amp;quot; ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 19:23, 16 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::The article isn't locked.  If your changes are egregious they will be reverted or discussed here. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 20:38, 16 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don't understand.  I saw what looked like an excellent paragraph in the article, but there was no footnote in the paragraph, and it obviously needs one.  So I asked if the footnote had gotten lost.  I didn't make any changes to the Arkansas paragraph. I don't understand how the adjective egregious got into this.  I thought I would help by fixing a couple of mechanical/grammatical slips. ([[User:Thunkful|Thunkful]] 00:32, 17 June 2010 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You're over-thinking this....I just pointed out that you are an editor here, the article wasn't locked, and your suggestions were respectful and there wasn't a need for your posts to be reverted here, is all. Carry on. --&amp;lt;big&amp;gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&amp;lt;/big&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;/Admin&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 00:38, 17 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=University_of_Vermont&amp;diff=859308</id>
		<title>University of Vermont</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=University_of_Vermont&amp;diff=859308"/>
				<updated>2011-03-27T13:33:34Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{University&lt;br /&gt;
|name=University of Vermont&lt;br /&gt;
|image=&lt;br /&gt;
|text=white&lt;br /&gt;
|background=#389441&lt;br /&gt;
|type=Public&lt;br /&gt;
|city=Burlington, Vermont&lt;br /&gt;
|sports=baseball, basketball, cross country, field hockey, ice hockey, lacrosse, skiing (alpine &amp;amp; nordic), soccer, softball, swimming, indoor &amp;amp; outdoor track and field&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.uvm.edu/~sportspr/?Page=teams.html&amp;amp;SM=teammenu.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
|colors=green&lt;br /&gt;
|mascot=Catamounts&lt;br /&gt;
|website=http://www.uvm.edu/&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
The '''University of Vermont''' (or UVM) is a [[Vermont]] [[public school|public]] [[university]] chartered in 1791.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;history&amp;quot;&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://www.uvm.edu/about_uvm/?Page=history/default.html&amp;amp;SM=historysubmenu.html|format=HTML|title=History and Traditions|language=English|work=University of Vermont}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The school was initially private, but changed after the Morrill Land-Grant College Act in 1862 and the addition of the State Agricultural College. It ranked #96 in US News's 2008 &amp;quot;National Universities: Top Schools&amp;quot; list.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;{{cite web|url=http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/usnews/edu/college/rankings/brief/t1natudoc_brief.php|title=National Universities: Top Schools|work=US News|format=HTML|language=English}}&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
Ira Allen, who is considered to be UVM's founder, undertook much of the funding and initial planning. The university's first building was destroyed by fire in 1824; [[Marquis de Lafayette]] designed its replacement, the Old Mill building.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;history&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==Notes==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist}}&lt;br /&gt;
{{Nb_US_universities}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Universities]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&amp;diff=859307</id>
		<title>Homosexual Agenda</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexual_Agenda&amp;diff=859307"/>
				<updated>2011-03-27T13:27:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 859306 by YUmmiboy (talk) Liberal vandalism&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Homosexuality}}&lt;br /&gt;
The '''Homosexual Agenda''', or [[Homosexuality|homosexual]] ideology, consists of a set of beliefs and objectives designed to promote and even mandate acceptance and approval of homosexuality, and the strategies used to implement such. This article notes that the goals and means of this movement include indoctrinating students in [[public school]], restricting the free speech of opposition, obtaining [[special rights|special treatment]] for homosexuals, distorting Biblical teaching and science, and interfering with freedom of association. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Among all the [[liberal]] belief systems, the homosexual ideology is the most self-centered or selfish.  Liberals generally give much less than conservatives to charity, but gay charity work in particular is virtually non-existent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Supreme Court Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] referred to the &amp;quot;so-called homosexual agenda&amp;quot; in ''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'', 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (dissenting opinion).  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The Homosexual Agenda ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Joseph P. Gudel, in ''That Which is Unnatural''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-jrnl/web/crj0108a.html &amp;quot;That Which is Unnatural&amp;quot; Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture] Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality, from the Christian Research Journal, Winter 1993, page 8&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  contended that the homosexual movement, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an &amp;quot;oppressed minority.&amp;quot; Gudel quotes various sources evidencing this.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington, homosexual spokesperson Jeff Levi  proclaimed, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a right -- as heterosexual Americans already have -- to see government and society affirm our lives. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In an article entitled &amp;quot;Gays on the March&amp;quot; in 1975, Time magazine quoted gay activist Barbara Gittings who stated: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromise -- is acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality.&amp;quot; In response, Time opined, &amp;quot;It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Gays on the March,&amp;quot; Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda is to promote the lifestyle in [[public schools]].  This occurred quickly and intensely after gay marriage was imposed in Massachusetts, where homosexual relationships are taught to children as young as kindergartners, as recounted by the decision of ''[[Parker v. Hurley]]''.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The ''Parker v. Hurley'' decision explained, &amp;quot;In January 2005, when Jacob Parker (&amp;quot;Jacob&amp;quot;) was in kindergarten, he brought home a 'Diversity Book Bag.' This included a picture book, Who's in a Family?, which depicted different families, including single-parent families, an extended family, interracial families, animal families, a family without children, and -- to the concern of the Parkers -- a family with two dads and a family with two moms. The book concludes by answering the question, 'Who's in a family?': 'The people who love you the most!' The book says nothing about marriage.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a 1992 report by John Leo in U.S. News and World Report, he notes some books which were part of New York City's public school curriculum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first-grade book, &amp;quot;Children of the Rainbow&amp;quot;, stated on page 145, which states that teachers must &amp;quot;be aware of varied family structures, including...gay or lesbian parents,&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household.&amp;quot; Another children book is Heather Has Two Mommies, which is about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, states, &amp;quot;Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Leo commented, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;John Leo, &amp;quot;Heather Has a Message,&amp;quot; U.S. News &amp;amp; World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. Judith A. Reisman in her extensive ''Crafting “Gay” Children'',&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.defendthefamily.com/_docs/resources/6390601.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; reports that Harvard homosexual Toby Morotta, PhD,  stated that in the 1970s, members of the Gay Activists Alliance - who  were trained in the “zapping&amp;quot; of any who rebuffed homosexuality.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Toby Marotta: THE POLITICS OF HOMOSEXUALITY: HOW LESBIANS AND GAY MEN HAVE MADE THEMSELVES A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL FORCE IN MODERN AMERICA, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981 at 319&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; And that these formed the “Gay Academic Union,” (GAU) which was made up of faculty and students in major universities. She states that the GAU has long fought for domination of its worldview within the academic community, and professional journals commonly assigned GAU and other homosexual peer reviewers to research touching on homosexuality, generally resulting in a quick death to possible unfavorable findings. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See extensive reports in regular NARTH Bulletins as well as Ray Johnson, “American Psychology: The Political Science, at 53-57.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
This and the general agenda is seen to be overall implementing a marketing strategy explained in a book called ''After the Ball,'' by [[gay rights]] activists Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen in the late 1980s, in which a six-point plan was set forth as to how they could transform the beliefs of ordinary Americans with regard to homosexual behavior in a decade-long time frame:&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Winn07252003&amp;quot;&amp;gt;''After the Ball'' (1989), quoted from Winn, Pete (7-25-2003) [ ''Q&amp;amp;A: The Homosexual Agenda''] Citizenlink&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;Thus propagandistic advertising can depict all opponents of the gay movement as homophobic bigots who are 'not Christian' and the propaganda can further show them [homosexuals]] as being criticized, hated and shunned...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (Author) (p. 152-153)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Focus on the Family]] provides additional quotes from After the Ball, outlining key points of the homosexual agenda:&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Winn07252003&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kirk, Marshall K. and Erastes Pill (11-1987) ''The Overhauling of Straight America'' Available at [http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/overhauling.htm ''STRATEGIES OF THE HOMOSEXUAL MOVEMENT: &amp;quot;The Overhauling of Straight America&amp;quot;'']&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Give homosexual protectors a just cause.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Make gays look good.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Make the victimizers look bad.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
#&amp;quot;Get funds from corporate America.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[United States Supreme Court]] Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;amp;vol=000&amp;amp;invol=02-102#dissent1 ''LAWRENCE et al. v. TEXAS''] at findlaw.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vic_Eliason Vic Eliason] of [http://www.crosstalkamerica.com Crosstalk America] rightly points out that if all Americans turned homosexual it would only take a few generations for the United States to lose most of the population of the country through lack of procreation.  This would make the US more vulnerable to attack by our enemies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Specific goals ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The goals of the homosexual movement include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Destroying Christian morals&lt;br /&gt;
#*Changing the definition of marriage, even if doing so infringes on the religious rights of Christians not to recognize it as anything other than sin &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;www.massresistance.org, Homosexuals begin campaign of terror over Prop 8 loss]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#*Dilute the clear message of the [[Bible]] that [[homosexuality]] is a sin and an abomination unto [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#Promote pseudoscience that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/satinover.html The Gay Gene?&lt;br /&gt;
by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
#*Censoring evidence that the &amp;quot;gay gene&amp;quot; is a hoax&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08a/born_gay_hoax/smith_0329/index.html ''Lesbian activists at Smith College riot, shut down Ryan Sorba speech on &amp;quot;The Born Gay Hoax&amp;quot; as police watch. See exclusive videos.''] Mass Resistance&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Censoring speech against homosexuality by branding it to possibly be &amp;quot;hate-speech&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.silencingchristians.com Video:Silencing Christians]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2009/06/homosexuality-its-crime-in-england-to.html Homosexuality: It’s a Crime in England to State Christian Views]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=745 Bishops fight for right to criticise homosexual lifestyle, 25th May 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#*Censoring biblical statements condemning homosexuality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;White, Hilary (04-21-2006) [http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06042105.html ''Court Upholds School Ban on &amp;quot;Homosexuality is Shameful&amp;quot; T-Shirt''] LifeSiteNews.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#Establishing affirmative action for homosexuals&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Crimson Staff (10-13-2006) [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514950 ''A Box of Their Own?''] (opinion) The Crimson&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;www.afa.net, Homosexual Agenda Platforms from 1972 - 2000&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Pelosi, Nancy Office of (09-28-2004) [http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Sept04/HateCrimes092804.html ''Pelosi: &amp;quot;Hate Crimes Prevention Legislation is Right Thing to Do, Long Overdue&amp;quot;''] From the office of Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale'', 530 U.S. 640 (2000) (Boy Scouts); &amp;quot;Matlovich v. Secretary of the Air Force (591 F.2d 852, DC Circ. 1 978) (military)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Stopping children as young as 5 years old from attending therapy to repair their sexual preference&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thetaskforce.org/reports_and_research/youth_in_the_crosshairs National Gay and Lesbian Task Force:Youth in the Crosshairs]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Promote homosexuality in schools&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Morrison v. Board of Education]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#*In places like Massachusetts and California, where the gay lobby is the strongest, it starts as early as pre-school. They tell seven- or eight-year-old boys, &amp;quot;If you only like boys, there's a chance you may be homosexual,&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;If you only like girls, maybe you are lesbian.&amp;quot; Well, at that age, all members of the opposite sex &amp;quot;have cooties.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
#*You're planting a seed that can totally mess up the normal development process later, when at 12 or 14, kids enter the age of sexual confusion and discovering the opposite sex. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.citizenlink.org/CLFeatures/A000000562.cfm CitizenLink: QA: The Homosexual Agenda]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Force businesses to accommodate their lifestyle&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/nondiscrimination/ENDA_main_page Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) | National Gay and Lesbian Task Force&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#*Suing an online dating website for discrimination&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,454904,00.html Fox News - eHarmony to Provide Gay Dating Service after Lawsuit]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Undermining the [[Essay:Quantifying_Mental_Strength|resolve]] of [[Homosexuality_and_choice#Choice_and_Genetics|latent homosexuals]] so that their will becomes too weak to resist the temptations of homosexuality&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thetaskforce.org/activist_center/resources_and_tools/challenge_exgay&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#Pushing for legalized adoption by gay individuals and couples&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/parenting_and_family&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Lewis v. Harris]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; An example of this would be the recent New Hampshire law that makes same-sex civil unions legal&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/01/new_hampshire_law_makes_same_sex_civil_unions_legal/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although notable gains toward achieving its goals continue to be manifest, homosexual activists have recent been expressing a high level of and dissatisfaction against the Obama administration. Commenting on such, Massresistance.org, an organization which opposes the homosexual agenda in [[Massachusetts]], noted that the President has, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*signed an order extending federal benefits to same-sex partners; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*pushed an extreme hate crimes bill in Congress; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*declared his intention to repeal the Defense of Marriage, &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*pushed a pro-homosexual and transgender version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*appointed radical homosexual activists to high level positions, including Harry Knox, of the homosexual lobby group Human Rights Campaign, and Kevin Jennings, founder of the Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which targets kids in the public schools.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*declared February to be &amp;quot;Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*ordered the State Department to allow gay couples to use their married names (from marriages or civil unions) on US passports.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;update@massresistance.org 6/24/2009 11:56 PM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Strategies and psychological tactics ===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Homosexual activists are often seen as engaging in specious argumentation, such as attempts to controvert the consistent teaching of the Bible on homosexual relations, (see [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]) and using false analogies, in order to gain acceptance of homosexuality. One common argument used by homosexual activists seeks to compare their quest for equal rights to that of others.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Miner, Homosexuality, Civil Rights, and the Church&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This argument is countered by the observation that blacks were able to peacefully argue that mankind should not be &amp;quot;judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkihaveadream.htm, Speech by Martin Luther King Jr.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, as the former yields no certain moral distinction. In contrast, homosexual activists are seen to seek acceptance of an immoral practice(s), and in addition, to overall engage in certain coercive and manipulative means to do so. This is evidenced to include the use of a demonstrative manner of protests, which appear to be designed to censure and intimidate those who oppose them in any way.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=89526&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/08c/Prop8/church_attacks.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://rebuildtheparty.ning.com/video/exodus-protest-park-street&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://theway2k.vox.com/library/post/homosexuals-persecuting-christians-and-mormons.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hamiltonsquare.net/articlesRiotsSep1993.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/may/08050205.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;amp;pageId=95296&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Muehlenberg, Bill, [http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2009/06/04/another-nail-in-the-christian-coffin/ Another Nail in the Christian Coffin], [[4 June]] [[2009]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09a/feder_0311/index.html Loud homosexual activists disrupt and halt Don Feder speech at UMass Amherst, despite police presence&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; In addition, one pro-homosexual commentator recently took the homosexual community to task for being racist in their practice of homosexuality.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;LZ Granderson, ''Commentary: Gay is not the new black'', Cable News Network,July 16, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While not all homosexuals agree with the use of deceptive psychological tactics, these have been promoted by leading homosexual activists. The aforementioned book, ''After the Ball'',  is widely regarded as the handbook for the gay agenda, in which Harvard trained marketing experts and social scientists Marshall Kirk (1957 - 2005) and Hunter Madsen advocated avoiding portraying gays as aggressive challengers, but as victims, while making those who opposed them as evil persecutors.  As a means of the latter, they promoted  jamming, in which Christians, traditionalists, or anyone else who opposes the  gay  agenda are publicly smeared. In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector ... The purpose of victim imagery is to make straights feel very uncomfortable,  they suggested. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jam homophobia (i.e., disagreement with homosexual behaviors) by linking it to Nazi horror, was the strategy of Kirk and Madsen.  Associate all who oppose homosexuality with images of Klansmen demanding that gays be slaughtered,  hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks,  and a  tour of Nazi concentration camps where homosexuals were tortured and gassed.  Thus, &amp;quot;propagandistic advertisement can depict homophobic and homohating bigots as crude loudmouths...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.leaderu.com/socialsciences/sellinghomosexuality.html http://www.article8.org/docs/gay_strategies/after_the_ball.htm &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kirk and Madsen's open admission of their deceptive tactics is noted as most revealing: [O]ur effect is achieved without reference to facts, logic, or proof.  &amp;quot;...the person's beliefs can be altered whether he is conscious of the attack or not&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s, p. 152-153 (1989, Doubleday/Bantam)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; “The campaign we outline in this book, though complex, depends centrally upon a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of psychology and advertising.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.xxvi&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://banap.net/ Behavior and Not a Person]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Similarly, author Robert Bauman additionally records,  It makes no difference that the ads are lies . . . because were using them to ethically good effect, to counter negative stereotypes that are every bit as much lies, and far more wicked ones.  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a gay Conservative, by Robert Bauman, 1986, page 163.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The need for Kirk and Madsen to engage in such manipulation may be seen as being due to their sober realization of the nature of the homosexual lifestyle. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
“In short, the gay lifestyle - if such a chaos can, after all, legitimately be called a lifestyle - it just doesn’t work: it doesn’t serve the two functions for which all social framework evolve: to constrain people’s natural impulses to behave badly and to meet their natural needs. While it’s impossible to provide an exhaustive analytic list of all the root causes and aggravants of this failure, we can asseverate at least some of the major causes. Many have been dissected, above, as elements of the Ten Misbehaviors; it only remains to discuss the failure of the gay community to provide a viable alternative to the heterosexual family.”&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kirk and Madsen, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of the Gay’s in the 90s, p.363&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Marshall Kirk died in 2005 at the age of 48. The cause of death has not been publicly revealed.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Often cited as an early example form of such tactics was the role of homosexual activists in persuading the American Psychiatric Association (APA) to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). Dr. Ronald Bayer, though being himself a pro-homosexual psychiatrist, described this removal as being the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, rather than any new scientific discoveries.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php Exposed: The Myth That Psychiatry Has Proven That Homosexual Behavior Is Normal]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In so doing, like slavery before it, the homosexual agenda is seen to threaten basic freedoms, principally the First Amendment.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Adams, Guy (11-8-2008) [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/mormon-stars-face-backlash-after-gay-marriage-ban-1003967.html ''Mormon stars face backlash after gay marriage ban''] The Independent&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;        &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The charge of &amp;quot;[[homophobia]]&amp;quot; has also been increasingly evidenced as being part of a means of intimidation used in promoting the homosexual agenda.  Due to what homophobia has been made to denote, that of being a repressed homosexual, or possessing an irrational fear of being approached by homosexuals, or of being a bigot persecuting victims, the widespread use of the term &amp;quot;homophobic&amp;quot; attaches a powerful stigma to anyone who may even conscientiously oppose the practice of homosexuality, thus silencing many who might otherwise object to it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/1995papers/socarides.html Thought Reform And The Psychology of Homosexual Advocacy&lt;br /&gt;
Charles W. Socarides, M.D.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In relation to such oppression, psychologist Nicholas Cummings, former president of the American Psychological Association (APA), observed, &amp;quot;Homophobia as intimidation is one of the most pervasive techniques used to silence anyone who would disagree with the gay activist agenda.&amp;quot; As an example of such fear within the APA, in addressing 100 fellow professionals Cummings related that while writing &amp;quot;Destructive Trends in Mental Health,&amp;quot; with psychologist Rogers Wright, a number of fellow psychologists were invited to participate. However, these flatly turned them down, as they feared loss of tenure, loss of promotion, and other forms of professional retaliation. &amp;quot;We were bombarded by horror stories,&amp;quot; Dr. Cummings said. &amp;quot;Their greatest fear was of the gay lobby, which is very strong in the APA.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[Psychology Losing Scientific Credibility, Say APA Insiders http://www.narth.com/docs/insiders.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Noted homosexual activist and pornographer Clinton Fein, in his article,  The Gay Agenda stated,  Homophobic inclinations alone, even without any actions, should be criminal and punishable to the full extent of the law. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Erik Holland, author of &amp;quot;The Nature of Homosexuality,&amp;quot; perceives that homosexuals have become so reckless in labeling others homophobic that &amp;quot;anyone who questions their labeling someone a homophobe himself.  Even quoting factual statistics about the connection between homosexuality and AIDS is allegedly homophobic.&amp;quot; In addition, according to pro homosexual author Vernon A Wall, &amp;quot;even acceptance of homosexuality can be seen as a form of homophobia, because to talk about the acceptance of homosexuality is to imply that there is something about homosexuality that needs acceptance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.homosexinfo.org/Homophobia/HomePage&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It may be speculated that if the liberal use of the term homophobia is not primarily a psychological tactic, then it indicates a psychological condition on the part of those who use it, in which they imagine that those who oppose them are fearful of them, or of being one.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Influence in the Academic World===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Professor Jerry Z. Muller described in an article titled, &amp;quot;First Things&amp;quot; (Aug/Sept. 1993), how the homosexual lobby has gained widespread acceptance in the educational realm. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[Their] strategy has been remarkably successful. With a rapidity largely attributable in large part to a total lack of articulate resistance, homosexual ideology has gained an unquestioned and uncontested legitimacy in American academic life. Within the academy, as within nonacademic elite culture, the definition of opposite to homosexuality as &amp;quot;homophobia - a definition which implies that it is impossible to give good reasons for the cultural disapproval of homosexuality - is the best evidence of the success of this strategy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://books.google.com/books?id=cbfVg_1qhe0C&amp;amp;pg=PP1&amp;amp;lpg=PP1&amp;amp;dq=David+W.+Virtue+scots+college&amp;amp;source=bl&amp;amp;ots=aDW7a615Gn&amp;amp;sig=Y1cLsx5sCQTgUUDJ88b5AKPRkNg&amp;amp;hl=en&amp;amp;ei=8skISpP1AcGktgfi2PzsCw&amp;amp;sa=X&amp;amp;oi=book_result&amp;amp;ct=result&amp;amp;resnum=1#PPR14,M1 Homosexuality, by F. Earle Fox, David W. Virtue, p. 12]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Opposing Christian Agenda ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Soliciting donations&lt;br /&gt;
*Encouraging email activism&lt;br /&gt;
*Producing and disseminating gay reform information&lt;br /&gt;
*Influencing local media in what stories they produce&lt;br /&gt;
*Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cwfa.org/about.asp Concerned Women For America] About page&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Calling anyone who opposes or even questions the homosexual agenda a 'bigot' or other untrue insults.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opponents of the Homosexual Agenda ==&lt;br /&gt;
Some well known individuals/groups in the [[United States]] who actively oppose the homosexual agenda are: [[Focus on the Family]], [[Peter LaBarbera]]'s American's for Truth, the [[Traditional Values Coalition]] ([[Louis Sheldon]] is a chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition), and [[Matt Barber]] of [[Concerned Women of America]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html Homosexuality and the Nazi Party] by Scott Lively.  Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPCollectionNews.asp?ID=131 2008 McDonald's and the Homosexual Agenda], Baptist Press&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.couplescompany.com/FEATURES/politics/2004/Selling%20Homosexuality.pdf Paul E. Rondeau, Selling homosexuality to America (PDF)] [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/730694/posts Or html form]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[ACT-UP]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexual belief system]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gay rights]]&lt;br /&gt;
*&amp;quot;[[Homophobia]]&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hate speech]], [[Hate crime]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Intimate Partner Violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Homosexualization]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexual Agenda]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Homosexuality]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category: Liberal Deceit]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_nitpicking&amp;diff=859258</id>
		<title>Professor nitpicking</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_nitpicking&amp;diff=859258"/>
				<updated>2011-03-27T04:10:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Added categories, provided an insightful example&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Professor nitpicking''' is the common event of college [[professors]] using a fine tooth comb on assignments handed in by [[conservative]] students, while letting factual and logical errors on assignments by [[liberal]] students slide by. It is especially common at large universities, where there is less oversight on professor fairness and balance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
An example of this would be a professor ignoring a [[liberal]]s claim that New Deal policies singlehandedly ended the [[Great Depression]], while harshly grading a [[conservative]]s assignment for a small (or nonexistent) error.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Academics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_nitpicking&amp;diff=859253</id>
		<title>Professor nitpicking</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Professor_nitpicking&amp;diff=859253"/>
				<updated>2011-03-27T03:59:56Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: New page on professors, only a stub as of yet&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Professor nitpicking''' is the common event of college [[professors]] using a fine tooth comb on assignments handed in by [[conservative]] students, while letting factual and logical errors on assignments by [[liberal]] students slide by. It is especially commn at large universities, where there is less oversight on professor fairness and balance.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Individual_responsibility&amp;diff=859213</id>
		<title>Individual responsibility</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Individual_responsibility&amp;diff=859213"/>
				<updated>2011-03-27T02:02:15Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Individual responsibility''' means that each person has the primary responsibility for their own actions and behaviour, and the success or failure of their own life. It does not exclude receiving help or charity from others, but it excludes relying on help or charity when not truly necessary. It means not blaming others for one's own failings or mistakes. It is a [[conservative]] trait.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_hate_speech&amp;diff=859088</id>
		<title>Liberal hate speech</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_hate_speech&amp;diff=859088"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T16:36:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 859081 by NatureLover (talk) liberal vandal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Hope and change.JPG|thumb|225px|right|[[United States Presidential Election, 2008|The 2008 Elections]] were particularly intimidating to [[Republican]] candidates and voters. ]]'''Liberal hate speech''' is [[hate speech]], that is, widely provocative speech to denigrate a legally protected class or group of citizens defined by legislation, employed by [[liberals]]. Liberals claim to support [[tolerance]], but their use of liberal hate speech tends to put the lie to this claim.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Hate speech of liberal icons==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Che Guevara por Alberto Korda.jpg|thumb|225px|right|Che Guevara. Estimated earnings from sales of the image of the dead [[revolution]]ary [[mass murder]]er among [[liberal]]s and impressionable youth runs into tens of millions of dollars.]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Cquote|Hatred as the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent…hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold-blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish [[Socialism]] rivers of [[blood]] must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we’ll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for [[democide|extermination]]. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!|20px|20px|[[Che Guevara]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara speaking about Americans in his 1966 Message to the Tricontinental Conference in Havana, Cuba. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against the disabled==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Liberal pundit and columnist Maureen Dowd referred to &amp;quot;extra chromosome conservatives&amp;quot; in an interview with [[Bill Maher]]'s on HBO.  The National Down Syndrome Society issued a statement saying use of the term &amp;quot;extra chromosome&amp;quot; as a negative descriptor &amp;quot;is insensitive and demeaning to the more than 350,000 people in the United States who have Down syndrome, which occurs when there is an extra copy of the 21st chromosome.  Regardless of who originally coined the term... Ms. Dowd has perpetuated it as a slur against hundreds of thousands of Americans who are contributing members of society and who deserve the same respect that we all expect.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1195999/posts&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Obama [[White House]] Chief of Staff [[Rahm Emanuel]] is reported to commonly denigrate persons he disagrees with as &amp;quot;retarded;&amp;quot; he was pointedly criticized for this by [[Sarah Palin]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/03/AR2010020303001_pf.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Former Vice President, Nobel Prize winner, and senior [[Democratic Party]] elder statesman [[Al Gore]] mocked children with Down syndrome by referring to his political critics as having &amp;quot;an extra chromosome.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/miller200406010833.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*On March 3 2009, President [[Barack Hussein Obama|Obama]] ridiculed children with disabilities on [[Jay Leno]]'s program when answering a question about his bowling prowess. Obama said &amp;quot;It was like Special Olympics.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb-ZSZNaCc0&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://weblogs.newsday.com/entertainment/celebrities_blog/2009/03/barack_obama_jay_leno_and_the.html Barack Obama, Jay Leno and the Special Olympics line] Newsday.com, March 20, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs3aRxTTgaI&amp;amp;annotation_id=annotation_900911&amp;amp;feature=iv&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[File:Obama on Leno.jpg|thumb|400px|left|Obama on Jay Leno's ''Tonight Show'',&amp;lt;br&amp;gt; March 3, 2009.]] The CEO of the Special Olympics defended the program noting the President had &amp;quot;set us back decades with his comments.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.necn.com/Boston/Politics/2009/03/20/Obamas-comment-sets-us-back/1237552251.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Gov. [[Sarah Palin]], whose youngest son Trig was born with Down syndrome, reacted, &amp;quot;This was a degrading remark about our world's most precious and unique people, coming from the most powerful position in the world.&amp;quot;  In her resignation speech as Governor of [[Alaska]], Palin stated: &amp;quot;[T]his decision comes after much consideration, and polling the most important people in my life - my children, where the count was unanimous.  In response to asking: 'Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?' It was four &amp;quot;yes's&amp;quot; and one &amp;quot;hell yeah!&amp;quot; ... much of it had to do with the kids seeing their baby brother Trig mocked by some pretty mean-spirited adults ...&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/07/full-text-of-palins-resignation-speech.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*News24 of South Africa has on its website an obituary for [[Ronald Reagan]] entitled, ''Gay about Reagan's death''. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1538744,00.html ''Gay about Reagan's death''], News24, 07/06/2004.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and quotes Jon Beaupre, a gay journalist and Los Angeles radio talk show host as saying, &amp;quot;I have a feeling that an awful lot of [[gay]] people are going to be cheering, that 'Ding-dong! The wicked witch is dead'.&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
*Actor [[George Clooney]] is unapologetic about tasteless ridicule of an [[Alzheimer's]] sufferer:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote style=&amp;quot;font-style: italic&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:'''KURTZ:''' O'Reilly also criticized you for making a joke about [[Charlton Heston]], the former NRA chief, having Alzheimer's.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:'''CLOONEY:''' Yes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:'''KURTZ:''' Was that in poor taste in retrospect?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:'''CLOONEY:''' Yes, oh, yes. It was in poor taste. It was a funny joke. It was in a room of 100 people. Yeah, (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I have a lot of good friends who -- in fact, I have a very good friend who is dying of Alzheimer's. And it was just a funny joke. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/rs.00.html Interview With George Clooney], Transcript CNN Reliable Sources, October 26, 2003.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImagesCAHSJSJC.jpg|thumb|400px|left|George Soros]]&lt;br /&gt;
*Multi-billionaire Democratic Party donor [[George Soros]], on [[CNN]], groundlessly compared President [[George W. Bush]], who may suffer from dyslexia,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://books.google.com/books?id=Wty3o92hyigC&amp;amp;pg=PA43&amp;amp;dq=George+Bush%2Bdyslexia#v=onepage&amp;amp;q=George%20Bush%20dyslexia&amp;amp;f=false&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; to [[Nazi]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DuafAqAHrc&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Democratic]] Senator [[Al Franken]] of Minnesota peddled a book entitled ''[[Rush Limbaugh]] is a Big, Fat, Stupid Idiot'', viciously ridiculing a person struggling with obesity and deafness.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* In 2007, [[White House]] Press Secretary Tony Snow announced his cancer had returned. Commentators on the left-wing [[Daily Kos]] website remarked, &amp;quot;the world would be better off without him&amp;quot;.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dekalb-chronicle.com/articles/2008/10/30/opinions/national_columnists/doc4906535aad7b3848499949.txt&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Liberal]] talk radio host Mike Malloy lashed out at [[conservative]] commentator [[Glenn Beck]], a recovering [[alcoholic]], told his radio audiend &amp;quot;I have good news to report. Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide. I'm hoping that he does it on camera....given his alcoholism and his tendencies towards self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger, that it’s on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular little piece of video for months.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=52109&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Congressional [[Democrats]] wrote into the so-called &amp;quot;[[health care reform]]&amp;quot; bill of 2009, the outdated and offensive language, &amp;quot;A hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate-care facility for the ''mentally retarded'' . . .&amp;quot; (emphasis added).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nypost.com/seven/07262009/news/nationalnews/retarded_house_bill_181448.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Families of the learning-disabled, mental health experts, and advocates were outraged at the insensitivity of the proposed language in the new law (a rare example of liberals criticizing their own, albeit hypocritically).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://patterico.com/category/political-correctness/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against women== &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Democratic California Gubernatorial candidate [[Jerry Brown]] was condemned by the [[Anti-Defamation League]] for &amp;quot;Offensive And Inappropriate&amp;quot; remarks about GOP challenger [[Meg Whitman]] in 2010.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/PresRele/HolNa_52/5785_52.htm &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Brown later attacked Whitman again with extraordinary vile [[sexist]] gutter language directed at the female challenger.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/07/ca-gov_jerry_brown_agrees_whitman_a_whore_over_pension_battle.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The California [[National Organization for Women]], a [[liberal]] [[feminist]] group, did not withdraw its endorsement of Brown.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/08/womens-group-endorses-brown-on-same-day-as-whore-comment-surfaces/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*New Hampshire [[Democratic]] State Representative Timothy Horrigan posted on Facebook his wish [[Sarah Palin]] and Levy Johnson would have been onboard the airplane crash that killed former Alaska Senator [[Ted Stevens]]. Horrigan wrote &amp;quot;a dead Palin would be even more dangerous than a live one...she is all about her myth&amp;quot; and if she was dead, she wouldn't the target of the liberals attempting to embarrass her. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/12/new-hampshire-democrat-apologizes-palin-death-wish/]&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImagesCAZBVU07.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Sandra Bernhard]]&lt;br /&gt;
*During the 2008 Presidential election campaign season, Barack Obama compared Sarah Palin to a pig. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3473318/9666330&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Liberal &amp;quot;comedian&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;entertainer&amp;quot; [[Sandra Bernhard]] made extraordinary offensive, vicious, despicable and threatening remarks to Gov. [[Sarah Palin]] during a so-called &amp;quot;comedy performance&amp;quot; before a paying audience.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://beltway.blips.com/video/sandra_bernhard_dishes_sarah_palin_at_theater_j/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Dana Milbank hosted a comedy sketch matching various politicians to types of beer; [[Sarah Palin]] was matched to &amp;quot;Arctic Devil&amp;quot; and [[Hillary Clinton]] to &amp;quot;Mad B****.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YArTpukehYY&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; This caused the [[feminist]] group, the ''Center for New Words'', to demand that the sketch's sponsor, the ''Washington Post'', fire everyone involved with it.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.centerfornewwords.org/wam/wapoletter.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*In August 2007, former [[Democratic]] Presidential, Vice-Presidential candidate and amateur [[pornographer]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/29/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5122267.shtml CBSNews.com], June 29 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Senator [[John Edwards]]  viciously attacked social commentator [[Ann Coulter]], calling the petite embodiment of women's aspirations  for equality in the marketplace of ideas a &amp;quot;she-devil&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/edwards-calls-c.html Edwards Calls Coulter 'She-Devil'], ''ABC News'', August 17, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*  'Alternative' comedian Ben Elton's repeated references to [[Margaret Thatcher]] as 'a mad old cow', a sexist jibe that belied his supposed pro-feminist stance. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/feature/44&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against African-Americans==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImagesCAA1778A.jpg|thumb|400px|left|Harry Reid]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[MSNBC]] talkshow host Lawrence O'Donnell said of [[Republican National Committee]] Chairman [[Michael Steele]], &amp;quot;Michael Steele is dancing for his real master, the RNC.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/06/lawrence-odonnell-michael-steele-is-dancing-for-his-real-master-the-rnc/#ixzz11ha7ka52&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The tell-all book ''Game Change'' reports that Senate Democratic Majority Leader [[Harry Reid]] said America would vote for Barack Obama because he was a &amp;quot;light-skinned&amp;quot; African-American &amp;quot;with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35188&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Former Democratic President [[Bill Clinton]], when asking Sen. [[Ted Kennedy]] for his endorsement of [[Hillary Clinton]], said of Obama: &amp;quot;A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=35188&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] has been the relentless target of the most vile liberal hatred since his appointment, being viewed as a &amp;quot;race traitor&amp;quot; on account of his [[conservative]] views.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Colin Powell]] is a respected and popular statesman who rejected offers to be drafted for President in 1996. In an interview, liberal [[activist]] Harry Belafonte, who is also African-American, stated, &amp;quot;There are those slaves who lived on the plantation, and there were those slaves who lived in the house. You got the privilege of living in the house if you served the master to exactly the way the master intended to have you serve him. That gave you privilege. Colin Powell is permitted to come into the house of the master, as long as he will serve the master according to the master's dictates.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/30/157217&amp;amp;mode=thread&amp;amp;tid=25 Interview with Harry Belefonte], ''Democracy Now'', January 30th, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  In a highly visible action reminiscent of the [[Maoist]] [[rectification]] campaign, Powell later admitted to errors and his reputation partially rehabilitated among [[leftist]]s by endorsing Barack Obama for President in 2008.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Former [[Vermont]] [[Governor]] and current DNC chairman, [[Howard Dean]] joked during a speech, “You think the Republican National Committee could get this many people of color in a single room? Only if they had the hotel staff in here.” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17718-2005Feb11.html], The Special-Interest Group Hug, Feb 12th, 2005 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Boxerbarb.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Barbara Boxer]]&lt;br /&gt;
*Leftist &amp;quot;entertainer&amp;quot; [[Sandra Bernhard]] described what in her view is stereotypical of the behavior of African American men in Manhattan.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2008/09/19/sandra-bernhard-palin-would-be-gang-raped-blacks-manhattan&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Senator [[Barbara Boxer]] ([[Democratic Party|D]]-[[California|CA]]) made racially condescending remarks to the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce during a Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee hearing on [[Global warming]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.breitbart.tv/god-awful-black-chamber-of-commerce-ceo-rips-sen-boxer-for-condescending-racial-remarks/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against Hispanics==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Alberto Gonzales]], the first Hispanic U.S. Attorney General, was consistently mocked on liberal websites as &amp;quot;Alberto 'Speedy' Gonzales&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=800028910&amp;amp;start=0 ''Speedy Gonzales to Resign''], Aug 27, 2007. Retrieved from History.com message boards August 30, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; during his tenure.  Speedy Gonzales is a reference to a disparaging stereotypical cartoon character of Hispanics that Hollywood attempted to popularize in the 1950s and 60s. Upon his retirement, ''[[NBC News]]'' anchor [[Matt Lauer]] called Gonzales &amp;quot;a piñata&amp;quot; for the Democrats.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/static/2007/08/2007-08-28-NBC-TDYpinata.rm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[New Mexico]] Democratic Gubernatiorial candidate Diane Denish ran a campaign based upon racially motivated prejudice and fear against Susana Martinez,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://patterico.com/2010/10/15/dog-whistling-in-new-mexico-%e2%80%9cno-tejana-susana-%e2%80%9d/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://allergic2bull.blogspot.com/2010/10/so-how-is-this-not-dog-whistle.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; later the first Hispanic woman elected governor in the United States. Robert Aragon, a Democratic former state lawmaker said the attacks turned a &amp;quot;whisper campaign&amp;quot; into &amp;quot;a public smear campaign&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;demonstrates a stunning display of intolerance.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abqjournal.com/news/state/07232429033newsstate10-07-10.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against South Asians==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Michael Moore]] affecting a mock Indian accent live on air and ridiculing CNN Chief Medical Correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta's name. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.racewire.org/archives/2007/07/moore_attacks_cnn_network_spew.html Moore attacks CNN network, spews anti-South Asian sentiments], ''RaceWire.org'', July 10, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against Jews==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:PETAHolocaust plate.png|thumb|400px|right|Image from a PETA fundraising effort.  The group claimed, &amp;quot;Six million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughterhouses.&amp;quot; [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/12/21/INGH63PBJ81.DTL]]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Secretary of State]] [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]] referred to a subordinate as a &amp;quot;Jew bastard.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Veteran [[White House]] correspondent [[Helen Thomas]], who covered every president for nearly 50 years since [[John F. Kennedy]], said Jews should &amp;quot;get the hell out of [[Palestine]],&amp;quot; and return to where they came from, suggesting Germany, Poland and the United States.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/06/veteran-white-house-reporter-helen-thomas-retires-following-controversial-remarks/1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Economist [[Paul Krugman]] in a message to [[progressives]] published as a ''[[New York Times]]'' Op-Ed  piece stated  [[Connecticut]] Senator and former  [[Democratic]] Vice Presidential candidate [[Joseph Lieberman]] should be hung in effigy.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&amp;amp;ref=opinion ''message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy,'']] Paul Krugman, ''New York Times'' Op-ed, December 17 2009.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Rev. [[Jesse Jackson]] said on January 25, 1984, &amp;quot;all Hymie wants to talk about, is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that's all they want to talk about.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=187440 Jesse and the Jews], Michael W. Hirschorn, ''The Harvard Crimson'', March 05, 1984.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA) equated the victims of [[National Socialism]] with slaughterhogs and broiler chickens in a fundraising effort.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Anti-war activist [[Cindy Sheehan]] said &amp;quot;Casey was killed for lies and for a [[PNAC]] Neo-Con &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&amp;amp;list=h-antisemitism&amp;amp;month=0304&amp;amp;week=&amp;amp;msg=4zdiWX1EuCVzeRLDdQySKA&amp;amp;user=&amp;amp;pw= 'Neo-conservative' is a codeword for Jewish], Dr. Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Institute, Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya, H-Net discussion April 6, 2003.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; agenda to benefit Israel&amp;quot;, &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;National Review, [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2FjYjA3NDU2NThiZjI4YzFkYTdkZmViY2M5M2U4MTE= ''Dear Useful Idiot''], Catherine Seipp, May 26, 2006. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; accusing members of a vast right-wing Jewish conspiracy of being responsible for her son's death to benefit Israel.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:ImagesCAB1VQK3.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Clip from [[Michael Moore]]'s pro-[[Castro]] film,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=NjE5NWFkNWU0ZGJhMzdlNjRkMGUzYWMzNGI2NDI5MzI= ''The Myth of Cuban Health Care] Michael Moore gives it a powerful boost'', Jay Nordlinger, [[National Review]] Online, July 30, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; ''[[Sicko]]''. Cuba's [[universal healthcare]] program performed forced [[lobotomy|lobotomies]] as medical treatment for [[homosexuality]] into the 1990s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.1cubaweb.com/Forced%20Lobotomies%20Against%20Gays.html Socialist Lobotomies Against Homosexuals in Castro's Cuba,] By Notra Trulock, July 23, 2002.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Dawkins]] claimed that Jews &amp;quot;more or less monopolize American foreign policy.&amp;quot;  His comments have been criticized by the Anti-Defamation League as &amp;quot;classic Anti-Semitism.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/134346 Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy], Israel National News, October 8, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ward Churchill]] was referring to the victims of the 9/11 attacks as &amp;quot;little Eichmann’s&amp;quot;, comparing them to the infamous Nazi leader.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1835&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Barack Obama]]'s pastor and mentor [[Jeremiah Wright]], being asked a question about Obama, said, &amp;quot;Them Jews aren't going to let him talk to me.&amp;quot; The story was buried by the liberal-aligned [[MSM]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/10/wright-suggests-jews-white-house-wont-let-speak-obama/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Rev. [[Al Sharpton]] picketed a Jewish store in Harlem, NY over a landlord dispute. Sharpton personally incited the protesters chanting 'bloodsucking Jews.' When it was all over, a protester ran into the store shooting people and set the place on fire. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004192 Democrats Embrace 'Impresario of Hatred'] Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2003&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sharpton also played a part in inciting the Crown Heights riot by referring to the Jews of the area as &amp;quot;diamond dealers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against Roman Catholics==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Behar at GLAAD.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Joy Behar]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[ABC]] and [[CNN]]'s Headline News personality [[Joy Behar]] has been cited by the [[Anti-Defamation League]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20061219-TheView.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.catholiccitizens.org/platform/platformview.asp?c=36974&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; for repeated use of inappropriate and offensive misrepresentations and anti-Catholic&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://theview.abc.go.com/forum/joy-behars-anti-catholic-remarks&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; [[bigot]]ry. Behar has said of the [[Roman Catholic]] process of canonization for example,&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;you can’t find any saints any more because of psycho-tropic medication. I think that the old days the saints were hearing voices and they didn’t have any thorazine to calm them down. Now that we have all of this medication available to us, you can’t find a saint any more.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*Behar belittled the canonization of [[Mother Teresa]], saying,&lt;br /&gt;
::&amp;quot;Mother Teresa had issues. Let’s not forget, she didn’t really believe 100 percent like these saints who were hearing voices. She didn’t hear voices. So the Church said 'okay, she does good deeds. Let’s make her a saint.' In the old days it used to be you heard voices. They can’t do that anymore.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&amp;amp;id=64C940F1-3048-887F-8F406CBB4CC63D45&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against Evangelical Christians==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Dawkins]] in his 2006 book ''The God Delusion,'' states fundamentalist religion &amp;quot;saps the intellect,&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/2006/Oct/hour2_100606.html Sciencefriday.com page on Dawkins]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and refers to belief in [[God]] as a &amp;quot;mind-virus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47052/ The Dawkins Delusion] by Alistair McGrath&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Extremist]] Katherine Yurica stated the [[Republican Party]] gained power through &amp;quot;[[Hitler]]ian tactics&amp;quot;, that [[evangelical]] leaders from [[Billy Graham]] to [[Jerry Falwell]] &amp;quot;had to have read Hitler’s [[Mein Kampf]],&amp;quot; and that [[Christian]]s have &amp;quot;[[fascist]]ic tendencies.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ird-renew.org/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&amp;amp;b=494491&amp;amp;ct=928973 ''President Bush Called “Evil,” Evangelicals Equated With Nazis at NCC-Supported Conference''], John Lomperis, The Institute on Religion and Democracy. &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://the-fourth-world.blogspot.com/2006/11/apocalypse-no-christian-fascism-and.html Apocalypse No! Christian Fascism and the Nazi Legacy], Apocalypse No! An Indigenist Perspective, by Juan Santos, November 01, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Pravknight#POV_editing Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Pravknight/POV editing], Retrieved from Wikipedia October 22, 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Liberals and [[liberal Christian]]s regularly promote their [[theory of Fundamentalist anti-Semitism]], a long-standing hoax falsely accusing [[Conservative Christian]]s of anti-Semitism.  In reality, a 30 year study of the [[liberal Christian]] magazine ''[[The Christian Century]]'' concluded that it was in fact consistently anti-Semitic.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Baldwin incites violence against Henry Hyde.JPG|thumb|225px|right|''Thanks to Media Research Center'' [http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19981215.asp#5]]]&lt;br /&gt;
*In his latest book ''The Resilience of Conservative Religion'' (2002), [[liberal]] professor of sociology [[Joseph B. Tamney]] puts Christian conservatives into the same religious category as one of the most radical and most hate-filled Islamic figures of the late 20th century: [[Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against prominent conservatives==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*  A written response about [[Vice President of the United States of America|Vice President]] Dick Cheney's trip to [[Afghanistan]] and an attempt against his life &amp;quot;Better luck next time&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://newsbusters.org/node/14164 , Newsbusters.com Bill O’Reilly Disgusted, July 17, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Actor [[Alec Baldwin]] urged a television audience of approximately 3 million viewers to [[murder]] Congressman [[Henry Hyde]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/1998/cyb19981215.asp#5]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Clark Clifford]], a high level trusted confident, cabinet secretary, and Ambassador-at-Large to [[Democratic]] Presidents [[Truman]], [[Lyndon Johnson]], and [[Jimmy Carter]] referred to President [[Ronald Reagan]] while in office as &amp;quot;an amiable dunce.&amp;quot;  Clifford was at the time caught up in the notorious [[BCCI]] scandal.&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Phelps with Gore.JPG|thumb|225px|right|[[Al Gore]] attending a [[Westboro Baptist Church]] event with the Rev. Fred Phelps.]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*The [[Media Research Center]] in response to an attack on President George W. Bush said of [[MSNBC]]'s [[Keith Olbermann]], &amp;quot;Mr. Olbermann’s comments are beyond partisan. They are radically extreme and hateful.... Mr. Olbermann is using his national program to hatefully savage the President with personal smears in order to help [[Democrat]]s win in next week’s election.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.mrc.org/press/2006/press20061102.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  MSNBC allowed Olbermann for years to deliver vicious personal attacks and slander on a nightly basis angainst conservatives and [[Christian]]s in a segment on Olbermann's TV show entitled, ''The Worst Person in the World.''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/05/05/2010-05-05_starting_in_left_field_keith_olbermann_hes_embraced_by_mlb_and_the_nfl_while_lim.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Sarah Palin agreed to speak at a fund raiser for military families in need and for a grief camp for children who had lost loved ones in combat. Liberals thanked her with &amp;quot;an onslaught of personal attacks&amp;quot;, some of which &amp;quot;[raised] concerns for her safety and the safety of others&amp;quot;, prompting the cancellation of the event.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/palin-event-cancelled-due-to-a.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Homophobia==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[HBO]]  ''[[Real Time]]'' host [[Bill Maher]]'s on-air [[homophobic]] comments about Republicans were [[censor]]ed by CNN. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/11/08/censored-by-cnn-bill-mah_n_33701.html Censored by CNN : Bill Maher Suggest RNC Chair Mehlman is Gay], ''The Huffington Post'', November 8, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;   &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Former Kansas [[Democrat]]ic Gubernatorial candidate [[Fred Phelps]] and pastor of the [[Westboro Baptist Church]] is known for notorious inflammatory anti-homosexual rhetoric and support of other high profile liberal and Democratic causes.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The &amp;quot;God Hates Fags&amp;quot; [[Left]],] By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Race baiting==  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Barack Hussein Obama]] has fueled [[racial]] and ethnic tension among [[partisan]]s urging them to &amp;quot;punish our enemies and reward our friends.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.huffingtonpost.com/t/potus-were-gonna-punish-o_29094498991.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*An anonymous editor at the ''New York Times'' attacked Rep. [[Tom DeLay]] with the most vile [[hate speech]] in DeLay's [[Wikipedia]] biographical entry.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&amp;amp;diff=prev&amp;amp;oldid=85320018&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&amp;amp;location=&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Against others==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[U.S. Supreme Court]] Justice [[Sonia Sotomayor]] has stated, &amp;quot;gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging....a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Sotomayor, &amp;quot;A Latina Judge’s Voice,&amp;quot; (2002), [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=1&amp;amp;pagewanted=all online edition]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://hq.protestwarrior.com/?page=/featured/PHS/PHS.php Bryan Henderson's attempts to balance socialist political science teacher], a civil libertarian come face to face with leftist hate.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29414 Liberal hate speech], Judith Reisman, ''[[WorldNetDaily.com]]'', October 25, 2002.&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&amp;diff=859087</id>
		<title>Hollywood values</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&amp;diff=859087"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T16:35:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 859079 by NatureLover (talk) liberal vandal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Hollywood-sign wikimedia.jpg|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, [[narcissism]], rampant [[drug|drug use]], [[adultery|extramarital sex]] leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted [[disease]], [[abortion]], lawlessness, promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]] and death.  A 2006 poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that &amp;quot;Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been, however, a handful of prominent people whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Pat Boone]], [[Paul Schofield]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and ''Independence Day'' (a movie about [[Independence Day]]) being recent examples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood values include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[patriotism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[religion]] and [[spirituality]] (Hollywood's profits depend on the [[advertising]] and sale of [[materialism|material goods]] and other superficial &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; to problems.)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[accountability]]&lt;br /&gt;
* the U.S. military&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hollywood_gets_it_right_p4d84a9jyymsfLw0THb7EM Hollywood gets it right, New York Post, March 09, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* family responsibilities, like childrearing&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Britney Spears]] &amp;quot;doesn't want [her] kids back.&amp;quot; [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* laws that apply to everyone else&lt;br /&gt;
* Commonly accepted behavioral boundaries and values of human decency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Hollywood portrays these values as rebellious and [[counterculture|countercultural]]. They portray religious and spiritual institutions as greedy, self-serving, sexually perverted, prejudiced, ignorant, and unscientific. When comparing the satisfaction brought about by faith, spirituality, family, and friendship, which may happen to include donations to a church or other organization, it is clear that the profits of Hollywood and the industries which rely upon Hollywood for profit are the true establishment - thus making traditional values truly rebellious and countercultural, and Hollywood values a lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Deaths ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood values are deadly. Tourists in Hollywood can visit over 30 sites of typically self-inflicted Hollywood celebrity deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/celebrity-death-sites.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A sampling of deaths caused by Hollywood values include:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&amp;amp;page=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/20021--list-of-celebrities-taken-by-drug-use-tragic-and-growing&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elisa Bridges]], 28, 'Playboy' magazine model, drug overdose combining heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Carradine]], 72, died from suffocation most likely suicide, had history of suicidal thoughts, alcohol and narcotics abuse &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525177,00.html Thai Police: Carradine Death May Be Accidental Suffocation] Fox News, June 05, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Stephen Clark]], 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lana Clarkson]], 40, actress and model murdered by [[Phil Spector]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, lead singer from the band Nirvana, a heroin addict who committed suicide with a shotgun blast to the head.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ray Combs]], 40, host of the TV game show Family Feud committed suicide by hanging himself in a psychiatric ward.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Costelloe]], 47, actor from HBO's The Sopranos known as &amp;quot;Johnny Cakes&amp;quot;, shot himself in the head. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472864,00.html 'Sopranos' Actor Shocks Fans, Loved Ones With Holiday Suicide] NYPost, December 25, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bob Crane]],49, the actor's success led to a bizarre life of sex addiction. He was bludgeoned to death.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot&lt;br /&gt;
*[[James Dean]], 24, a notoriously reckless and frequently ticketed driver crashed fatally head-on into a car turning left in front of his Porsche (see also crime, below)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lucy Gordon]], 28, British actress from the movie Spiderman 3, hung herself &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/wireStory?id=7642829 Actress Lucy Gordon Found Dead at Age 28 in Paris, ABC News, May 21, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lee Grivas]], 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Corey Haim, 38, teen idol who starred in many movies and then a reality show, died of a drug overdose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8560246.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phil Hartman]], 49, murdered in his million-dollar house by his drug-addicted third wife Brynn Hartman&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Russell Tyrone Jones]] (a.k,a. &amp;quot;Old Dirty Bastard&amp;quot;), 35, musician, died of drug overdose two days before his 36th birthday&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Andrew Koenig]], 41, child actor in the TV series Growing Pains committed suicide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://omg.yahoo.com/news/andrew-koenigs-body-found-in-vancouver-park/36485?nc Andrew Koenig's Body Found in Vancouver Park, Yahoo News, February 25, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. &amp;quot;Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Queen (band)|Freddie Mercury]], 45, born Farrokh Bulsara, lead singer of the band Queen, died from AIDS-related bronchial pneumonia.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested &amp;quot;a homosexual motive&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brittany Murphy]], 32, motion picture film actress died of cardiac arrest from combining prescription drugs &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/27/brittany-murphy-taken-vicodin-days/ Brittany Murphy May Have Taken 109 Vicodin in 11 Days, Fox News, February 27, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Official death from pneumonia and drug intoxication.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], &amp;quot;died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Freddie Prinze]], 22, actor from Chico and the Man committed suicide by gunshot to the head.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Robert Reed]], 59, actor known as Mike Brady was a homosexual with AIDS, died from cancer in 1992. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/08/14/brady-bunch?slide=25 Robert Reed in 1990, Fox News]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking&lt;br /&gt;
*[[George Reeves]], 45, played Superman from the series Adventures of Superman, suicide by gunshot&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dorothy Stratten]], 20, murdered by spouse after engaging in extramarital affair&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Strickland]], 29, cast member of NBC's Suddenly Susan hung himself in a Las Vegas hotel.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house.  (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Herve Villechaize]], 50, actor who played Tattoo on the hit show Fantasy Island, committed suicide by self-inflicted gunshot.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43, drowned while intoxicated.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Layne Staley]], 34, found dead in apartment two weeks after a drug overdose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/staley1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Layne promoted the use of hard drugs in the 1992 [[Alice in Chains]] song &amp;quot;Junkhead&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Junkhead-lyrics-Alice-In-Chains/3A665DABDFC00AD54825688F0010CD45&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paul Gray]], 38, bassist of heavy metal band Slipknot, died of an overdose of morphine and fentanyl. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_en_mu/us_slipknot_bassist_autopsy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Shannon Michelle Wilsey, a.k.a Savanna, a pornographic film star, committed suicide after a drunken car accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==&lt;br /&gt;
The loose sexual morals characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases.  Examples include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.&lt;br /&gt;
* Michael Jeter, who was homosexual, also died due to AIDS-related complications. &lt;br /&gt;
* Freddie Mercury of the rock group [[Queen (band)|Queen]], notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Crime ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes.  Here are some examples:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paris Hilton]] was arrested in Las Vegas, 8/27/2010, for possession of a controlled substance, [[Cocaine]]. The hotel heiress was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police. The driver was arrested for DUI '''pertaining to drugs, not alcohol'''. Through further interaction between Hilton and authorities, it was discovered she was in possession of a controlled substance. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/28/paris-hilton-arrested-drug-possession/ Paris Hilton arrested in Las Vegas.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Actress Lori Petty, who was featured in &amp;quot;Free Willy&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;A League of their Own&amp;quot; and ran into a 14-year-old skateboarder and was arrested for felony drunk driving charges.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015343906&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's &amp;quot;The Office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial.  He has since been convicted of unrelated felonies.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], MSNBC, May 4, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offense committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of &amp;quot;committing a lewd act in public&amp;quot;, having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.  Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession. He is a libertarian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucllibertarians.com/celebrities.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who advocates marijuana use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&amp;amp;entry_id=21457&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.&lt;br /&gt;
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges.  &amp;quot;The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Martha Stewart]] was charged with illegal [[insider trading]] in 2003.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-69.htm SEC press release (SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: &amp;quot;I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk driving in 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Former Power Rangers actor [[Skylar Deleon]], will have three separate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433765,00.html 'Power Rangers' Actor Set to Stand Trial in Yacht Killings] AP, October 7, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  he was sentenced to death for committing murder.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&amp;amp;SubSectionID=1&amp;amp;ArticleID=66850&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Musician George O'Dowd, better known by his stage name, [[Boy George]], has been convicted (and will likely go to prison) for handcuffing a male escort to a bed against his will and then beating him with a chain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092168/Guilty-Boy-George-warned-judge-faces-jail-falsely-imprisoning-male-escort.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Earlier he had been convicted of cocaine possession.&lt;br /&gt;
*Dana Plato was arrested for armed robbery and prescription forgery.&lt;br /&gt;
*Todd Bridges assaulted a motorist and was repeatedly arrested for drug-related offenses.&lt;br /&gt;
*Gary Coleman was arrested for assaulting a woman by punching her in the face.&lt;br /&gt;
*Musician/Producer [[Phil Spector]] was found guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson. He was convicted of second-degree murder. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30194936/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Kiefer Sutherland, Fox television's &amp;quot;24&amp;quot; star was charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly head-butting a fashion designer at a nightclub. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47880 ‘24’ Star Kiefer Sutherland Charged for Allegedly Head-Butting a Fashion Designer] Associated Press, May 8, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Elmore &amp;quot;Rip&amp;quot; Torn was arrested for breaking into a bank and carrying a firearm while intoxicated. In 2009, he was given probation in a drunk-driving case. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/30/actor-rip-torn-arrested-allegedly-breaking-connecticut-bank/?test=latestnews Actor Rip Torn Arrested for Allegedly Breaking Into Connecticut Bank, Fox News, January 30, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Former teen actor Leif Garrett was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. He has a number of former arrests including [[heroin]] possession. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/03/crimesider/entry6170622.shtml Leif Garrett Arrested: Former Teen Idol Busted for Controlled Substance, CBS News, February 3, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sean Penn]] was charged with criminal battery and vandalism for attacking the paparazzi in October 2009. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/19/sean-penn-crime-battery-vandalism-prosecution-jail-paparazzi/ Sean Penn Charged With Crimes, TMZ, February 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Comedian [[Andy Dick]] was arrested for groping an employee and a patron of a nightclub in West Virginia. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.herald-dispatch.com/breaking/x818845820/Andy-Dick-arrested-by-HPD Andy Dick charged with felony, shows still on, Herald Dispatch, January 23, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Nicholas Brendon had been arrested March '10 in a drunken scuffle with police. He is charged with resisting arrest, two counts of battery against a police officer and felony vandalism. Brendon has a history of alcoholism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/07/nicholas-brendon-arrested-charged/ 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' Star Charged With Police Battery, Vandalism, PopEater.com, April 7, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Hollywood television producer Bruce Beresford-Redman of CBS's &amp;quot;Survivor&amp;quot; series is arrested as the lead suspect in the murder of his wife. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/08/mexican-official-hollywood-tv-producer-suspect-wifes-death/?test=latestnews 'Survivor' Producer 'Suspected' in Wife's Death in Mexico, FOX News, April 8, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Chris Klein, star of the American Pie films, which glorify sex and alcohol abuse, was arrested for drunk driving in June 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/16/american-pie-chris-klein-busted-for-dui-arrest/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Michael Brea played roles in Ugly Betty and Step Up 3D, kills his 55-year old mother with a sword while yelling Bible verses. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/24/ugly-betty-actor-allegedly-kills-mother-foot-sword-screaming-repent/ 'Ugly Betty' Actor Allegedly Kills Mother With 3-Foot Sword While Screaming 'Repent', FOX News, November 24, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*TV host and actor Gary Collins was arrested and charged with a felony for allegedly leaving a restaurant without paying his $59.35 tab. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/05/tv-host-gary-collins-arrested-skipping-restaurant/ TV Host Gary Collins Arrested for Skipping Out on $59 Restaurant Bill, FOXNews, January 5, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actress Jaime Pressly was arrested for driving under the influence. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/11/jaime-pressly-wasted-dui-arrest/ Jaime Pressly Blew Nearly Three Times Legal Limit on Breathalyzer Before Arrest, Fox News, January 11, 2011 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Korey Rowe, producer of the 9/11 conspiracy film ''Loose Change'' is arrested for selling heroin. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/31/conspiracy-film-producer-arrested-drug-charges/?test=latestnews 9/11 Conspiracy Film Producer Arrested on Drug Charges, Fox News, January 31, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Lindsay Lohan is facing felony grand theft charge, she was accused of stealing a $2500 necklace from a Venice boutique. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ttp://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/05/lindsay-lohan-facing-years-state-prison-jewelry-theft Lindsay Lohan Facing Three Years in State Prison, Fox News, February 5, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Christina Aguilera arrested under the misdemeanor charge of public intoxication. [http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/01/christina-aguilera-arrested-public-intoxication-report-says/?test=faces Christina Aguilera Arrested for Public Intoxication, Fox News, March 1, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Falsehoods ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuate [[liberal]]-driven [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|falsehoods]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Inside Job]]&lt;br /&gt;
:A 2010 film by Democrat donor Charles Ferguson that blames the Great Recession on [[Wall Street]], deregulation, the [[Bush Administration]]. The film whitewashes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role and claims the financial system corrupted politics. Capitalists are the bad guys.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fair Game]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Another Bush bash flick starring communist [[Sean Penn]]. 2010 film rehashes the lead up to the war in Iraq and [[Valerie Plame]]'s role. Typical un-American Hollywood film ''&amp;quot;The narrative that [[Karl Rove]] and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff [[Scooter Libby]] were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses.&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war/ Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’ propagates easily disprovable myths about lead up to Iraq War http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war The Daily Caller, November 11, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The Iron Lady]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Meryl Streep plays [[Margaret Thatcher]] in this gross mistake of a film. Liberals distort her triumphs and her low career points. Streep portrays Thatcher as a dementia-sufferer looking back at her life with sadness. The director defended the film as &amp;quot;a fictional film but it will be fair and accurate.” Thatcher's children Mark and Carol are appalled and say “They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7895160/Margaret-Thatchers-family-are-appalled-at-Meryl-Streep-film.html Margaret Thatcher's family are 'appalled' at Meryl Streep film, Telegraphe.co.uk, July 17, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The Tillman Story]]&lt;br /&gt;
:A liberals view of the circumstances surrounding the death of football star and Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]]. The film portrays each and every fact as sinister.  Plus, each and every fact is evidence of a conspiracy. Typical Hollywood [[George W. Bush]] bashing flick. The bias was clear, make Tillman a liberal atheist anti-war hero that was cannon-fodder for the government. Tillman's actions speak louder than any twisted accusations presented in this documentary. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/07/13/the-tillman-story-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-your-agenda/ FILM REVIEW: Absurd Conspiracy Theories Abound in Agenda-Driven ‘Tillman Story’, BigHollywood.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Adherents to Hollywood values &amp;quot;green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough?  Yet Shepard is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Inherit the Wind]] &lt;br /&gt;
:Hollywood perpetuated complete lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] in order to smear Christianity, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as being ignorant, harsh and punitive, based on a false portrayal of his actions and testimony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*falsely claiming that at the end Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid caring and reasonable Darwinists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*falsely portraying the Darwinists in a positive light and the Christians as deceitful&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[U 571]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]].  However, in the film the capture is made by Americans.  In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Loose Change]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2005 9/11 conspiracy film that blames the U.S. government for attacking its own citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Recount-film]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real Warren Christopher and James Baker contend the film’s portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Winter Soldiers]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 1972 film about U.S. troops from Vietnam put on record as baby killers, human rights violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in [[Vietnam]] and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in Congress over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2006 false documentary about man-made [[global warming]] created &amp;amp; hyped by [[Al Gore]]. A [[British]] court found the film contained at least [http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Al_Gore.27s_.22Inconvenient_Truth.22_Movie_Claims 11 material falsehoods]. The Science and Public Policy Institute has found 35 falsehoods associated with the film. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths, Science and Public Policy Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fahrenheit 911]]&lt;br /&gt;
:A [[Michael Moore]] film that was a false portrayal of why America fought a war against [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq. The main theme was to attack [[George W. Bush]] during wartime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sicko]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Another [[Michael Moore]] film which spread many falsehoods about American healthcare while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of socialized healthcare. Memorably referred to Cuban healthcare as being better than American healthcare.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Redacted]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Brian De Palma’s 2007 fictional anti-Iraq War film funded by [[Mark Cuban]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Disrespect for marriage==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was &amp;quot;destroying my body,&amp;quot; trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times. One of her marriages - to Felipe de Alba - was annulled after one day.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Johnny Carson]] married four (4) times, and frequently made light of his having divorced three times, as if this were something funny.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Meredith Baxter]] married and divorced four (4) times; she finally admitted in 2009 that she was a [[homosexual]].&lt;br /&gt;
*In 2009, the married [[David Letterman]] admitted to having had adulterous sexual relationships with multiple members of his staff; he had previously fathered a child out of wedlock.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jayne Mansfield]] was married three times and had numerous extramarital affairs.  She appeared in the centerfold of the pornographic magazine Playboy, and died in an automobile accident.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Britney Spears]]' 2004 marriage to Jason Alexander lasted 55 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
*Musicians [[Cher]] and [[Gregg Allman]] were married for eight days in 1975.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Drew Barrymore]] has two of the shortest celebrity marriages on record, one of 30 days and a five-month marriage to notorious lowbrow comedian Tom Green. Barrymore is a poster child for Hollywood values, as a former child star who became an alcoholic and drug addict who also posed for pornographic magazines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Offensive Behavior/Moral depravity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charlie Sheen]] to Wife Brooke Mueller: &amp;quot;I'll Kill You.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/09/charlie-sheen-wife-brook-mueller-ill-kill-you/?test=latestnews Charlie Sheen to Wife Brooke Mueller: &amp;quot;I'll Kill You&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Sheen was arrested on Christmas Day for domestic abuse of his current wife Brooke. He was booked for  second-degree assault, menacing, and criminal mischief. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/25/actor-charlie-sheen-arrested-domestic-violence-charges/?test=faces Actor Charlie Sheen Released From Jail After Domestic Abuse Arrest, Fox News, December 25, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sheen has a history that includes assaults against girlfriends and his former wife. He is also infamous for drug/alcohol abuse, having tried (and failed) numerous attempts in rehab clinics. He was fired from the sitcom Two and A Half Men where, in true Hollywood hypocrisy, he played an &amp;quot;amusingly&amp;quot; alcohol-abusing ladies' man, except the lifestyle proves consequence-free. Sheen has become dangerously unhinged in recent weeks and has been making increasingly bizarre rants online. No one from Hollywood has yet to step in.&lt;br /&gt;
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types.  Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless &amp;quot;topless&amp;quot;]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed,&amp;quot; Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. &amp;quot;I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines,&amp;quot; a network statement said. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.&lt;br /&gt;
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres &amp;quot;married&amp;quot; Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it &amp;quot;the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.&lt;br /&gt;
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Celebrity of the moment [[Kourtney Kardashian]] gave a risque lingerie shoot while pregnant with her boyfriend's child. After birth, Mom and baby adorned magazine covers, highlighting the modern acceptance of single motherhood. The cover reads ''&amp;quot;Baby Mason will bring our family together,&amp;quot;'' obscuring the traditional meaning of family. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/10/16/kardashian-sisters?slide=2 The Kardashian Family, Fox News]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor [[Jude Law]] had a sexual relationship with model Samantha Burke that produced a daughter. It is reported that Law finally went to visit his daughter for the first time, 5 months after she was born. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/jude-law-makes-first-visit-to-love-child-216056/ Jude Law Makes First Visit To Love Child, CelebrityGossip.net, March 1, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor [[Tom Hanks]] called Mormons 'un-American' for their support of Proposition 8 in California. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/23/tom-hanks-apologizes-calling-mormon-supporters-proposition-american/ Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American', Fox News, January 23, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Cusack]] calls for satanic death cult to descend on Fox News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and GOP welfare freaks. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/?test=faces John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders, FOXNews, August 31, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brad Pitt]], appearing in a Spike Lee film announces his desire to see BP executives get the death penalty. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1008/pitt_death_penalty_for_bp.html Brad Pitt: Death Penalty For BP, Politico, August 23, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hollywood &amp;quot;humor&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Another manifestation of Hollywood's offensiveness and moral depravity is found in many of its &amp;quot;comedy&amp;quot; movies. More so than any other entertainment industry, many Hollywood productions rely on lowbrow, juvenile humor. Unlike more intelligent comedies of the early to mid-20th century (such as ''The Great Dictator'' or ''Arsenic and Old Lace''), many contemporary Hollywood comedies eschew intelligence, social commentary, wit or satire in favor of lower-hanging fruit, such as &amp;quot;toilet humor,&amp;quot; nudity/sex, gratuitous violence and shock value. Examples of such films include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''American Pie'' - a long-running film franchise primarily dealing with teenage sex and alcohol, relies on jokes about sex and bodily functions&lt;br /&gt;
*''Jackass'' - essentially a montage of ridiculous stunts and pranks with no coherent story&lt;br /&gt;
*''South Park'' - uses constant iterations of urine, feces, farting and shock humor, such as jokes about abortion, rape and the Holocaust&lt;br /&gt;
*''There's Something About Mary'' - contains gratuitous sex and jokes about bodily functions&lt;br /&gt;
*''Family Guy'' - notorious for its shock tactics, this show routinely employs willful tastelessness for comedic shock value. Examples include one regular character who is a pedophile, as well as constant Hitler jokes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rehab ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. &amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lindsay Lohan]]&amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eva Mendes]]&amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]&amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Robert Downey Jr.]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Courtney Love]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Heather Locklear]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'&amp;quot;  She &amp;quot;checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression.&amp;quot;[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Arquette]], enters rehab for for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/david-arquette-rehab-alcohol-courteney-cox-arquette.html David Arquette enters rehab; Courteney Cox supportive, L.A. Times, January 3, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hypocrisy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and gun-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''&amp;quot;I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him.&amp;quot;''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.   &lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, &amp;quot;It was very disturbing meeting you.&amp;quot; Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''&amp;quot;I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association.&amp;quot;''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Using appearances to promote their [[liberal]] political views==&lt;br /&gt;
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] &amp;quot;doesn't care about black people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, &amp;quot;If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place.&amp;quot;  She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for &amp;quot;Bowling for Columbine,&amp;quot; saying, &amp;quot;We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, &amp;quot;We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actress Megan Fox was recently quoted by MSN in a piece entitled &amp;quot;The Wit and Wisdom of Megan Fox&amp;quot; discussing her new movie Transformers 2. She said &amp;quot;why not just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super Bible-beating people in Middle America?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=559876 Megan Fox would barter using ‘Bible-beating white trash’]OneNewsNow.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/07/15/lovely-talented-khloe-kardashian?test=faces The youngest of the Kardashian gals decided flashing photographers was the best way to get some attention, FOX News, April 1, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. [[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State's]] Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, &amp;quot;Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Celebrity.jpg|right|250px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Award Shows==&lt;br /&gt;
Fans of Hollywood are served copious amounts of vanity and glamour as celebrities are greeted on the red-carpet attending award events. Paparazzi snap pictures and the stars are rated for their appearance in various tabloids and entertainment television. Once the celebrities have arrived at the awards, television cameras capture for the masses acceptance speeches of their beloved stars. Once limited to couple of banquets such as the [[Emmy Award|Emmys]] or [[Golden Globe]]s, now some two-dozen award shows are vying for exposure. These new award shows offer glimpses into ego and moral depravity of Hollywood. It's not uncommon for the stars to act cool by cussing to the audience during acceptance speeches. These awards shows have become tawdry events that are marketed mostly to teens. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Madonna engages in a lustful-lesbian kiss onstage to [[Britney Spears]] at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://top40.about.com/od/britneyspears/ig/Britney-Spears-Photo-Biography/Britney-Spears-Kissing-Madonna.htm Britney Spears and Madonna Kiss, About.com, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*A notoriously self-serving [[Kanye West]] jumped onstage at the [[MTV Video Awards]] to interrupt an acceptance speech by [[Taylor Swift]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.examiner.com/x-15972-Raleigh-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2009m9d14-MTV-Video-Music-Awards-inspire-annual-controversy MTV Video Music Awards inspire annual controversy, Examiner.com, September 14, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mariah Carey]] attended the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Her acceptance speech was made while completely drunk. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://neonlimelight.com/2010/01/06/video-mariah-carey-accepts-film-festival-award-drunk/ Video: Mariah Carey Accepts Film Festival Award Drunk, Neonlimelight.com, January 6, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Miley Cyrus]] performed at the [[Teen Choice Awards]] in August 2009. The 16-year old was dancing around on a stripper pole. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619183/20090820/cyrus__miley.jhtml Billy Ray Cyrus Defends Miley's Teen Choice Pole Dance, MTV.com, August 20, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*Actor [[Jack Black]] opened the 2009 MTV Video Awards by leading everyone in a prayer to [[satan]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christianpress.com/content/entertainment/11-lifestyle/360-jack-black-leads-a-prayer-to-the-devil-at-the-2009-mtv-awards satan Jack Black Leads A Prayer To The Devil At The 2009 MTV Awards, Christian Press, September 14, 2009 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*Adam Lambert’s [[American Music Awards]] performance received over 1500 complaints for flipping off the audience, kissing a male keyboard player, and fondling several of his backup dancers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ecanadanow.com/entertainment/2009/11/28/did-you-find-adam-lamberts-american-music-awards-performance-offensive/comment-page-1/ Did You Find Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards Performance Offensive?, eCanadanow.com, November 28, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Preying on Underage Stars==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very many child actors and actresses have gone on to have damaged and tragically short lives as a result of early exposure to Hollywood Values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debbie Gibson reflects on her life as a sixteen-year-old teenage Pop star and her exposure to the very sinister side of show business. “It is very disheartening that there are so many older men that prey on young performers.”  What is even more disturbing than dirty male fans would be older male record executives trying to take her to adult parties and corrupt her with alcohol. Even the way the paparazzi stalk the younger artists is very different from following around adults. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533542,00.html?test=faces Debbie Gibson Speaks Out About Pedophile Fans Wanting to 'Corrupt Little Girls' Fox News, July 17, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The father of teen idol Miley Cyrus said Disney destroyed their family. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/15/billy-ray-cyrus-scared-daughter-miley-says-hannah-montana-destroyed-family/#?test=faces Billy Ray Cyrus Scared For Daughter Miley, Says Hannah Montana 'Destroyed My Family', Fox News, February 15, 2011 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Billy Ray Cyrus accuses Miley's 'handlers' (Disney Executives) of going too far to promote her and when she got bad press they made the father the scapegoat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Productions==&lt;br /&gt;
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainment industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programs that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cesspit of license and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the TV series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religion==&lt;br /&gt;
A short study of the ten most successful actors &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-successful-actors-at-the-box-office.php 10 most successful actors] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; shows that only 50% are Christian (compared to 76% for the general population), with 30% expressing no religious beliefs at all (15% in the general public). These actors have had successful careers and it is very likely that religious affiliation in regular actors is much lower, exposing or predisposing them to the influence of Hollywood values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Scientology]] is practiced by many Hollywood personalities. Tom Cruise and John Travolta are major spokesmen for this religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Books==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Hollywood Against America''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Supermodel]]s&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[World Famous Pictures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html Mug-shots of arrested Hollywood stars]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/news/articles/2010/mtvmovieawards.asp  Parent's Television Council: MTV’s Movie Awards Will Honor Profanity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100802 From Hollywood: to Hitler with love (Stalin, too)]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/17/dumbest-things-celebs-said/?test=faces Ten Dumbest Things Celebs Said in 2010]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2011/01/04/foul-mouthed-celebs/?test=faces#slide=1 Foul Mouthed Celebrities]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2011/01/04/pop_culture_killing_classic_tr.html Pop Culture Killing Classic Traditions]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:entertainment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Social Problems]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&amp;diff=859086</id>
		<title>Hollywood values</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hollywood_values&amp;diff=859086"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T16:34:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 859080 by NatureLover (talk)liberal vandal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[File:Hollywood-sign wikimedia.jpg|right|200px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Hollywood values''' are characterized by decadence, [[narcissism]], rampant [[drug|drug use]], [[adultery|extramarital sex]] leading to the spread of sexually-transmitted [[disease]], [[abortion]], lawlessness, promotion of the [[homosexual agenda]] and death.  A 2006 poll by MSNBC said that 60% of [[Americans]] agree that &amp;quot;Hollywood's values are not in line with the rest of America and that the quality of movies has diminished in recent years.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11714540/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The lack of [[morals]] and [[values]] in [[Hollywood]] culture has been destroying the fabric of American culture, particularly the family.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There have been, however, a handful of prominent people whose work in Hollywood opposed these values. [[Ronald Reagan]], [[James Stewart]], [[Charlton Heston]], [[Pat Boone]], [[Paul Schofield]], [[Walt Disney]] and many others practiced conservative values while working in Hollywood and the productions of these and many others also reflect these values, irrespective of the star names associated with them: [[The Chronicles of Narnia]] and ''Independence Day'' (a movie about [[Independence Day]]) being recent examples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood values include a flagrant disrespect and disregard for:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[marriage]] and [[abstinence]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[patriotism]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[religion]] and [[spirituality]] (Hollywood's profits depend on the [[advertising]] and sale of [[materialism|material goods]] and other superficial &amp;quot;solutions&amp;quot; to problems.)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[accountability]]&lt;br /&gt;
* the U.S. military&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/hollywood_gets_it_right_p4d84a9jyymsfLw0THb7EM Hollywood gets it right, New York Post, March 09, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* family responsibilities, like childrearing&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Britney Spears]] &amp;quot;doesn't want [her] kids back.&amp;quot; [http://www.nypost.com/seven/02132008/news/nationalnews/brit_doesnt_want_her_kids__1st_ex_97425.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* laws that apply to everyone else&lt;br /&gt;
* Commonly accepted behavioral boundaries and values of human decency&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In addition, Hollywood portrays these values as rebellious and [[counterculture|countercultural]]. They portray religious and spiritual institutions as greedy, self-serving, sexually perverted, prejudiced, ignorant, and unscientific. When comparing the satisfaction brought about by faith, spirituality, family, and friendship, which may happen to include donations to a church or other organization, it is clear that the profits of Hollywood and the industries which rely upon Hollywood for profit are the true establishment - thus making traditional values truly rebellious and countercultural, and Hollywood values a lie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Deaths ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood values are deadly. Tourists in Hollywood can visit over 30 sites of typically self-inflicted Hollywood celebrity deaths.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.hollywoodusa.co.uk/celebrity-death-sites.htm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A sampling of deaths caused by Hollywood values include:&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=4174733&amp;amp;page=1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/entertainment/news/article/20021--list-of-celebrities-taken-by-drug-use-tragic-and-growing&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Barrymore]], 60, cirrhosis of the liver from heavy drinking&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Belushi]], 33, was a repeated drug abuser who ultimately died of a lethal injection of cocaine and heroin&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Clara Blandick]], 81, suicide&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Bonham]], 32, after too much drinking, asphyxiated on vomit&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elisa Bridges]], 28, 'Playboy' magazine model, drug overdose combining heroin, methamphetamine and other drugs&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Carradine]], 72, died from suffocation most likely suicide, had history of suicidal thoughts, alcohol and narcotics abuse &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,525177,00.html Thai Police: Carradine Death May Be Accidental Suffocation] Fox News, June 05, 2009 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Stephen Clark]], 30, Def Leppard guitarist, drug and alcohol overdose&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1108020/bio&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lana Clarkson]], 40, actress and model murdered by [[Phil Spector]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kurt Cobain]], 27, lead singer from the band Nirvana, a heroin addict who committed suicide with a shotgun blast to the head.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Ray Combs]], 40, host of the TV game show Family Feud committed suicide by hanging himself in a psychiatric ward.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Costelloe]], 47, actor from HBO's The Sopranos known as &amp;quot;Johnny Cakes&amp;quot;, shot himself in the head. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,472864,00.html 'Sopranos' Actor Shocks Fans, Loved Ones With Holiday Suicide] NYPost, December 25, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bob Crane]],49, the actor's success led to a bizarre life of sex addiction. He was bludgeoned to death.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Karl Dane]], 47, suicide by gunshot&lt;br /&gt;
*[[James Dean]], 24, a notoriously reckless and frequently ticketed driver crashed fatally head-on into a car turning left in front of his Porsche (see also crime, below)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eazy-E]], 31. [[AIDS]] contracted through drug use.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brian Epstein]], 32, overdosed on sleeping pills and alcohol&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Chris Farley]], 33, overdose of morphine and cocaine&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Judy Garland]], 47, overdosed on sleeping pills&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lucy Gordon]], 28, British actress from the movie Spiderman 3, hung herself &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/wireStory?id=7642829 Actress Lucy Gordon Found Dead at Age 28 in Paris, ABC News, May 21, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lee Grivas]], 26, the on-again, off-again boyfriend of actress Christina Applegate, 36, was found dead of an apparent drug overdose&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.bloggernews.net/116552a&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Corey Haim, 38, teen idol who starred in many movies and then a reality show, died of a drug overdose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8560246.stm&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Phil Hartman]], 49, murdered in his million-dollar house by his drug-addicted third wife Brynn Hartman&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Margaux Hemingway]], 42, suicide&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jimi Hendrix]], 27, an enthusiastic abuser of illegal drugs, choked on his own vomit after overdose of sleeping pills.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Rock Hudson]], 59, AIDS&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Michael Hutchence]], 37, asphyxiated during an auto-erotic act while alone in a Sydney hotel. His wife, Paula Yates (see below), also fell victim to Hollywood Values.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Richard Jeni]], 49, suicide&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258231,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Russell Tyrone Jones]] (a.k,a. &amp;quot;Old Dirty Bastard&amp;quot;), 35, musician, died of drug overdose two days before his 36th birthday&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Janis Joplin]], 27, heroin overdose&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Andrew Koenig]], 41, child actor in the TV series Growing Pains committed suicide. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://omg.yahoo.com/news/andrew-koenigs-body-found-in-vancouver-park/36485?nc Andrew Koenig's Body Found in Vancouver Park, Yahoo News, February 25, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Heath Ledger]], 28, found dead in his [[Manhattan]] apartment. &amp;quot;Prescription sleeping pills and anti-anxiety pills were found in bottles in Ledger's bedroom and bathroom, and police have speculated the death was caused by an accidental drug overdose.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;Ledger died of an accidental overdose of painkillers, sleeping pills, anti-anxiety medication and other prescription drugs, the New York City medical examiner said Wednesday.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,328828,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bruce Lee]] (Li Xiaolong), actor, 33, collapsed and died; trace amounts of cannabis found in bloodstream at postmortem; the official cause of death was acute cerebral edema (swelling of the brain) from hypersensitivity to aspirin.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Stuart Lubbock]], 31, found dead in the swimming pool of popular TV entertainer [[Michael Barrymore]], having suffered severe anal trauma, after a drug-fueled party at the star's home &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Queen (band)|Freddie Mercury]], 45, born Farrokh Bulsara, lead singer of the band Queen, died from AIDS-related bronchial pneumonia.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sal Mineo]], 37, murdered under circumstances that suggested &amp;quot;a homosexual motive&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Marilyn Monroe]], 36, overdosed on sleeping pills.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Keith Moon]], drummer of [[The Who]], 32, overdose of Clomethiazole prescribed to treat his [[alcoholism]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jim Morrison]], 27, died of an apparent heroin overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brittany Murphy]], 32, motion picture film actress died of cardiac arrest from combining prescription drugs &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/02/27/brittany-murphy-taken-vicodin-days/ Brittany Murphy May Have Taken 109 Vicodin in 11 Days, Fox News, February 27, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Official death from pneumonia and drug intoxication.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Chris Penn]], 40, brother of [[Sean Penn]], &amp;quot;died accidentally from an enlarged heart and the effects of a mix of multiple medications&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[River Phoenix]], 23, died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dana Plato]], 34, ''Diff'rent Strokes'' star, suicide by drugs overdose after posing for lesbian pornography.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elvis Presley]], 42, large drug intake causes a cardiac arrhythmia and rumored to have suffocated on the carpet when he collapsed from a drug overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Freddie Prinze]], 22, actor from Chico and the Man committed suicide by gunshot to the head.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Virginia Rappe]], 30, died of a ruptured bladder incurred at a party hosted by [[Roscoe Arbuckle]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Robert Reed]], 59, actor known as Mike Brady was a homosexual with AIDS, died from cancer in 1992. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/08/14/brady-bunch?slide=25 Robert Reed in 1990, Fox News]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brad Renfro]], 25, became addicted to heroin and was found dead after a night of drinking&lt;br /&gt;
*[[George Reeves]], 45, played Superman from the series Adventures of Superman, suicide by gunshot&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Anna Nicole Smith]], 39, accidental overdose on prescription drugs&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dorothy Stratten]], 20, murdered by spouse after engaging in extramarital affair&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Strickland]], 29, cast member of NBC's Suddenly Susan hung himself in a Las Vegas hotel.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sharon Tate]], 26, an actress with a [[hippie]] lifestyle who was murdered by followers of [[Charles Manson]], a [[Beatles]]-obsessed musician wannabee; Manson's followers murdered Tate, who was pregnant and only two weeks from birth, her unborn child, her prior lover, who was staying with her while her husband, movie producer [[Roman Polanski]] (see 'Crime', below), was away, and another unmarried couple staying in the house.  (It is believed that Manson had actually intended his followers to kill the home's previous residents, [[Terry Melcher]] (son of [[Doris Day]]) and [[Candice Bergen]].) &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Polanski Problem [http://moviegeeksclub.blogspot.com/2008/04/polanski-problem.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sharon Tate Official Site: Sharon's Biography [http://www.sharontate.net/bio4.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lou Tellegen]], 52, suicide&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sid Vicious]], 21. [[Heroin]] overdose while awaiting trial for his girlfriend's murder.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Herve Villechaize]], 50, actor who played Tattoo on the hit show Fantasy Island, committed suicide by self-inflicted gunshot.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kenneth Williams]], 62, overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Natalie Wood]], 43, drowned while intoxicated.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paula Yates]], 41, heroin overdose.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Layne Staley]], 34, found dead in apartment two weeks after a drug overdose.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/staley1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Layne promoted the use of hard drugs in the 1992 [[Alice in Chains]] song &amp;quot;Junkhead&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Junkhead-lyrics-Alice-In-Chains/3A665DABDFC00AD54825688F0010CD45&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Paul Gray]], 38, bassist of heavy metal band Slipknot, died of an overdose of morphine and fentanyl. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100622/ap_on_en_mu/us_slipknot_bassist_autopsy&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Shannon Michelle Wilsey, a.k.a Savanna, a pornographic film star, committed suicide after a drunken car accident.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sexually Transmitted Diseases==&lt;br /&gt;
The loose sexual morals characteristic of the lifestyle defined by Hollywood Values often lead to sexually transmitted diseases.  Examples include,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Rock Hudson]] died of AIDS-related complications after contracting the disease through homosexual intercourse.&lt;br /&gt;
* Michael Jeter, who was homosexual, also died due to AIDS-related complications. &lt;br /&gt;
* Freddie Mercury of the rock group [[Queen (band)|Queen]], notorious for his flamboyant onstage presence, also contracted AIDS through his wildly promiscuous homosexual lifestyle, and subsequently perished of the self-inflicted condition.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Crime ==&lt;br /&gt;
'''Hollywood values often include being arrested or convicted for a variety of crimes.  Here are some examples:'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paris Hilton]] was arrested in Las Vegas, 8/27/2010, for possession of a controlled substance, [[Cocaine]]. The hotel heiress was a passenger in a vehicle that was stopped by police. The driver was arrested for DUI '''pertaining to drugs, not alcohol'''. Through further interaction between Hilton and authorities, it was discovered she was in possession of a controlled substance. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/28/paris-hilton-arrested-drug-possession/ Paris Hilton arrested in Las Vegas.]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Actress Lori Petty, who was featured in &amp;quot;Free Willy&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;A League of their Own&amp;quot; and ran into a 14-year-old skateboarder and was arrested for felony drunk driving charges.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7015343906&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Craig Phillip Robinson, the actor famous for playing Darryl Philbin on NBC's &amp;quot;The Office,&amp;quot; &amp;quot;was arrested on June 29, 2008, on suspicion of possessing MDMA, also known as ecstasy, and methamphetamine.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/08/15/office.actor.arrested.ap/index.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Winona Ryder]] was convicted of convicted of vandalism and grand theft for stealing designer merchandise worth $5,560.40.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.courttv.com/trials/ryder/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [[O.J. Simpson]] is widely believed to have murdered his wife and her friend, and was found liable in a civil (but not criminal) trial.  He has since been convicted of unrelated felonies.&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Paris Hilton]] was convicted of driving while intoxicated, and then violated the terms of her probation, leading to a 45-day prison sentence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18472845/ Paris Hilton sentenced to 45 days in jail], MSNBC, May 4, 2007&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Hugh Grant]] was arrested in 1995 when found in a car with a prostitute.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mugshots.org/hollywood/hugh-grant.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Stacy Keach]], movie actor, was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment in the [[United Kingdom]] in 1984 after being arrested at [[London]] [[Heathrow Airport]] in possession of a large quantity of [[cocaine]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kiefer Sutherland]] was given a 48-day sentence for DUI in 2007, an offense committed while still on probation following a 2004 conviction for DUI.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sutherland is released from jail [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7200633.stm BBC]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[George Michael]] was convicted of &amp;quot;committing a lewd act in public&amp;quot;, having been arrested in a public restroom by a plain clothes police officer.  Arrested in September 2008 in a [[London]] public lavatory, he was found in possession of crack cocaine and cannabis - but merely received a caution. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKLL28201720080921&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Snoop Dogg]], a popular [[rap|rapper]], was arrested in 2006 for [[marijuana]] possession. He is a libertarian&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucllibertarians.com/celebrities.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who advocates marijuana use.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/dailydish/detail?blogid=7&amp;amp;entry_id=21457&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Roman Polanski]], Polish-born film producer, is unable to return to Hollywood as he skipped bail and fled to [[France]] after being convicted in 1978 on charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a thirteen-year old girl.&lt;br /&gt;
* Rapper DMX (Earl Simmons) was caught on camera drag racing at a speed over 110 miles on a freeway, and then a SWAT team was used to arrest him three days later on drug and animal cruelty charges.  &amp;quot;The Maricopa County sheriff's office says the 37-year-old, whose real name is Earl Simmons, at first tried to barricade himself in his bedroom. He came out as a SWAT team entered during the early-morning raid Friday.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.aol.com/entertainment/music/music-news-story/ar/_a/dmx-arrested-on-animal-cruelty-charges/20080509163709990001&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Martha Stewart]] was charged with illegal [[insider trading]] in 2003.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-69.htm SEC press release (SEC Charges Martha Stewart, Broker Peter Bacanovic with Illegal Insider Trading)]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Tatum O'Neal]] arrested in 2008 for [[cocaine]] possession. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,361361,00.html Tatum O'Neal Released After Drug Arrest], [[Associated Press]], ''[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]]'', June 02, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[James Dean]] displayed an unhealthy interest in a twelve-year-old boy. His former director Elia Kazan later commented: &amp;quot;I've known many actors who have been twisted up in their sex lives, but never anybody as sick and unhealthy as Dean was.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
*Redmond O'Neal, son of Farrah Fawcett and Ryan O'Neal, plead guilty to possessing heroine and methamphetamine as well as driving under the influence of drugs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080627/ap_on_en_ot/people_redmond_o_neal;_ylt=AiQCBwpJpxqBOFWVyqEycXsDW7oF Redmond O'Neal pleads guilty to drug charges&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Actor]] Nick Nolte was arrested for drunk driving in 2002&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/nolte1.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sean Bean]] was arrested and spent the night in a cell after allegedly beating his wife.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ukpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hR3pX0eEytJcMo7m5LRLHOYpasSA&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Shelley Malil]], 43, worked as an actor in [[movies]] and television. He is charged with causing great bodily injury and using a deadly weapon on Kendra Beebe, a 35-year-old [[mother]] of two. He appeared on the back patio of Kendra's house and stabbed her 20 times. Now held on a $10 million dollar bond. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug13/0,4670,ActorArrested,00.html 40-Year-Old Virgin' actor pleads not guilty] AP, August 13, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Former Power Rangers actor [[Skylar Deleon]], will have three separate trials for four murders. The first trial is set for the murder of Tom and Jackie Hawks, who were allegedly bound to the anchor of their yacht and tossed overboard. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,433765,00.html 'Power Rangers' Actor Set to Stand Trial in Yacht Killings] AP, October 7, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  he was sentenced to death for committing murder.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&amp;amp;SubSectionID=1&amp;amp;ArticleID=66850&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Musician George O'Dowd, better known by his stage name, [[Boy George]], has been convicted (and will likely go to prison) for handcuffing a male escort to a bed against his will and then beating him with a chain.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092168/Guilty-Boy-George-warned-judge-faces-jail-falsely-imprisoning-male-escort.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Earlier he had been convicted of cocaine possession.&lt;br /&gt;
*Dana Plato was arrested for armed robbery and prescription forgery.&lt;br /&gt;
*Todd Bridges assaulted a motorist and was repeatedly arrested for drug-related offenses.&lt;br /&gt;
*Gary Coleman was arrested for assaulting a woman by punching her in the face.&lt;br /&gt;
*Musician/Producer [[Phil Spector]] was found guilty of second-degree murder for the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson. He was convicted of second-degree murder. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30194936/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Kiefer Sutherland, Fox television's &amp;quot;24&amp;quot; star was charged with misdemeanor assault for allegedly head-butting a fashion designer at a nightclub. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47880 ‘24’ Star Kiefer Sutherland Charged for Allegedly Head-Butting a Fashion Designer] Associated Press, May 8, 2009&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Elmore &amp;quot;Rip&amp;quot; Torn was arrested for breaking into a bank and carrying a firearm while intoxicated. In 2009, he was given probation in a drunk-driving case. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/01/30/actor-rip-torn-arrested-allegedly-breaking-connecticut-bank/?test=latestnews Actor Rip Torn Arrested for Allegedly Breaking Into Connecticut Bank, Fox News, January 30, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Former teen actor Leif Garrett was arrested for possession of a controlled substance. He has a number of former arrests including [[heroin]] possession. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/02/03/crimesider/entry6170622.shtml Leif Garrett Arrested: Former Teen Idol Busted for Controlled Substance, CBS News, February 3, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sean Penn]] was charged with criminal battery and vandalism for attacking the paparazzi in October 2009. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.tmz.com/2010/02/19/sean-penn-crime-battery-vandalism-prosecution-jail-paparazzi/ Sean Penn Charged With Crimes, TMZ, February 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Comedian [[Andy Dick]] was arrested for groping an employee and a patron of a nightclub in West Virginia. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.herald-dispatch.com/breaking/x818845820/Andy-Dick-arrested-by-HPD Andy Dick charged with felony, shows still on, Herald Dispatch, January 23, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Nicholas Brendon had been arrested March '10 in a drunken scuffle with police. He is charged with resisting arrest, two counts of battery against a police officer and felony vandalism. Brendon has a history of alcoholism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.popeater.com/2010/04/07/nicholas-brendon-arrested-charged/ 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' Star Charged With Police Battery, Vandalism, PopEater.com, April 7, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Hollywood television producer Bruce Beresford-Redman of CBS's &amp;quot;Survivor&amp;quot; series is arrested as the lead suspect in the murder of his wife. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/04/08/mexican-official-hollywood-tv-producer-suspect-wifes-death/?test=latestnews 'Survivor' Producer 'Suspected' in Wife's Death in Mexico, FOX News, April 8, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Chris Klein, star of the American Pie films, which glorify sex and alcohol abuse, was arrested for drunk driving in June 2010&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.tmz.com/2010/06/16/american-pie-chris-klein-busted-for-dui-arrest/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor Michael Brea played roles in Ugly Betty and Step Up 3D, kills his 55-year old mother with a sword while yelling Bible verses. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/24/ugly-betty-actor-allegedly-kills-mother-foot-sword-screaming-repent/ 'Ugly Betty' Actor Allegedly Kills Mother With 3-Foot Sword While Screaming 'Repent', FOX News, November 24, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*TV host and actor Gary Collins was arrested and charged with a felony for allegedly leaving a restaurant without paying his $59.35 tab. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/05/tv-host-gary-collins-arrested-skipping-restaurant/ TV Host Gary Collins Arrested for Skipping Out on $59 Restaurant Bill, FOXNews, January 5, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actress Jaime Pressly was arrested for driving under the influence. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/01/11/jaime-pressly-wasted-dui-arrest/ Jaime Pressly Blew Nearly Three Times Legal Limit on Breathalyzer Before Arrest, Fox News, January 11, 2011 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Korey Rowe, producer of the 9/11 conspiracy film ''Loose Change'' is arrested for selling heroin. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/01/31/conspiracy-film-producer-arrested-drug-charges/?test=latestnews 9/11 Conspiracy Film Producer Arrested on Drug Charges, Fox News, January 31, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Lindsay Lohan is facing felony grand theft charge, she was accused of stealing a $2500 necklace from a Venice boutique. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[ttp://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/05/lindsay-lohan-facing-years-state-prison-jewelry-theft Lindsay Lohan Facing Three Years in State Prison, Fox News, February 5, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Christina Aguilera arrested under the misdemeanor charge of public intoxication. [http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/01/christina-aguilera-arrested-public-intoxication-report-says/?test=faces Christina Aguilera Arrested for Public Intoxication, Fox News, March 1, 2011]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Falsehoods ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Hollywood values]] perpetuate [[liberal]]-driven [[Essay:Liberal Falsehoods|falsehoods]]:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Inside Job]]&lt;br /&gt;
:A 2010 film by Democrat donor Charles Ferguson that blames the Great Recession on [[Wall Street]], deregulation, the [[Bush Administration]]. The film whitewashes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's role and claims the financial system corrupted politics. Capitalists are the bad guys.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fair Game]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Another Bush bash flick starring communist [[Sean Penn]]. 2010 film rehashes the lead up to the war in Iraq and [[Valerie Plame]]'s role. Typical un-American Hollywood film ''&amp;quot;The narrative that [[Karl Rove]] and Dick Cheney’s Chief of Staff [[Scooter Libby]] were nefarious behind-the-scenes players intent on destroying innocent reputations while pushing the nation into war on false pretenses.&amp;quot;'' &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war/ Hollywood hit job: ‘Fair Game’ propagates easily disprovable myths about lead up to Iraq War http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/hollywood-hit-job-fair-game-propagates-easily-disprovable-myths-about-lead-up-to-iraq-war The Daily Caller, November 11, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The Iron Lady]]&lt;br /&gt;
: Meryl Streep plays [[Margaret Thatcher]] in this gross mistake of a film. Liberals distort her triumphs and her low career points. Streep portrays Thatcher as a dementia-sufferer looking back at her life with sadness. The director defended the film as &amp;quot;a fictional film but it will be fair and accurate.” Thatcher's children Mark and Carol are appalled and say “They think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/7895160/Margaret-Thatchers-family-are-appalled-at-Meryl-Streep-film.html Margaret Thatcher's family are 'appalled' at Meryl Streep film, Telegraphe.co.uk, July 17, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[The Tillman Story]]&lt;br /&gt;
:A liberals view of the circumstances surrounding the death of football star and Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]]. The film portrays each and every fact as sinister.  Plus, each and every fact is evidence of a conspiracy. Typical Hollywood [[George W. Bush]] bashing flick. The bias was clear, make Tillman a liberal atheist anti-war hero that was cannon-fodder for the government. Tillman's actions speak louder than any twisted accusations presented in this documentary. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/kschlichter/2010/07/13/the-tillman-story-dont-let-the-facts-get-in-the-way-of-your-agenda/ FILM REVIEW: Absurd Conspiracy Theories Abound in Agenda-Driven ‘Tillman Story’, BigHollywood.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Matthew Shepard Fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Adherents to Hollywood values &amp;quot;green-lighted a troika of [[Matthew Shepard]] movies after he was senselessly killed because it affirmed their gut feeling that a gay young man living in backward America is destined for death at the hands of hateful ultraconservatives. A street in West Hollywood still stands in his name despite ABC News reporting the story false: He was killed by crazed meth addicts for drugs and money -- not because he was gay. Isn't that tragic enough?  Yet Shepard is still the icon of gay victims' rights, and the mistaken story of his 'fate' soon thereafter befell Jake Gyllenhaal's character in 'Brokeback Mountain.' The Oscar statuette stands as the exclamation point.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup26sep26,0,1800794,full.story&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Inherit the Wind]] &lt;br /&gt;
:Hollywood perpetuated complete lies about the [[Scopes Trial]] in order to smear Christianity, including:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*portraying [[William Jennings Bryan]] as being ignorant, harsh and punitive, based on a false portrayal of his actions and testimony&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*falsely claiming that at the end Bryan, in a senseless fit of madness, died in the courtroom amid caring and reasonable Darwinists&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:*falsely portraying the Darwinists in a positive light and the Christians as deceitful&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:In real life, Bryan and the Christians won the trial and were charitable to the end, while the Darwinist Darrow was deceitful in reneging on his deal to take the witness stand after Bryan did.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[U 571]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2000 film [[U 571]] had a plot which was based on the first capture of a German Enigma machine in [[World War 2]].  However, in the film the capture is made by Americans.  In fact the first Enigma machine was captured by the British in 1941 prior to the Americans entering the war.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Loose Change]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2005 9/11 conspiracy film that blames the U.S. government for attacking its own citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Recount-film]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2008 [[HBO]] movie on the 2000 Presidential elections and its aftermath in Florida. A look into how the [[Republicans]] stole the election and the role of its party members that made it happen. Republicans are portrayed as ghoulish and cited as manufacturing demonstrations. Both the real Warren Christopher and James Baker contend the film’s portrayal of the former is hopelessly untrue. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/hbos-recount-hanging-chads-and-black-humor/ HBO’s Recount: Hanging Chads, Black Humor] The Washington Times, May 4, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Winter Soldiers]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 1972 film about U.S. troops from Vietnam put on record as baby killers, human rights violators, and general disservice to America. This myth was propagated by a few anti-war activist liberal actors that never did see combat in [[Vietnam]] and some were never in the country. The initial result was to hold hearings in Congress over the matter. All allegations were proven fabrications, falsehoods, and lies.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[An Inconvenient Truth]]&lt;br /&gt;
:The 2006 false documentary about man-made [[global warming]] created &amp;amp; hyped by [[Al Gore]]. A [[British]] court found the film contained at least [http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming#Al_Gore.27s_.22Inconvenient_Truth.22_Movie_Claims 11 material falsehoods]. The Science and Public Policy Institute has found 35 falsehoods associated with the film. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html 35 Inconvenient Truths, Science and Public Policy Institute]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Fahrenheit 911]]&lt;br /&gt;
:A [[Michael Moore]] film that was a false portrayal of why America fought a war against [[Saddam Hussein]]'s Iraq. The main theme was to attack [[George W. Bush]] during wartime.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Sicko]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Another [[Michael Moore]] film which spread many falsehoods about American healthcare while unduly glorifying the so-called benefits of socialized healthcare. Memorably referred to Cuban healthcare as being better than American healthcare.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Redacted]]&lt;br /&gt;
:Brian De Palma’s 2007 fictional anti-Iraq War film funded by [[Mark Cuban]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Disrespect for marriage==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Many celebrities and other exponents of Hollywood Values have no respect for the sanctity of marriage - their own or anyone else's. This is manifested in a high rate of marriage breakdown, and by the home-wrecking activities of the promiscuous, whose moral outlooks have been distorted by Liberal and atheistic teachings.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Elizabeth Taylor]] has been married eight (8) times, including a nearly 6-year marriage to [[John Warner|Senator John Warner]] (R-VA).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000072/bio&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Valerie Bertinelli]] said her divorce from [[Eddie Van Halen]] was caused by infidelity and drug use - by her too. She said she was &amp;quot;destroying my body,&amp;quot; trying to keep up with a rock-star lifestyle. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,332551,00.html Valerie Bertinelli About Divorce From Eddie Van Halen: 'I Wasn't An Angel Either'], [[Fox News Channel]], ''[[Associated Press]]'', February 26, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Zsa Zsa Gabor]] has been married nine (9) times. One of her marriages - to Felipe de Alba - was annulled after one day.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mickey Rooney]] has been married eight (8) times, but has been with his last wife for 30 years after embracing religion and abandoning his previous lifestyle.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Charlie Chaplin]] married four (4) times, including his marriage at the age of 54 to an 18-year-old bride.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Johnny Carson]] married four (4) times, and frequently made light of his having divorced three times, as if this were something funny.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Meredith Baxter]] married and divorced four (4) times; she finally admitted in 2009 that she was a [[homosexual]].&lt;br /&gt;
*In 2009, the married [[David Letterman]] admitted to having had adulterous sexual relationships with multiple members of his staff; he had previously fathered a child out of wedlock.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Jayne Mansfield]] was married three times and had numerous extramarital affairs.  She appeared in the centerfold of the pornographic magazine Playboy, and died in an automobile accident.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Britney Spears]]' 2004 marriage to Jason Alexander lasted 55 hours.&lt;br /&gt;
*Musicians [[Cher]] and [[Gregg Allman]] were married for eight days in 1975.&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Drew Barrymore]] has two of the shortest celebrity marriages on record, one of 30 days and a five-month marriage to notorious lowbrow comedian Tom Green. Barrymore is a poster child for Hollywood values, as a former child star who became an alcoholic and drug addict who also posed for pornographic magazines.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Offensive Behavior/Moral depravity ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Charlie Sheen]] to Wife Brooke Mueller: &amp;quot;I'll Kill You.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/09/charlie-sheen-wife-brook-mueller-ill-kill-you/?test=latestnews Charlie Sheen to Wife Brooke Mueller: &amp;quot;I'll Kill You&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. Sheen was arrested on Christmas Day for domestic abuse of his current wife Brooke. He was booked for  second-degree assault, menacing, and criminal mischief. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/12/25/actor-charlie-sheen-arrested-domestic-violence-charges/?test=faces Actor Charlie Sheen Released From Jail After Domestic Abuse Arrest, Fox News, December 25, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Sheen has a history that includes assaults against girlfriends and his former wife. He is also infamous for drug/alcohol abuse, having tried (and failed) numerous attempts in rehab clinics. He was fired from the sitcom Two and A Half Men where, in true Hollywood hypocrisy, he played an &amp;quot;amusingly&amp;quot; alcohol-abusing ladies' man, except the lifestyle proves consequence-free. Sheen has become dangerously unhinged in recent weeks and has been making increasingly bizarre rants online. No one from Hollywood has yet to step in.&lt;br /&gt;
* Trashing hotel rooms is a favorite form of offensive behavior by Hollywood types.  Many examples are readily available on the [[internet]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See, e.g., [http://www.budgettravel.com/bt-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122101034.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mel Gibson]], who had started drinking again, was arrested after being stopped for driving at 84 mph in a 45 mph zone on a notoriously dangerous road in Malibu, California.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Mel Gibson apologizes after DUI arrest'' [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14080210/ Associated Press]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; A breathalyzer test confirmed he was drunk and next to him was an open bottle of Tequila; after being arrested he hurled Anti-Semitic abuse at a Jewish police officer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2292336,00.html Mel Gibson rants against Jews in drink-drive arrest], Times Online, July 30, 2006&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*The parents of [[Miley Cyrus]], just 15 years old, allowed [[Annie Liebowitz]] to pose the starlet without a shirt or bra (nominally [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/topless &amp;quot;topless&amp;quot;]) and with just a sheet covering her front for Vanity Fair magazine.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/business/media/28hannah.html?_r=1&amp;amp;oref=slogin&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20195785,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23608789-5001026,00.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;quot;I took part in a photo shoot that was supposed to be 'artistic' and now, seeing the photographs and reading the story, I feel so embarrassed,&amp;quot; Cyrus said Sunday in a statement through her publicist. &amp;quot;I never intended for any of this to happen and I apologize to my fans who I care so deeply about.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;... a situation was created to deliberately manipulate a 15-year-old in order to sell magazines,&amp;quot; a network statement said. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gYLnT2kyPIgNUurQ71aNM3EJKpRAD90ARTGO0&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Many Hollywood stars who have purposely sought fame have then turned upon photographers and fans. [[Sean Penn]] is well known to lash out at photographers.&lt;br /&gt;
*The parents of 16-year old Jamie Lynn Spears allowing her unwed pregnancy to be publicly portrayed as a normal act even though she is a role model for millions of underage teenagers. Mayor of Gloucester, Carolyn Kirk recently blamed the glamorizing of teen pregnancy by Jamie Lynn Spears for the 17 high school teenagers that got pregnant at the same time. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/06/gloucester_mayo.html Gloucester mayor rebuts report of teen pregnancy pact], June 23, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Despite an upcoming ballot initiative to remove gay marriage from California law, [[Ellen DeGeneres]] proudly displays her [[gay]] sexuality for all to see. On August 16, 2008, DeGeneres &amp;quot;married&amp;quot; Portia de Rossi in a small ceremony in Beverly Hills. Fox News called it &amp;quot;the biggest celebrity union since California legalized same-sex marriage.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,405085,00.html Reports: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi Wed] AP, August 17, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Now, her fans and millions of young girls can read about her gay marriage in magazines such as People and Us Magazine, hear about it on celebrity news television shows.&lt;br /&gt;
*Rapper [[Kanye West]] and bodyguard attacked the paparazzi at [[LAX]] airport and allegedly smashed a camera on the floor valued at $10,000. The pair were arrested for felony vandalism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420869,00.html Kanye West Arrested in Altercation With Paparazzi] Ap, September 11, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Heather Locklear]] was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of a controlled substance. The officer noticed Locklear's car parked on a state highway and blocking a lane in Montecito, Ca. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429388,00.html Heather Locklear Arrested on Suspicion of DUI] AP, September 29, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Celebrity of the moment [[Kourtney Kardashian]] gave a risque lingerie shoot while pregnant with her boyfriend's child. After birth, Mom and baby adorned magazine covers, highlighting the modern acceptance of single motherhood. The cover reads ''&amp;quot;Baby Mason will bring our family together,&amp;quot;'' obscuring the traditional meaning of family. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/10/16/kardashian-sisters?slide=2 The Kardashian Family, Fox News]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor [[Jude Law]] had a sexual relationship with model Samantha Burke that produced a daughter. It is reported that Law finally went to visit his daughter for the first time, 5 months after she was born. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.celebrity-gossip.net/celebrities/hollywood/jude-law-makes-first-visit-to-love-child-216056/ Jude Law Makes First Visit To Love Child, CelebrityGossip.net, March 1, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actor [[Tom Hanks]] called Mormons 'un-American' for their support of Proposition 8 in California. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/01/23/tom-hanks-apologizes-calling-mormon-supporters-proposition-american/ Tom Hanks Apologizes for Calling Mormon Supporters of Proposition 8 'Un-American', Fox News, January 23, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Woody Allen]] seduced and took pornographic photographs of the youthful daughter of his then girlfriend [[Mia Farrow]].&lt;br /&gt;
*[[John Cusack]] calls for satanic death cult to descend on Fox News, Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich and GOP welfare freaks. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/08/31/actor-john-cusack-calls-satanic-death-fox-news-gop-leaders/?test=faces John Cusack Calls for 'Satanic Death' of Fox News, GOP Leaders, FOXNews, August 31, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Brad Pitt]], appearing in a Spike Lee film announces his desire to see BP executives get the death penalty. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.politico.com/click/stories/1008/pitt_death_penalty_for_bp.html Brad Pitt: Death Penalty For BP, Politico, August 23, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Carrie Prejan]], a self-proclaiming fundamentalist conservative, was at some point involved in making sexually explicit videos, and attempted to hide this even when it was revealed to be obviously true by the media.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hollywood &amp;quot;humor&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
Another manifestation of Hollywood's offensiveness and moral depravity is found in many of its &amp;quot;comedy&amp;quot; movies. More so than any other entertainment industry, many Hollywood productions rely on lowbrow, juvenile humor. Unlike more intelligent comedies of the early to mid-20th century (such as ''The Great Dictator'' or ''Arsenic and Old Lace''), many contemporary Hollywood comedies eschew intelligence, social commentary, wit or satire in favor of lower-hanging fruit, such as &amp;quot;toilet humor,&amp;quot; nudity/sex, gratuitous violence and shock value. Examples of such films include:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''American Pie'' - a long-running film franchise primarily dealing with teenage sex and alcohol, relies on jokes about sex and bodily functions&lt;br /&gt;
*''Jackass'' - essentially a montage of ridiculous stunts and pranks with no coherent story&lt;br /&gt;
*''South Park'' - uses constant iterations of urine, feces, farting and shock humor, such as jokes about abortion, rape and the Holocaust&lt;br /&gt;
*''There's Something About Mary'' - contains gratuitous sex and jokes about bodily functions&lt;br /&gt;
*''Family Guy'' - notorious for its shock tactics, this show routinely employs willful tastelessness for comedic shock value. Examples include one regular character who is a pedophile, as well as constant Hitler jokes&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Rehab ==&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood values often result in [[Celebrity|celebrities]] going into rehab. Here are some examples:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kirsten Dunst]] checked into the [[Cirque Lodge]] treatment facility in [[Utah]] after a week of hard partying at the [[Sundance Film Festival]], according to a source at the lodge, although the lodge's director of operations denies this. &amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,329545,00.html Reports Say Kirsten Dunst in Rehab; Rep for Facility Denies It], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 08, 2008&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The following all checked into the above facility seeking treatment for various psychological problems:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Lindsay Lohan]]&amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Eva Mendes]]&amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mary-Kate Olsen]]&amp;lt;ref name = &amp;quot;foxkirsten&amp;quot;/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Robert Downey Jr.]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Courtney Love]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Heather Locklear]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;A spokeswoman for the 47-year-old star said: 'Heather has been dealing with anxiety and depression.'&amp;quot;  She &amp;quot;checked into a clinic in [[Arizona]] that treats depression.&amp;quot;[http://www.pnas.org/content/101/11/3721.full]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Arquette]], enters rehab for for treatment of alcohol abuse and depression. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/01/david-arquette-rehab-alcohol-courteney-cox-arquette.html David Arquette enters rehab; Courteney Cox supportive, L.A. Times, January 3, 2011]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[David Duchovny]], having boosted Hollywood Values through his role in a decadent television series, now finds himself trapped by the depravity that he promoted, and has had to enter rehab for his addiction to unchastity&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUSN2835847820080829&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hypocrisy ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hollywood personalities often propose legislation such as outlawing private gun ownership, or speak out against things such as anti-gun laws, but have at the same time acted in movies contrary to their public opinions: &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[George Clooney]] on hearing that fellow actor and gun-rights advocate, [[Charlton Heston]], suffers from Alzheimer's disease, said: ''&amp;quot;I don't care. Charlton Heston is the head of the [[National Rifle Association]]. He deserves whatever anyone says about him.&amp;quot;''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.funnyreign.com/quotes-georgeclooney.shtml&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Clooney starred in the film ''The Peacemaker'', in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others.   &lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
* [[Mark Wahlberg]] upon meeting Charlton Heston on the set of the remake of ''Planet of the Apes'', Wahlberg rudely told Heston, &amp;quot;It was very disturbing meeting you.&amp;quot; Later, Wahlberg would have this to say at the MTV Movie Awards: ''&amp;quot;I believe Charlton Heston is America's best villain because he loves guns so much. Maybe he should get the award for being president of the National Rifle Association.&amp;quot;''&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=2360&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Wahlberg's character in ''Planet of the Apes'' uses a gun to defend himself and other humans from the apes who would rule over them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Helen Mirren]] played Queen Elizabeth II in a movie 'The Queen', but [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,414361,00.html admits she used to use cocaine] as a result of her poor life choices as a younger woman.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Using appearances to promote their [[liberal]] political views==&lt;br /&gt;
*Rapper Kanye West infamously went way off script during a live benefit concert for victims of Hurricane Katrina, criticizing the media's treatment of images of black and white people and saying President [[George W. Bush]] &amp;quot;doesn't care about black people.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/03/AR2005090300165.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*During the live broadcast of the 2007 Emmy Awards, actress Sally Field went on a sputtering anti-war rant, eventually concluding by saying, &amp;quot;If the mothers ruled the world, there would be no g**d*** war in the first place.&amp;quot;  She received thunderous applause from the Hollywood audience for her vulgar remark.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3610891&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Michael Moore]] surprised no one by criticizing President Bush during his 2003 Oscar acceptance speech for &amp;quot;Bowling for Columbine,&amp;quot; saying, &amp;quot;We live in the time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man who's sending us to war for fictitious reasons, whether it's the fiction of duct tape or the fiction of orange alerts. We are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush. Shame on you.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/features/20030323-2028-oscars-moore.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actress Jessica Lange verbally attacked President Bush and the Iraq War during a 2008 commencement speech at Sarah Lawrence College in Yonkers, New York, stating, &amp;quot;We are living in an America that, in the last seven and a half years, has waged an unnecessary war, established prison camps, condoned torture, employed corporate armies, eliminated the right of habeas corpus, practiced extraordinary rendition, and believe me, this is only a partial list.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://cbs5.com/politics/Jessica.Lange.President.2.732264.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*Actress Megan Fox was recently quoted by MSN in a piece entitled &amp;quot;The Wit and Wisdom of Megan Fox&amp;quot; discussing her new movie Transformers 2. She said &amp;quot;why not just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super Bible-beating people in Middle America?” &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Blog/Default.aspx?id=559876 Megan Fox would barter using ‘Bible-beating white trash’]OneNewsNow.com&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Vanity and [[Idol]] Worship==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Hollywood]] places a value on appearance and it is driven into the minds of those who they seek profits and adulation from. There is such the need to be rich and famous that anything goes. It may be glamorizing to reveal skin &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2009/07/15/lovely-talented-khloe-kardashian?test=faces The youngest of the Kardashian gals decided flashing photographers was the best way to get some attention, FOX News, April 1, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; or shamelessly being sex symbols to audiences. Pat-your-back awards ceremonies whereby we breathlessly await the ''Stars'' to arrive. Naturally, scandals make big headlines and these people are no stranger to controversy, for [[money]]. These fake [[Gods]] have captured the hearts of millions upon millions who follow their every move. Negative stereotypes poison the minds of their followers. Women feel less worthy due to the overwhelming influence touching every part of society. [[Pennsylvania State University|Penn State's]] Media Research found the following regarding Women's magazines, &amp;quot;Past research indicates that exposure to thin models results in lower [[self-esteem]] and decreased weight satisfaction, and to increased depression, guilt, shame, [[stress]], insecurity and body dissatisfaction.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.psu.edu/dept/medialab/research/selfworth.html Construction of Beauty as a Measure of Self-Worth] Penn State Media Research&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:Celebrity.jpg|right|250px]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Award Shows==&lt;br /&gt;
Fans of Hollywood are served copious amounts of vanity and glamour as celebrities are greeted on the red-carpet attending award events. Paparazzi snap pictures and the stars are rated for their appearance in various tabloids and entertainment television. Once the celebrities have arrived at the awards, television cameras capture for the masses acceptance speeches of their beloved stars. Once limited to couple of banquets such as the [[Emmy Award|Emmys]] or [[Golden Globe]]s, now some two-dozen award shows are vying for exposure. These new award shows offer glimpses into ego and moral depravity of Hollywood. It's not uncommon for the stars to act cool by cussing to the audience during acceptance speeches. These awards shows have become tawdry events that are marketed mostly to teens. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Madonna engages in a lustful-lesbian kiss onstage to [[Britney Spears]] at the 2003 MTV Music Video Awards. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://top40.about.com/od/britneyspears/ig/Britney-Spears-Photo-Biography/Britney-Spears-Kissing-Madonna.htm Britney Spears and Madonna Kiss, About.com, 2003]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
*A notoriously self-serving [[Kanye West]] jumped onstage at the [[MTV Video Awards]] to interrupt an acceptance speech by [[Taylor Swift]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.examiner.com/x-15972-Raleigh-Pop-Culture-Examiner~y2009m9d14-MTV-Video-Music-Awards-inspire-annual-controversy MTV Video Music Awards inspire annual controversy, Examiner.com, September 14, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Mariah Carey]] attended the Palm Springs International Film Festival. Her acceptance speech was made while completely drunk. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://neonlimelight.com/2010/01/06/video-mariah-carey-accepts-film-festival-award-drunk/ Video: Mariah Carey Accepts Film Festival Award Drunk, Neonlimelight.com, January 6, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Miley Cyrus]] performed at the [[Teen Choice Awards]] in August 2009. The 16-year old was dancing around on a stripper pole. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1619183/20090820/cyrus__miley.jhtml Billy Ray Cyrus Defends Miley's Teen Choice Pole Dance, MTV.com, August 20, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*Actor [[Jack Black]] opened the 2009 MTV Video Awards by leading everyone in a prayer to [[satan]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://christianpress.com/content/entertainment/11-lifestyle/360-jack-black-leads-a-prayer-to-the-devil-at-the-2009-mtv-awards satan Jack Black Leads A Prayer To The Devil At The 2009 MTV Awards, Christian Press, September 14, 2009 ]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
*Adam Lambert’s [[American Music Awards]] performance received over 1500 complaints for flipping off the audience, kissing a male keyboard player, and fondling several of his backup dancers. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ecanadanow.com/entertainment/2009/11/28/did-you-find-adam-lamberts-american-music-awards-performance-offensive/comment-page-1/ Did You Find Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards Performance Offensive?, eCanadanow.com, November 28, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Preying on Underage Stars==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very many child actors and actresses have gone on to have damaged and tragically short lives as a result of early exposure to Hollywood Values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Debbie Gibson reflects on her life as a sixteen-year-old teenage Pop star and her exposure to the very sinister side of show business. “It is very disheartening that there are so many older men that prey on young performers.”  What is even more disturbing than dirty male fans would be older male record executives trying to take her to adult parties and corrupt her with alcohol. Even the way the paparazzi stalk the younger artists is very different from following around adults. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533542,00.html?test=faces Debbie Gibson Speaks Out About Pedophile Fans Wanting to 'Corrupt Little Girls' Fox News, July 17, 2009]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The father of teen idol Miley Cyrus said Disney destroyed their family. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/02/15/billy-ray-cyrus-scared-daughter-miley-says-hannah-montana-destroyed-family/#?test=faces Billy Ray Cyrus Scared For Daughter Miley, Says Hannah Montana 'Destroyed My Family', Fox News, February 15, 2011 &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Billy Ray Cyrus accuses Miley's 'handlers' (Disney Executives) of going too far to promote her and when she got bad press they made the father the scapegoat.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Productions==&lt;br /&gt;
The diseased moral values of the Liberal-dominated entertainment industry are manifested all too clearly in many of the products of that industry - motion pictures and television programs that offer no edification or instruction to the viewer, but plumb a cesspit of license and depravity. Some recent examples include the television series ''Desperate Housewives'' and the TV series/movie ''[[Sex and the City]]''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religion==&lt;br /&gt;
A short study of the ten most successful actors &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-most-successful-actors-at-the-box-office.php 10 most successful actors] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; shows that only 50% are Christian (compared to 76% for the general population), with 30% expressing no religious beliefs at all (15% in the general public). These actors have had successful careers and it is very likely that religious affiliation in regular actors is much lower, exposing or predisposing them to the influence of Hollywood values.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Scientology]] is practiced by many Hollywood personalities. Tom Cruise and John Travolta are major spokesmen for this religion.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Books==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Hollywood Against America''&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Hollywood Babylon'' (1965) by Kenneth Anger (US edition)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Hollywood Babylon II'' (1984) by Kenneth Anger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Supermodel]]s&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Gallery of American Heroes]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[World Famous Pictures]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Liberalism}}&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
{{Reflist|3}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5ic_Q3agTpruvzoCJ5UxWaAqGJW3A Bush attacks 'Hollywood values'], ''AFP'', Oct 1, 2007&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html Mug-shots of arrested Hollywood stars]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/news/articles/2010/mtvmovieawards.asp  Parent's Television Council: MTV’s Movie Awards Will Honor Profanity]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/vernon/100802 From Hollywood: to Hitler with love (Stalin, too)]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2010/12/17/dumbest-things-celebs-said/?test=faces Ten Dumbest Things Celebs Said in 2010]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.foxnews.com/slideshow/entertainment/2011/01/04/foul-mouthed-celebs/?test=faces#slide=1 Foul Mouthed Celebrities]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.irishexaminerusa.com/mt/2011/01/04/pop_culture_killing_classic_tr.html Pop Culture Killing Classic Traditions]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:entertainment]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Social Problems]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_censorship&amp;diff=859085</id>
		<title>Talk:Racial censorship</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Racial_censorship&amp;diff=859085"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T16:33:41Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 859084 by NatureLover (talk)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Once again, such a topic should be a debate, not an article. You write this as a article in a self-described &amp;quot;trustworthy&amp;quot; encyclopedia, while only giving one example from a radio talking-head. Come on! You can do better then this! [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 22:04, 4 March 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Delete? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Don't get me wrong I love Walter Williams (more than most), but if you do a Google search for pages which contain the phrases &amp;quot;racial censorship&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;affirmative action&amp;quot; but ''don't'' contain the phrases &amp;quot;Walter Williams&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Rush Limbaugh&amp;quot;, there are exactly [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;amp;q=%22racial+censorship%22+-%22Walter+E.+Williams%22+-%22Walter+Williams%22+-%22Rush+Limbaugh%22+%22affirmative+action%22 14 hits], leading me to believe that this term isn't used in the context given in the article by anyone but two men. If you remove &amp;quot;affirmative action&amp;quot; from the search requirements, you only get [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;amp;client=firefox-a&amp;amp;rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&amp;amp;q=%22racial+censorship%22+-%22Walter+E.+Williams%22+-%22Walter+Williams%22+-%22Rush+Limbaugh%22&amp;amp;btnG=Search 401] hits, leading me to believe that ''nobody'' uses the term, even when they are talking about a different definition than what is in the article. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:22, 22 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Walter Williams' insight is still informative, don't you think, no matter how many others recognize it.  Knowledge is not a popularity game.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:32, 22 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What if this were a subsection of the [[Walter Williams]] article? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:37, 22 October 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859055</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859055"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T04:36:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Disney cartoons */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public Discussion Here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(post comments here by clicking &amp;quot;Edit this page&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Brokeback Mountain ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== U-571 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British (&amp;quot;you arrogant Yankees&amp;quot;). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously &amp;quot;inspired by a true story&amp;quot; even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Lives of Others==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]?  I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves.  Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories.  The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::P.S. Your suggestion of &amp;quot;The Lives of Others&amp;quot; is a fine addition.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png&lt;br /&gt;
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fiddler on the Roof? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gattaca ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention.  Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disney cartoons ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology.  I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any.  Hence the reversion of the &amp;quot;Princess and the Frog (2009)&amp;quot; addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sounds like a good choice.  Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr Schlafly I would agree with your reversion of my contribution of the Princess and the Frog if that movie were feminist-ideology-promoting (like, for instance Mulan (1998)) but frankly, it is not a feminist movie. I am not a woman, nor a feminist - I am staunchly conservative. The Princess and the Frog promotes monogamous marriage (which feminism does not) as well as the other conservative values I listed (such as saving money, hard work, free enterprise etc).  In fact, the main character is so pro-marriage that she changes her licentious friend's behavior from debauchery (which feminism promotes) to monogamy. It is possibly the most conservative-value-laden animated movie I have ever seen.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''The Lion King'' on the other hand promotes re-incarnation with its &amp;quot;Circle of Life&amp;quot; song. Jack, the hero of ''Titanic'' commits fornication and mocks a man reciting the 23rd Psalm; Cal, the main antagonist is depicted as a church-service-attending hypocrite. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You are doubtless correct about the feminist ideology pushed by many Disney animations, but this is not one of them. I respectfully request that you consider returning my contribution of 'The Princess and the Frog'. [[User:Spotsbunch|Spotsbunch]] 23:17, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I have to disagree with you about The Lion King. As far as I can interpret, &amp;quot;The Circle of Life&amp;quot; is either about the bond all humans share or the journey from life to death and the afterlife, not reincarnation. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 00:36, 26 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:H4_Handy_Recorder&amp;diff=859044</id>
		<title>Talk:H4 Handy Recorder</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:H4_Handy_Recorder&amp;diff=859044"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T03:21:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Delete? */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Why is this article still there? It is clearly an advertisement and there has been talk of deleting it but nothing has been done [[User:Wilmington|Wilmington]] 09:44, 16 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Looking at the history doesn't reveal a deletion tag having been placed on it before. if you feel it should eb deleted, please add a tag saying why. Blanking the text isn't very constructive, as the article is still there, but even more boring to look at than before :D [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] &amp;lt;small&amp;gt;([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])&amp;lt;/small&amp;gt; 09:48, 16 June 2007 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::How much are these and where can I get one?  Seems like a cool toy... although, perhaps the ''article'' itself should be more generic (portable digital recorder?). [[User:Human|Human]] 15:43, 14 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Delete? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not sure what relevance/importance this article has. It's written like an ad, and as I'm unsure of how to tag an article for deletion I figured this was the best way to bring attention to it. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:21, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Conservative_Benefits&amp;diff=859043</id>
		<title>Essay:Conservative Benefits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Conservative_Benefits&amp;diff=859043"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T03:10:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are significant ''personal'' benefits to [[conservatism]].  It is particularly powerful and useful in combating:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Atheism and obesity|obesity]] and other addictions&lt;br /&gt;
#anxiety and wasting time&lt;br /&gt;
#deceit and bias&lt;br /&gt;
#temptation of all kinds&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and in encouraging:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#self-improvement and self-reliance&lt;br /&gt;
#seeking the truth and standing up for it&lt;br /&gt;
#charity&lt;br /&gt;
#an advanced command and understanding of [[English]] as is shown by [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative terms]] being generated at a faster rate and with much higher quality than [[liberal]] terms are. This implies an inevitable conservative triumph over liberalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative benefits include all of the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# it recognizes that ideas, particularly political ideas, do have serious ''personal'' consequences&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, a belief in legalized drugs can lead to drug use and its harm.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# it recognizes that politics and culture are adversarial and [[deceit|deceitful]], and helps one filter the falsehoods&lt;br /&gt;
# it allows one to speak ''and think'' freely without distortion by [[political correctness]]&lt;br /&gt;
# it enables one to rise above his ''personal'' likes and dislikes&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Often a debate with a [[liberal]] comes down to what he likes and does not like.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# it recognizes the importance of ''personal'' [[self-defense]], mentally and physically&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages a ''personal'' frugality that doesn't waste other people's money ... or one's own&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages self-restraint that is invaluable in combating addiction, temptation, and obesity&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages self-sufficiency and self-help rather than dependency&lt;br /&gt;
# it facilitates genuine ''personal'' charity, with all its spiritual benefits&lt;br /&gt;
# it is shared across all religions and cultures&lt;br /&gt;
# it facilitates extraordinary insights and epiphanies&lt;br /&gt;
# it helps tremendously in raising and educating the next generation, including one's own children&lt;br /&gt;
# it appreciates law and order, and the ''personal'' value in adhering to it&lt;br /&gt;
# it helps one to realize the potential of every human life&lt;br /&gt;
# it reinforces the ideal that if one works hard enough, he can be anything that he wants to be&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages family values, mainly financial and emotional assistance within the family as opposed to a centralized bureaucracy&lt;br /&gt;
# it instills a sense of [[pride]] in one's country, which is crucial to becoming a contributing member of its society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Example ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult for widows to remarry because there are relatively few single men available beyond age 50.  Only 8% of women who become widows between ages 55 and 64 remarry, and only 2% of women who become widows after age 64 remarry.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;There are 11 million widows to 2.6 million widowers, a ratio of 4.3 to 1. Within 25 years, some demographers predict, the gap could widen to 10 to 1.&amp;quot; [http://www.globalaging.org/ruralaging/us/enjoying.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Also, it becomes difficult to remain attractive as one grows older.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But at a small conservative conference in early 2010, an informal survey found a remarriage rate of nearly 100% by the conservative widows in attendance. These results are likely to be found in other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservative values]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Conservative_Benefits&amp;diff=859040</id>
		<title>Essay:Conservative Benefits</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Conservative_Benefits&amp;diff=859040"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T03:05:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Expanded a fact, fixed spacing&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;There are significant ''personal'' benefits to [[conservatism]].  It is particularly powerful and useful in combating:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#obesity and other addictions&lt;br /&gt;
#anxiety and wasting time&lt;br /&gt;
#deceit and bias&lt;br /&gt;
#temptation of all kinds&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
and in encouraging:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#self-improvement and self-reliance&lt;br /&gt;
#seeking the truth and standing up for it&lt;br /&gt;
#charity&lt;br /&gt;
#an advanced command and understanding of [[English]] as is shown by [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|conservative terms]] being generated at a faster rate and with much higher quality than [[liberal]] terms are. This implies an inevitable conservative triumph over liberalism. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Conservative benefits include all of the following:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# it recognizes that ideas, and particularly political ideas, do have serious ''personal'' consequences&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For example, a belief in legalized drugs can lead to drug use and its harm.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# it recognizes that politics and culture are adversarial and [[deceit|deceitful]], and helps one filter the falsehoods&lt;br /&gt;
# it allows one to speak ''and think'' freely without distortion by [[political correctness]]&lt;br /&gt;
# it enables one to rise above his ''personal'' likes and dislikes&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Often a debate with a [[liberal]] comes down to what he likes and does not like.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
# it recognizes the importance of ''personal'' [[self-defense]], mentally and physically&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages a ''personal'' frugality that doesn't waste other people's money ... or one's own&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages self-restraint that is invaluable in combating addiction, temptation, and obesity&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages self-sufficiency and self-help rather than dependency&lt;br /&gt;
# it facilitates genuine ''personal'' charity, with all its spiritual benefits&lt;br /&gt;
# it is shared across all religions and cultures&lt;br /&gt;
# it facilitates extraordinary insights and epiphanies&lt;br /&gt;
# it helps tremendously in raising and educating the next generation, including one's own children&lt;br /&gt;
# it appreciates law and order, and the ''personal'' value in adhering to it&lt;br /&gt;
# it helps one to realize the potential of every human life&lt;br /&gt;
# it reinforces the ideal that if one works hard enough, he can be anything that he wants to be&lt;br /&gt;
# it encourages family values, mainly financial and emotional assistance within the family as opposed to a centralized bureaucracy&lt;br /&gt;
# it instills a sense of [[pride]] in one's country, which is crucial to becoming a contributing member of its society&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Example ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is difficult for widows to remarry because there are relatively few single men available beyond age 50.  Only 8% of women who become widows between ages 55 and 64 remarry, and only 2% of women who become widows after age 64 remarry.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;There are 11 million widows to 2.6 million widowers, a ratio of 4.3 to 1. Within 25 years, some demographers predict, the gap could widen to 10 to 1.&amp;quot; [http://www.globalaging.org/ruralaging/us/enjoying.htm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Also, it becomes difficult to remain attractive as one grows older.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But at a small conservative conference in early 2010, an informal survey found a remarriage rate of nearly 100% by the conservative widows in attendance. These results ar elikely to be found in other samples.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservative values]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&amp;diff=859036</id>
		<title>Dino Rossi</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dino_Rossi&amp;diff=859036"/>
				<updated>2011-03-26T02:48:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Bio&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Dino Rossi&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Rossi.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|image-width=175px&lt;br /&gt;
|yob=1959&lt;br /&gt;
|dob=October 15,&lt;br /&gt;
|age={{age|1959|10|15}}&lt;br /&gt;
|wife=&lt;br /&gt;
|wife-raw=&lt;br /&gt;
|birthplace=&lt;br /&gt;
|birthplace-raw=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Dino Rossi''' (born October 15, 1959) was born and raised in [[Seattle]], [[Washington State|Washington]], earned his [[Business]] degree from Seattle University, has made a successful career in the commercial [[real estate]] business, and formerly served as Washington state's Senator from 1997 through 2003.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.dinorossi.com/about/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Dino Rossi is a [[conservative]] [[Republican]], passionate about [[politics]] and believes in the [[United States Constitution]]. He currently serves as a Secretary for the Board of the [[Special Olympics]] for the State of Washington and is a member of the Dean’s Advisory Board for the School of Business at Seattle University. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dino Rossi is a family man with a wife and four children.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kara L. Kraemer. [http://www.examiner.com/x-42947-Yakima-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d26-YES-Dino-Rossi-has-decided-to-run YES! Dino Rossi has decided to run!], examiner.com, May 26, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Political history==&lt;br /&gt;
Dino Rossi served in the Washington State Senate from 1997 through 2003. He represented the 5th  Legislative District in east King County. In 2003, he served as chairman of the Senate Ways &amp;amp; Means Committee where he was charged with producing the state’s budget. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Rossi-Locke budget===&lt;br /&gt;
Dino Rossi's most prominent political achievement came in 2003. As the ranking Republican state Senator, Rossi played a key role in tackling a record $2.3 billion state budget shortfall. He did it by aggressively courting several [[Democrats]] and persuading them to go along with an array of deep spending cuts.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008279880_edit19rossiendorse.html Dino Rossi for governor], ''The Seattle Times'', October 19, 2008.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dino Rossi took a tough budget proposed by Democratic Gov. Gary Locke — a budget that legislators weren't sure Locke really believed in — and made it believable. The Rossi-Locke budget saved the people from increases in major taxes and helped unleash a strong economic rebound.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Campaign for Governor===&lt;br /&gt;
Dino Rossi is one the state's best-known Republicans, having waged two campaigns for governor. In Washington state's 2004 gubernatorial elections, Dino Rossi at first won by a majority vote, and then won again after a recount; however, after a second hand recount later challenged by Doctor [[Arthur_Coday,_Jr.,_M.D.#Political_Philosophy|Art Coday]] as unconstitutional, Rossi was 133 votes shy and lost the race to [[Christine Gregoire]]. Dino Rossi would later lose a rematch against Governor Gregoire in 2008.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kyung M. Song. [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011945582_rossi25m.html Rossi to seek Murray's seat], ''The Seattle Times'', May 24, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===2010 Midterm Elections===&lt;br /&gt;
For the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], Washington U.S. [[Senator]] [[Patty Murray]] seized a fourth term with a victory over Republican Dino Rossi.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;The lesson I leave you with is one we learned as kids: We're all in this together. If Washington, D.C., doesn't act to help the economy grow and solve this massive spending and debt, it's going to hurt us all,&amp;quot; Rossi said. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/washington-sen-murray-wins-election-days-counting/ Washington Dem Sen. Murray Wins 4th Term], FoxNews.com, November 04, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;William LaJeunesse. [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/04/turning-blue-washington-state &amp;quot;Turning Blue&amp;quot; in Washington State], politics.blogs.foxnews.com, November 04, 2010.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Her win was secured after tallies pushed her lead to about 46,000 votes out of more than 1.8 million counted, or about 51 percent to 49 percent.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External Links==&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.dinorossi.com/ Dino Rossi for U.S. Senate] - [[Washington State|Washington]], [[Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dino-Rossi/5935228257 Dino Rossi] - [[Facebook]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://twitter.com/DinoRossiWA Rossi for Senate] - [[Twitter]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.youtube.com/DinoRossiWA DinoRossiWA] - [[YouTube]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rossi, Dino}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Conservatives]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Christians]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Business People]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Republican Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{conservatism}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859004</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859004"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T21:01:25Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956) - A science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) ('''not for children''') - A portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008) - A candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002) - Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939) -  Celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959) - Celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - Exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) ('''not for children''') - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956) - The definitive film portrayal of [[Exodus]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - Simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952) - [[Ronald Reagan]] stars as a baseball pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) - [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941) - A young American soldier during WWI overcomes an unfounded religious objection to killing and becomes a war hero.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940) - Stars [[Ronald Reagan]] as corageous football player George Gipp, who dies before an important game.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998) - A telling of the life of [[Moses]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955) - Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963) - Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) - A patriot fights for American freedom during the [[American Revolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004) - Shows the courageousness of firefighters.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) - A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]'' (2006) - Shows the horrors of slave trade.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]'' (1951)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - Illustrates the dangers of alcohol abuse.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) - Anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952) - A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994) - Stars the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) - Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) - True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) - Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) - A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992-)  Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) - Celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) - Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984) - Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - The intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - This film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - A thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) - Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) - Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' (2008) - Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gattaca]]'' (1997) - A condemnation of human genetic engineering, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely totalitarian regime. Unfortunately the movie ends with a materialistic message: &amp;quot;They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home&amp;quot; (A phrase said when the protagonist finally managed to go to space). &lt;br /&gt;
# ''The Lion King'' (1994) - A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) - Downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) - Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) - Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - Comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859003</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859003"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T21:01:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Fixed more formatting, bolded &amp;quot;not for children&amp;quot; films, added some descriptions...someone with more knowledge of film than I can help out with the missing descriptions&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956) - A science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) ('''not for children''') - A portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008) - A candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002) - Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939 -  Celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959) - Celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - Exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) ('''not for children''') - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956) - The definitive film portrayal of [[Exodus]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - Simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952) - [[Ronald Reagan]] stars as a baseball pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) - [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941) - A young American soldier during WWI overcomes an unfounded religious objection to killing and becomes a war hero.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940) - Stars [[Ronald Reagan]] as corageous football player George Gipp, who dies before an important game.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998) - A telling of the life of [[Moses]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955) - Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963) - Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) - A patriot fights for American freedom during the [[American Revolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004) - Shows the courageousness of firefighters.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) - A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]'' (2006) - Shows the horrors of slave trade.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]'' (1951)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - Illustrates the dangers of alcohol abuse.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) - Anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952) - A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994) - Stars the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) - Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) - True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) - Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) - A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992-)  Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) - Celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) - Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984) - Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - The intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - This film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - A thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) - Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) - Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' (2008) - Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gattaca]]'' (1997) - A condemnation of human genetic engineering, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely totalitarian regime. Unfortunately the movie ends with a materialistic message: &amp;quot;They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home&amp;quot; (A phrase said when the protagonist finally managed to go to space). &lt;br /&gt;
# ''The Lion King'' (1994) - A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) - Downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) - Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) - Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - Comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859001</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=859001"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T20:54:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: I fixed a lot of formatting issues, and put all movies in the form: ''(Film)'' (Year) - Description&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956) - A science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children) - A portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008) - A candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002) - Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939 -  Celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959) - Celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - Exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] since.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956) - The definitive film portrayal of [[Exodus]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - Simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952) - [[Ronald Reagan]] stars as a baseball pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) - [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941) - A young American soldier during WWI overcomes an unfounded religious objection to killing and becomes a war hero.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. - &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955) - Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963) - Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) - A patriot fights for American freedom during the [[American Revolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]'' (1951)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - Illustrates the dangers of alcohol.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) - Anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952) - A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994) - Starrs the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) - Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) - True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) - Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) - A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992-)  Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) - Celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) - Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984) - Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - The intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - This film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - A thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) - Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) - Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' (2008) - Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gattaca]]'' (1997) - A condemnation of human genetic engineering, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely totalitarian regime. Unfortunately the movie ends with a materialistic message: &amp;quot;They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home&amp;quot; (A phrase said when the protagonist finally managed to go to space). &lt;br /&gt;
# ''The Lion King'' (1994) - A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) - Downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) - Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) - Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - Comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858996</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858996"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T20:41:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Disney cartoons */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public Discussion Here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(post comments here by clicking &amp;quot;Edit this page&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Brokeback Mountain ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== U-571 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British (&amp;quot;you arrogant Yankees&amp;quot;). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously &amp;quot;inspired by a true story&amp;quot; even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Lives of Others==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]?  I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves.  Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories.  The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::P.S. Your suggestion of &amp;quot;The Lives of Others&amp;quot; is a fine addition.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png&lt;br /&gt;
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fiddler on the Roof? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gattaca ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention.  Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disney cartoons ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology.  I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any.  Hence the reversion of the &amp;quot;Princess and the Frog (2009)&amp;quot; addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sounds like a good choice.  Please add and if anyone has a different view of the movie, then he can let us know.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:26, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Added. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:41, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858995</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858995"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T20:40:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008), a candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] later&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. - &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - illustrating the dangers of alcohol.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984).  Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - the film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - a thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gattaca]]'' (1997) - A condemnation of human genetic engineering, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely totalitarian regime. Unfortunately the movie ends with a materialistic message: &amp;quot;They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home&amp;quot; (A phrase said when the protagonist finally managed to go to space). &lt;br /&gt;
# ''The Lion King'' (1994) - A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) -- Downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) -- Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) -- Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - Comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie pushes [[feminism]] and marginalizes the essential role of fatherhood.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_1996&amp;diff=858988</id>
		<title>United States presidential election, 1996</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_1996&amp;diff=858988"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T20:07:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:2.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Bob Dole and Bill Clinton]] The '''presidential election of 1996''' was a victory for the [[Democratic]] candidate, incumbent President [[Bill Clinton]]. The [[Republican]]s nominated Senator [[Bob Dole]] as their candidate.  Wealthy businessman [[H. Ross Perot]] ran again on the [[Reform Party]] ticket. Dole debated President Clinton in two debates, while Perot wasn't allowed to attend as his polling numbers had dropped since 1992.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.debates.org/pages/his_1996.html &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==Issues==&lt;br /&gt;
In 1994, Republicans won control of both houses of [[Congress]] after extracting huge gains in both chambers, but that actually hurt their chances of retaking the [[White House]].  Clinton's failed 1993 [[health care]] reform package, which helped lead to the 1994 Republican congressional majority, was too distant in voter's minds.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Public confidence in the Clinton administration's treatment of China, Iraq, Bosnia, and Israel during 1993-96, evidenced by polls, made the incumbent virtually immune to foreign policy attacks from the Republican Party. Combined with the strong economy overseen by the Republican Congress that Clinton took credit for and the fact that there were no current major foreign policy issues, there was little to run on to oppose him.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Clinton enjoyed a relatively easy victory in November and became the first Democratic President to be elected to two terms in office since [[Franklin Roosevelt]] in 1936.  The public showed little interest in the scandals the Clinton [[administration]] was responsible for, such as [[Whitewater]] and Travelgate.  He ran on a moderate platform of [[welfare]] reform and smaller government, similar to the way he portrayed himself as a moderate in the [[United States presidential election, 1992|1992 election]].  The disasterous path of his first two years was forgotten.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/1996.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bob Dole promised a 15 percent tax cut, but with a healthy economy that was not a high priority for voters. The press made an issue out of Dole's age and accused him of being 'mean'. Dole, a [[World War II]] veteran who had permanent battle injuries, was reluctant to play off of his war record.  Bill Clinton, of course, had avoided military service.  President Clinton was re-elected with a [[majority]] of the [[Electoral College]] votes but only received a [[plurality]] of the popular vote, similar to his 1992 election. The election is notable for having the lowest percentage of voter turnout (49.1%) since 1924.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==American Dream==&lt;br /&gt;
The theme of the Republican convention was 'Restoring the American Dream,' and convention speeches were filled with [[American Dream]] imagery. Dole's own speech stressed individualism over collectivism and called for a broad, even multicultural, interpretation of the American Dream. In their acceptance speeches, Democrats have traditionally focused on the importance of community and society while Republicans have increasingly emphasized individual struggle. In 1996, the nomination acceptance speeches of Dole's opponents, Clinton and particularly Perot, borrowed from the Republican vision of individualism and personal responsibility which first gained popularity with the [[Ronald Reagan]] presidency of the 1980s. The persistence of American Dream imagery in the speeches of party nominees since the 1960's shows the confidence politicians place in its appeal. The presidential candidates who have best articulated the country's visions and values have been victorious.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Ray D. Dearin, &amp;quot;The American Dream as Depicted in Robert J. Dole's 1996 Presidential Nomination Acceptance Speech,&amp;quot; ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' 1997 27(4): 698-713,  &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
==Voters==&lt;br /&gt;
Analysis of polling data shows that the economy was the dominant factor in accounting for voter decisions in 1992, and Clinton, not Perot, was the beneficiary of economic discontent. While issues (mainly abortion) and ideology did play some role, Clinton was not perceived by the electorate as a New Democrat. There was little support for the hypothesis of angry voting. Perot took more votes from Bush than from Clinton.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; R. Michael Alvarez and Jonathan Nagler, &amp;quot;Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election,&amp;quot; ''American Journal of Political Science'' 1995 39(3): 714-744, in [[EBSCO]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hispanic voters were energized by four &amp;quot;wedge&amp;quot; issues that emerged--immigration reform, welfare reform, affirmative action, English as an official language - and by the antagonistic positions taken by Republicans toward Hispanics on those issues alienated Hispanics from the GOP. Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole sacrificed the already tenuous appeal of the GOP toward Hispanics by embracing an anti-Hispanic position in an effort to appeal to WASP voters. In the end, the Dole strategy failed due to his inability to gain the support of white women. In the meantime, 72% of Hispanics voted for Democrat Bill Clinton, the highest percentage ever. The article provides a detailed record of the Hispanic vote in nine key states and the effect which the higher-than-ever turnout and preference for the Democrat had on each of them. In four of the states, including California, Hispanics were a key component of the Clinton victory margin. In Florida and Arizona, Hispanics helped steer those states from the Republican to the Democratic column. In Texas and Colorado, Hispanic support for Clinton contributed to the close election, even though Clinton lost. In New Mexico, the Hispanic vote was pivotal to the Clinton victory.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Maurilio E.  Vigil, &amp;quot;Hispanics and the 1996 Presidential Election,&amp;quot; ''Latino Studies Journal'' 1998 9(1): 43-61&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Results&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1996 Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;==&lt;br /&gt;
[[File:1996ev.jpg|thumb|550px|left]]&lt;br /&gt;
{| class=&amp;quot;wikitable&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
! Candidate&lt;br /&gt;
! Party&lt;br /&gt;
! Popular Vote&lt;br /&gt;
! Percent&lt;br /&gt;
! Electoral Vote&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| William Clinton&lt;br /&gt;
| Democratic&lt;br /&gt;
| 47,400,125&lt;br /&gt;
| 49.2%&lt;br /&gt;
| 379&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Robert Dole&lt;br /&gt;
| Republican&lt;br /&gt;
| 39,198,755&lt;br /&gt;
| 40.7%&lt;br /&gt;
| 159&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| H. Ross Perot&lt;br /&gt;
| Reform&lt;br /&gt;
| 8,085,402&lt;br /&gt;
| 8.4%&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Ralph Nader]]&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Green Party|Green]]&lt;br /&gt;
| 685,297&lt;br /&gt;
| 0.7%&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Harry Browne]]&lt;br /&gt;
| [[Libertarian Party|Libertarian]]&lt;br /&gt;
| 485,798&lt;br /&gt;
| 0.5%&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|-&lt;br /&gt;
| Others&lt;br /&gt;
| -&lt;br /&gt;
| 420,024&lt;br /&gt;
| 0.4%&lt;br /&gt;
| 0&lt;br /&gt;
|}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:1996, United States presidential election}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:United States Presidential Elections]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Reagan Era]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858984</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858984"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T19:45:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Disney cartoons */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive1|Archive 1]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;[[Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies/archive2|Archive 2]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Public Discussion Here ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(post comments here by clicking &amp;quot;Edit this page&amp;quot;)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Brokeback Mountain ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was thinking about this topic earlier and had an interesting thought about a seemingly non-conservative movie that, in a way, is actually quite so. I'm going to throw this out there for some (hopefully productive and civil) debate and see what people think.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie is Brokeback Mountain. Now hold on to your outrage, people. I have justifications for my point. Please hear me out. (Oh, and spoilers, just in case you planned to see/read it and hadn't)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As you probably know, the movie (and the novella on which its based) is about two men who fall into a homosexual lifestyle. But what struck me as conservative about this film is that it doesn't glorify the lifestyle; the two mens' choice to indulge in homosexuality is a disastrous choice that ends up ruining both their lives. One man's marriage is destroyed and his relationship with his child is forever tainted. The other man's choice actually leads to his violent death (Incidentally, I'm not saying that killing someone for being gay is a conservative value. But the point is that this movie is actually very up-front about acknowledging the catastrophic consequences of a homosexual lifestyle).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering all that, my next though was whether this movie might be unintentionally conservative, in which case it certainly doesn't belong on this list. But I don't think it is (haven't seen it since it first came out though, so I could be wrong).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, there's my point. I would appreciate some discussion. I imagine some CPers will think I'm trolling or just trying to start an argument. Not so. I feel like it's a valid point but that there are probably strong arguments for and against, and I'd really like to hear what other people think. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 17:11, 25 June 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== U-571 ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I deleted U-571 from this list. It portrays the capture of an Enigma machine from a German U-boat by US forces. As pretty much everyone with any interest in WW2 knows, the naval Enigma machine was stolen by Polish forces and decoded by British code-breakers at Bletchley. My Brit friends think U-571 is a joke because it minimises the role of the British (&amp;quot;you arrogant Yankees&amp;quot;). Poles are offended because it cuts out the Polish involvement altogether - including the very brave men who risked their lives to steal an Enigma machine and hand it over to British Intelligence. (BTW, Britain and Poland were allies of ours in WW2 and still are now.) Deceit isn't a conservative virtue - so I crossed U-571 off the list. [[User:BenjyB|BenjyB]] 16:51, 20 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'd say it's very questionable whether there's any deceit involved. The movie makes an on-screen written acknowledgment that the the first (and the majority) of enigmas were captured by British sailors. The whole movie is so over-the-top that nobody with a lick of intelligence would believe it's true. American sailors did capture an enigma machine during the war too, so this movie is obviously &amp;quot;inspired by a true story&amp;quot; even if it's not especially true. Most of the movie-going public knows that Hollywood &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; stories are highly fictionalized. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:13, 21 September 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==The Lives of Others==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where on earth is The Lives of Others? it is, surely, the best recent critique of Communism and, for that matter, one of the best films ''of any type'' released in the past five years. It certainly deserves a place ahead of, for example, the obscure Dark Matter. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:13, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: It's in German, right, and about the former [[East Germany]]?  I'll add it on your recommendation, but I can't agree it ranks higher than the English-language Dark Matter, which speaks to today and not just the past.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:41, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Fair enough, Andy. Though I don't quite understand the argument against foreign-language films. If the issue is obscurity, The Lives of Others was seen by far more people in the US than Dark Matter. A glance at Box-Office Mojo confirms that Dark Matter took in a staggeringly tiny $30,591 on its domestic run. The Lives of Others took in $11,286,112 in the US (plus another $66 million in the rest of the world). I am, however, content to abide by your criteria. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 15:40, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Oprah Winfrey's daytime talk show rakes in far higher revenues than both, but I'm not sure what that proves.  Dark Matter was apparently victimized and downplayed by liberals who finally figured out its conservative message, after it won first place in one of the Sundance Film Festival categories.  The liberal backlash against Dark Matter is particularly surprising given that Meryl Streep starred in it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::P.S. Your suggestion of &amp;quot;The Lives of Others&amp;quot; is a fine addition.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:02, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.conservapedia.com/skins/common/images/button_sig.png&lt;br /&gt;
::::No problem. Keep up the good work. --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 20:47, 28 November 2010 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fiddler on the Roof? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A film celebrating the value of community, tradition, family, and faith, all against the historical context of the harm done by the rise of Communism in Russia...worthy of a spot on the list?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:30, 6 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Sounds good to me ... please add it as you think best!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:48, 6 January 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Gattaca ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A condemnation of genetic experiments on humans, and a wonderful triumph of individualism in an extremely controlled society. No matter how much scientists play to be God, and try to improve the human race by using genetics, there will always be an individual, based on original God design, who, despite his health shortcomings, will triumph over this genetically modified, supposedly perfect human beings. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t immediately put it on the list because the movie is a bit atheist. In the final scene, the hero finally managed to travel to space and cites the phrase: “They say every atom in our bodies was once a part of a star. So, maybe I'm not leaving, maybe I'm going home.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, I’ll say that the movie has a conservative message, unfortunately diluted with atheist overtones. I’ll wait for someone else opinion before posting this. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 23:03, 10 March 2011 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Feel free to post this with the caveat you mention.  Thanks for explaining it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:33, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::We talked about this movie at my fellowship a few months ago - pure hokum about a guy who might have been alright on his own but for a disgusting patriarchy forcing human engineering. I'll write this if AlejandroJ doesn't. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 00:51, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Thanks, I posted it. --[[User:AlejandroH|AlejandroH]] 15:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Disney cartoons ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most, and perhaps all, of the Disney cartoons for the past 15 or so years have pushed the [[feminist]] ideology.  I welcome any counterexamples, but doubt there are any.  Hence the reversion of the &amp;quot;Princess and the Frog (2009)&amp;quot; addition.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:31, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:''The Lion King'', a 1994 Disney movie, is definitely conservative. A main message of the movie is honoring thy father, and the power-hungry main antagonist, once he becomes ruler, favors big government, pushes [[liberal values]] and destroys their territory. I'll add it with your approval. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 15:45, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Legislation&amp;diff=858983</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Legislation</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Legislation&amp;diff=858983"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T19:37:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Here is a growing list of the greatest [[conservative]] legislation:&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Taft-Hartley Act]] ([[Congress]] overrode a presidential veto)&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Twenty-Second Amendment]] (term limits for the [[presidency]])&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981]] (Kemp-Roth Tax Cut)&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Tax Reform Act of 1986]] (substantially lowered tax rates)&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996]] (welfare reform)&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003]]&lt;br /&gt;
#[[The Volstead Act]] ([[Congress]] overrode a presidential veto, on the same day as the veto!)&lt;br /&gt;
#[[United States Constitution]], the most important document in American history, part of what made this country great.&lt;br /&gt;
#United States [[Declaration of Independence]], which allowed this country to begin.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Massachusetts Personal Liberty Act]], which effectively nullified the Federal [[Fugitive Slave Act]].&lt;br /&gt;
(add more, especially from earlier periods in history)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Apolo_Anton_Ohno&amp;diff=858976</id>
		<title>Apolo Anton Ohno</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Apolo_Anton_Ohno&amp;diff=858976"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T19:10:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Apolo Anton Ohno''' is an Olympic gold medal-winning speed skater and the winner of Season 4 of the [[conservative]] television show [[Dancing with the Stars]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT: Ohno, Apolo Anton}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Olympians]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Norman_Rockwell&amp;diff=858975</id>
		<title>Norman Rockwell</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Norman_Rockwell&amp;diff=858975"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T19:08:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Improved article&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Norman Rockwell''' (1894-1978) was a famous American painter. He referred to himself as an &amp;quot;illustrator&amp;quot; rather than an &amp;quot;artist.&amp;quot; He worked from the the mid-1910s, as a military artist until the earl 1970s. He painted many scenes of American life, including &amp;quot;The Four Freedoms&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;The Family Dinner&amp;quot;. In particular, he painted cover art for 317 issues of the [[Saturday Evening Post]]. His work was widely reprinted after his death, such as in ''[[Reader's Digest]]'' and on [[stamps]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
LIke the pre-Raphaelites, his pictures tell a story, and the people in them have easily readable, dramatic facial expressions. Unlike the pre-Raphaelites, his pictures frequently display a keen sense of humor. His work was direct, popular, and commercial. His paintings of plain people in small-town settings (influenced by his years of living in [[New England]]) are sometimes derided as sentimental or &amp;quot;cornball,&amp;quot; but he tackled serious themes as well. His 1964 ''Look'' magazine illustration, &amp;quot;The Problem We All Live With,&amp;quot; showed U. S. Marshals escorting a six-year-old black girl into a previously segregated school.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External link==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.guggenheim.org/exhibitions/past_exhibitions/rockwell/problem_lg.html The Problem We All Live With], Guggenheim museum.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Artists|Rockwell, Norman]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Trail_of_Tears&amp;diff=858974</id>
		<title>Trail of Tears</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Trail_of_Tears&amp;diff=858974"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T19:01:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''The Trail of Tears''' is the common name for the systematic removal of [[Cherokee]] Indians from [[Tennessee]] and [[Georgia]] to [[Indian Territory]] (later [[Oklahoma]]) in compliance with the [[Indian Removal Act of 1830]] as put into place by President [[Andrew Jackson]]. Under that Act, the US government negotiated relocation treaties with various Indian tribes, and some of them moved voluntarily and peaceably. Some Indians also stayed and became American citizens.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some Cherokee leaders signed a relocation treaty in 1833, and in 1836 the Cherokees were given two years to move voluntarily. In 1838, President [[Martin Van Buren]]'s administration forced about 17,000 Cherokee Indian to move to Oklahoma. Between 2,000 and 4,000 died on the trip, mostly the elderly and small children due to disease, malnutrition, and fatigue.  The Trail of Tears became a national historical site in 1987.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The exact number is debated. On the official lists, 13,169 left home and 11,504 arrived in Oklahoma. Russell Thornton et al. ''The Cherokees: A Population History'' (University of Nebraska Press, 1992).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jackson had expressed the opinion that the relocation was a generous offer to the Indians, and that they would be very much better off with the freedom and autonomy of their new territories. There is a popular myth that Jackson defied the US Supreme Court to relocate the Cherokees, but in fact the court never ruled on the matter. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Private John G. Burnett participated in the forced relocation, and wrote about the great suffering that the Cherokees endured.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.cherokee.org/Culture/128/Page/default.aspx&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Indian Removal Act of 1830]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Native Americans]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:United States History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frictional_unemployment&amp;diff=858972</id>
		<title>Frictional unemployment</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frictional_unemployment&amp;diff=858972"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T18:56:01Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Frictional unemployment''' is [[unemployment]] that occurs when a person takes time to find a job. In an [[economy]] as large and diverse as the [[United States]], many people fall into this category. Examples are people trying to find the right type of job or people who are still taking time to finish their schooling.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Economics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=African_Americans&amp;diff=858971</id>
		<title>African Americans</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=African_Americans&amp;diff=858971"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T18:53:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Religion */ Changed caption on picture of Obama. It's more accurate now, as he is not 100% black. If a sysop wants to change it back they're welcome to.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Paterson.jpg|thumb|[[David A. Paterson]], first black governor of New York (2008- )]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''African American''' is a [[politically correct]] term some use to describe the ethnic background of Americans with [[Africa]]n ancestry. The  great majority of African Americans are descended from Africans brought to North America as [[slavery|slaves]] beginning four centuries ago.  Others (like [[Colin Powell]]) were twentieth century immigrants from the [[West Indies]] or Africa. Many American [[conservative]]s believe that the use of terms such as &amp;quot;African-American&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Mexican-American,&amp;quot; collectively referred to as &amp;quot;[[hyphenated American|hyphenated Americanism]],&amp;quot; make the mistake of &amp;quot;putting America second&amp;quot; and emphasize racial differences over common national identity &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/on_becoming_an_unhyphenated_am.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Terms==&lt;br /&gt;
The preferred terminology changes. Currently &amp;quot;black&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;African American&amp;quot; are in favor, and &amp;quot;Afro-American&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Negro&amp;quot; are out of favor. The situation before 1960 was just the reverse. &amp;quot;Colored&amp;quot; was popular until the 1950s, but now is generally out of favor except among some [[leftist]] groups.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
see [[Black history]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Blacks were originally brought to America to serve as slaves in southeastern states on large-scale plantations. During the [[Civil War]], all slaves were freed by [[Abraham Lincoln]] though the [[Emancipation Proclamation]], the [[Thirteenth Amendment]], and some state actions. During [[Reconstruction]] the Freedmen (freed slaves) gained citizenship and civil and political rights, including the right to marry, move about, and keep their wages.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The system of [[Sharecropper|sharecropping]] instituted after the end of the war left most Freedmen poor, while the [[Jim Crow]] policies of racial [[segregation]] that were implemented after the end of [[Reconstruction]] limited their civic and political rights. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Blacks left the rural south in two waves, the first around 1915-20, the second coming after [[World War II]] when machinery ended the need for large numbers of people to pick cotton by hand. The migrants headed to the large cities of the North and West, and also in the South, moving from very poorly paid farm work to wage labor.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Politics==&lt;br /&gt;
Blacks tended to support the [[Republican Party]] from the 1860s to the 1960s, but few who lived in the South voted. The [[New Deal]] provided large-scale relief for blacks during the [[Great Depression]]. Some black Republican organizations, as in Chicago, switched overnight to the [[Democrat]]s. The [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965 allowed blacks to vote in the South, and has been vigorously enforced. Since 1964 blacks have voted 85% to 95% for Democratic presidential candidates, with an occasional black Republican elected to state office.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religion==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumb|150px|Barack Obama, the first President with black ancestry (2009- )]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amoong African-Americans, religiosity is very high, and the standard practice since [[Reconstruction]] is for black ministers to be community spokespersons, and political power brokers; they often run for office. The great majority of African Americans are [[Protestant]]s, with their own [[Baptist]], [[Pentecostal]], and [[Methodist]] churches.  A few are [[Muslim]]s.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The Pluralism Project at Harvard University[http://www.pluralism.org/resources/statistics/tradition.php#Islam]  Twenty-four percent of American Muslims are black, according to American Muslim Council's Zogby poll of August 2000.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;. .&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* [http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI)]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black History]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Civil Rights]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Jim Crow]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Race]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Black Republican]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Ethnicities]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:The South]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Civil Rights]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Black History]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Moshe&amp;diff=858962</id>
		<title>User talk:Moshe</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Moshe&amp;diff=858962"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T18:44:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Undo revision 858957 by RATIONxALWIKIxISxACE (talk)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{welcome}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Conservapedia%27s_Law&amp;diff=858888</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Conservapedia%27s_Law&amp;diff=858888"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T05:23:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective */ Reply to Mr. Schlafly&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty.  Why the difficulty here?  It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry.  By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I gave over 150 examples: see [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] and the geometric pattern it displays.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::More than 150 terms in [[Essay:Best New Conservatives Words]] demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications.  I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind.  Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::There are more than just three examples from the list of new conservative words that are not distinctly conservative. Also, I’m not sure if making the argument that conservative insights increase geometrically based on the word list is all that quantifiable. Words and language evolve and develop for a variety of reasons and it would be difficult if not impossible to attribute a words creation or popular use, for example, productivity, altruism, incompleteness, initiative, insightful, elitism, deflation, accountability, hysteria, leverage, local, motivation, optimism, phonics, potential, quantify, self-reliant, self-defence, vandalism, veracity, victimization, work ethic, etc, to conservative thought. However, it would be an interesting project to undertake, albeit a time consuming one. My point is that you need to develop a stronger argument for the theory that these conservative words are increasing geometrically with proof that they are developed because of conservative thought, and that conservative thought will continue to grow. Stating that they increase geometrically with no support to back it up, besides the observation that the number of terms increases from century to century is not a strong enough argument, for me anyway. I want there to be the support and sources to back it up. I’d be willing to assist in developing this argument further. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Your long-winded reply was unresponsive.  You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms.  Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative.  I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway.  If you want &amp;quot;support and sources&amp;quot; for an original insight, you're not going to find them.  Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Mr. Schlafy, I assure you I have an open mind. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I understand that you don’t have time to explain each term and I am not asking you to. Though I still believe that the terms I outlined are not distinctly conservative terms and I don’t think it is ‘obvious’ that I was wrong about that because you haven’t explained why I am. Retuning to the original issue I raised, even if you have developed an ‘original insight’ it still needs to be explained well enough to stand as a strong argument. One of the things stressed in highschool and particularly post-secondary school is an argument needs to be well developed and well supported, which includes ‘original insights.’ Perhaps this example with help clarify my argument: I could develop an ‘original insight’ that the colour (note my spelling) of the sky is green. Most people would argue that no, the sky is in fact blue. If I did not develop the argument that the sky is green any further, it would not be considered a credible or strong argument. However, if I clarified with the support that the sky can appear green during intense thunderstorms as a result of water and ice scattering green light waves during strong updrafts in thunderstorms, the argument then makes much more sense and can stand as being a strong and credible argument. I hope this helps clarify my concerns. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: You haven't clarified anything for me, and your talk-to-substance ratio is very high.  See [[liberal style]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Are you saying there are no legitimate new conservative words?  If you concede there are some, then it's possible to estimate their rate of increase, which we've done.  If you insist there are none, then you lack the open-mind you claim to have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:51, 12 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I do not deny there are no new legitimate conservative words, just that some you list are not legitimate, which may interfere with your geometric rate of increase argument. But I will reiterate my concerns a final time using as few words as possible: Your argument is weak and lacks clarification and support. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You won't deny it, but you won't admit it either.  Sounds like you should hold a debate with yourself.  Your non-committal comments have not been productive here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You've posted ten times, all talk.  That's in violation of our [[90/10 rule]].  I'll be lenient and block you for only a day but please don't return unless you want to contribute to this encyclopedia in a substantive manner.  Godspeed if you go elsewhere to insist on your unchanging viewpoint.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Did I do something wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted.  You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy.  Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Societies become more conservative? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I question the assumption that societies become inevitably more conservative over time.  Over the last 200 years we have seen a fundamental shift in society towards liberal values - promiscuity, for example, has been on the rise for over 50 years now.  Attitudes surrounding things like homosexuality, sex before marriage, and race relations are becoming more liberal, not more conservative.  As young generations seek solely their own gratification and try to find the easiest way to enjoy life, I fear this is a trend we will continue to see.  Thoughts?  [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 19:21, 21 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Conservatism is based heavily on logic, and over time logic does prevail.  Promiscuity and homosexuality reduce lifespan, induce depression, and degrade participants.  Over time, logic prevails.  Promiscuity is rejected in greater numbers today than in the past, and [[Proposition 8]] in the most liberal state sent a message against homosexuality that was unexpected by the media.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Meanwhile there are countless other issues, from gun control to taxes to ownership of gold to money market savings, where conservative positions are far more accepted today than in the past.  And, alas, the percentage of people who self-identify as conservative is constantly increasing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:36, 21 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, why was my edit deleted, I feel this was a valid point. Wikipedia has over 500 entries on silly laws, but not one on conservapedia's law. I feel this is a perfect example of liberal bias. they are hiding from the truth--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 23:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: There are many legitimate criticisms of Wikipedia, but your edit wasn't one of them.  We're fair here and do not criticize others unfairly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we could all agree that before the fall, society was perfectly conservative. At what point would conservatism be at its lowest? Would it be before, during or after the destruction of Babel? Or maybe after the fall, conservatism decayed until the time of Jesus? What would a graph of conservatism look like across time? Could it be that Jesus will return upon mankind's return to perfect conservatism? If so, could Conservapedia's law help us make an educated guess as to when that might be? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'd guess it's been a geometric growth in [[conservatism]] since [[Jesus]].  Before that, logic and the Old Testament would have helped, but evil was at work too.  Right before the [[Great Flood]] it was pretty bleak; afterward, things were in good shape at least initially.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Without a liberal corollary, Conservapedia's Law implies that conservatism has no limit. Do you think that is the case? I don't think we could possibly become &amp;quot;more conservative&amp;quot; than before the fall - it'd be like saying you could become more sinless than Adam was. I'm proposing that [[liberal creep]] acts as the limiting factor of conservatism, and is a corollary of Conservapedia's Law. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:26, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree with Brad B. Just as we do not live in an infinite universe, we cannot become more conservative than the infinite conservatism society had before the fall. Nothing can be more than infinity. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:40, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Geometric progressions never reach infinity, which is the mathematical analog of where Adam and Eve were before the Fall.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I realize that, but isn't it possible that it could eventually reach an arbitrarily large number that would be extremely close to 100% conservatism? In my humble opinion, conservatism (as is the case with nearly everything) has some sort of limit. Whether it will be reached in our lifetimes (or 10 or 100 lifetimes from now) is unknowable. My point is, if there were some sort of hypothetical figure that represented total conservatism, that it could not be reached by Conservapedia's Law? Of course, I hope that eventually we do reach 100% conservatism, but I am curious as to your opinion, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:55, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I do not follow your logic. Geometric progressions always reach infinity when the absolute value of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1. Conervapedia's Law posits a ratio of 2. Do you expect conservative edits to Conservapedia to increase at this doubling rate? If not, why? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Take, for example, conservative words. There is not an infinite amount of words (or possible words) in the English language. If the amount of conservative words increases at this geometric rate, isn't there a point where every word is conservative? Since the series continues indefinitely to infinity, and will never reach infinity, it reasons that it will pass this point at some time. From that, that is why I agree adding some definition of &amp;quot;liberal creep&amp;quot; as a corollary to Conservapedia's Law, as it is not possible to reach infinite conservatism. To answer your original question, while I certainly hope growth continues at this rate (if not faster), the long-term accuracy of this insight (and by long-term i mean millennia, or until the Rapture) remains to be seen. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 13:16, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Good points, Denny. I think we would expect conservative insights to eventually decline in the same fashion that we see conservative insights added to Conservapedia decline. After a certain amount of time, it just can't keep up the pace because the core articles/principles are already here and can't become any more conservative. Whether or not it is [[liberal creep]] and/or other factors that limits the growth of conservatism, I don't know. What do you think your &amp;quot;graph of conservatism&amp;quot; would look like? It'd be fun to compare. Do you think true conservatism could be the harbinger of the return of Christ? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:17, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::If we accept that at the time of Adam (pre Fall) conservatism was infinite, then even with the observed geometric expansion of conservatism observed and described as ''Conservapedia's law'', it is not possible for conservatism to reach that level again. This ties nicely in with the teaching of the Bible, that the Creation was perfect and sin-free initially, but due to the Fall such a level of perfection/conservatism cannot be reattained. [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 19:24, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::Very well put, Mike.  Note that extrapolating 100 generations into the future is an implausible view that may be the result of a belief in an Old Earth.  In fact, there's no logical reason to expect more than a few generations into the future.  See, e.g., [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::I guess I don't accept the premise that conservatism is infinite. I believe being conservative is similar to being sinless: can you get any more sinless than not sinning? How can you get any more conservative than conservative? In terms of the graphs, a graph of conservatism would have an asymptote representing conservatism before the Fall - a level we can approach (maybe even meet), but not exceed. Conserapedia's Law does not predict such an asymptote for the growth of conservatism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::What is the argument that conservatism is infinite? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:27, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::: Conservatism is [[logic]] and [[faith]].  Aren't both boundless?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::::Faith and logic are boundless, but I'm not persuaded that faith and logic ''are [[conservatism]]''. If conservative insights increase at a geometric rate with a ratio of 2, why wouldn't we expect additions to Conservapedia to increase at the same rate? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::::::I'm not convinced that faith and logic are boundless, as they are abstract concepts and can vary from person to person; you can't have &amp;quot;80% faith&amp;quot; in something, for example. However, in most cases I would agree that faith and logic are conservatism. It is obvious that conservative values lead to faith in a higher power, and conservative thinking is analogous to logic. Going back to what BradB said, it is certainly true that logic and faith are large components of conservatism, but there are other components, such as the inherent charitableness and chivalry conservatives exhibit, among other things. Unfortunately, I don't think conservatism can be infinite, as there is a finite amount of people in the world, but I think we all hope it could be! [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:16, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reply to BradB, I don't think quantity of edits is all that meaningful.  The New Testament is far shorter than the Old Testament, and [[Jesus]]'s own teachings were briefer still.  Denny makes an interesting point about charitableness and chivalry, but aren't both a product of logic and faith as well?  Charity in light of its superior efficiency and promotion of God's will, and chivalry in light of its promotion of good relations between the genders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:07, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an interesting point Mr. Schlafly. Charity can definitely be an outgrowth of logic, and chivalry can be an outgrowth of faith in good gender relations. However, as I said in a previous comment, there are definitely more components to conservatism that may or may not fit under the umbrella of &amp;quot;logic and faith&amp;quot;. For example, self-reliance, a decidedly conservative trait; I'm not sure it can fit neatly under logic or faith. It can't fit under logic neatly because logic by definition is coming to one, undeniably correct solution. WHile I of course agree with self-reliance, and believe it to be correct, it is possible to look at the other side's argument with an open mind and not immediately dismiss it. Self-reliance can't neatly fit under faith because faith in the power of oneself can never surpass, or come close to, faith in the power of God. This is just one example; conservatism is so much more wondrous than the two components of logic and faith, and that over-simplification may deter [[liberals]] from coming to the right side. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:23, 25 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858885</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858885"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T05:09:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008), a candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] later&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. - &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - illustrating the dangers of alcohol.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984).  Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - the film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - a thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Forrest Gump'' (1994) - A mentally retarded man escapes the toxic ideologies of the 1960s to espouse true Biblical wisdom through fidelity to mother and country. His love, Jenny, succumbs to liberal values and becomes a war protestor and drug addict, and eventually dies. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) -- Downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) -- Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) -- Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - Comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie empowers young women who have made bad decisions to bear their children and adpot them to families better capable of raising them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858884</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858884"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T05:08:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Moved Juno to &amp;quot;debatable&amp;quot;, fixed some capitalization&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008), a candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] later&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. - &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - illustrating the dangers of alcohol.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984).  Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - the film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - a thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Forrest Gump'' (1994) - Amentally retarded man escapes the toxic ideologies of the 1960s to espouse true Biblical wisdom through fidelity to mother and country. His love, Jenny, succumbs to liberal values and becomes a war protestor and drug addict, and eventually dies. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) -- Downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) -- Falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) -- Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - College students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - A classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - Comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - Unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - Some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie empowers young women who have made bad decisions to bear their children and adpot them to families better capable of raising them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858881</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858881"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T05:07:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: Fixed summary of Forrest Gump&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008), a candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] later&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. - &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - illustrating the dangers of alcohol.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984).  Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - the film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - a thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Forrest Gump'' (1994) - Amentally retarded man escapes the toxic ideologies of the 1960s to espouse true Biblical wisdom through fidelity to mother and country. His love, Jenny, succumbs to liberal values and becomes a war protestor and drug addict, and eventually dies. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie empowers young women who have made bad decisions to bear their children and adpot them to families better capable of raising them.&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) -- downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) -- falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) -- Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - college students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - a classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858879</id>
		<title>Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies&amp;diff=858879"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T05:05:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''There have been many superb [[conservative]] films''':&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Invasion of the Body Snatchers]]'' (1956), a science fiction condemnation of [[communism]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Exorcist]]'' (1973) (not for children), a portrayal of pure evil against a positive characterization of [[Christianity]].  It broke the record for movie revenue.&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Dark Matter]]'' (2008), a candid look at [[professor values]] along with problems associated with lack of assimilation; [[liberal]]s first praised the movie, but after realizing its [[conservative]] message then panned it.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Spider-Man]]'' (2002), which praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at [[liberals]] (entertainers and journalist).  Hero chooses [[abstinence]].  This was one of the most profitable films ever made.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Gone With the Wind]]'' (1939), which celebrates a strongly ''feminine'' heroine who is the antithesis of a modern [[feminist]], and held the record for top-grossing movie for decades.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ben-Hur (film, 1959)|Ben-Hur]]'' (1959), celebrates honor and duty to family and country, with a pro-Christian ending, long held the record for the most [[Academy Awards]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Expelled | Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008) - [[Ben Stein]] exposes [[evolution|evolutionists]]' scientific and education system [[deceit]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hillary: The Movie]]'' (2008) - Citizens United film exposing Hillary Clinton. This movie led to the overturning of McCain-Feingold legislation by the [[U.S. Supreme Court]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Indoctrinate U]]'' (2007) - The film exposed political correctness, racial and ethnic politics in the academic setting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://video.yahoo.com/watch/3624795/9994231 Indoctrinate U -Part 1/3, Yahoo]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fireproof (film)|Fireproof]]'' (2008) - Highly successful pro-Christian, pro-marriage film created by [[Sherwood Pictures]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Beauty and the Beast]]'' (1991) - A powerful and immensely popular antidote to [[feminism]], far better than the [[liberal]] movies churned out by [[Disney]] later&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Titanic]]'' (1997) - Every life had value and the most powerful men gave up their seats on lifeboats to women and children first; the media and a young [[RINO]] are rightly criticized; broke the record in movie revenues&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Lives of Others'' (2006) (not for children) - This German-language film is a stinging criticism of the [[communist]] [[East Germany]] from a liberal perspective.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Sound of Music]]'' (1965), solid family entertainment, perhaps Hollywood's last great movie before it turned sharply Left.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Ten Commandments]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Mr. Smith Goes To Washington]]'' (1939) - A tale of a good, simple man rising above the pressures of [[liberals]] to do the right thing. Features perhaps the best defense of the American political system ever committed to film.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Star Wars]]'' series (1977-2005) - simple truths about the triumph of good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Winning Team'' (1952), starring [[Ronald Reagan]] as a pitcher who overcomes his problems to help his team win. This was one of Reagan's own favorites.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[King of Kings]]'' (1961)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Iron Eagle]]'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[On The Waterfront]]'' (1954) [[Marlon Brando]] plays Terry Malloy, who under the inspiration of a Catholic priest (Father Barry, played by [[Karl Malden]]), becomes a Christ-like figure.  Betrayed by his brother and almost killed by the gang, he finds the strength to overcome and redeem his people from the slavery to the mobsters who run the waterfront.  In stunning contrast to the liberals who kept silent about the Communist subversion in Hollywood, the film portrays the informer as the hero; liberal Hollywood never forgave director [[Elia Kazan]] for his stunning film.  In real life, Kazan, Malden and screenwriter Budd Schulberg all testified before Congress, along with [[Ronald Reagan]].  Together they broke the power of the Reds in Hollywood.  &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Sergeant York]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Knute Rockne: All-American]]'' (1940)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ninotchka]]'' (1939)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Forbidden Planet]]'' (1956)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rudy]]'' (1993) - A young man overcomes many obstacles, including dyslexia, to play for the [[Notre Dame]] football team. Shows the value of hard work and never giving up. - &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Prince of Egypt]]'' (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Strategic Air Command (film)|Strategic Air Command]]'' (1955). Actor (and Brigadier [[General]]) [[James Stewart]]'s story of the real [[Strategic Air Command]] and its transition from prop planes to jet planes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Gathering of Eagles]]'' (1963). Illustrates duty, honor, and the burden of command.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Red Dawn]]'' (1984)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Harry's War]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Patriot]]'' (2000) (the one starring Mel Gibson, there are several other movies with this name)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Ladder 49]]'' (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Rocky]]'' (1976) A talented but down-on-his-luck fighter gets a chance to challenge himself to the ends of his ability. This film reinforces man's ability to overcome challenges. &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[October Sky]]'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Amazing Grace (film)|Amazing Grace]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Bruce Almighty]]'' (2003) - Shows, in a comedic, accessible way, that no one mortal can be [[God]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[World Trade Center]]'' (2006) - Highlights the bravery of the firemen and police in [[9/11]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Flight 93]]'' (2006) - Shows the bravery of the passengers on Flight 93, which was hijacked on September 11th, 2001, and crashed into a Pennsylvania field. The passengers fought back against the hijackers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[A Man For All Seasons]]'' (1966)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Chariots of Fire]]'' (1981)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[One Foot In Heaven]]'' (1941)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Quo Vadis?]]''&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Lost Weekend]]'' (1945) - illustrating the dangers of alcohol.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Manchurian Candidate]]'' (1962, 2004 remake) (anti-communist in general, but with a swipe at [[Joseph McCarthy]])&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Green Berets]]'' (1968) - Vivid defense of our troops' conduct in the Vietnam War.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[My Son John]]'' (1952). A small-town couple's world is turned upside-down by the discovery that their adult son is a Communist.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[True Lies]]'' (1994), starring the future Republican governor of California, [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. Teaches conservative values like marital loyalty, and political incorrect facts such as the fact that most terrorists are Middle Eastern Arabic speakers who don't value human life.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Island]]'' (2005) Pro-life statement against cloning to harvest organs.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Evelyn]]'' (2002) True story of Irish father's legal struggle to recover his kids from an orphanage.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Shane]]'' (1953) Western about defending a homesteading family.&lt;br /&gt;
#'' [[Lean on Me]]'' (1989) A true story about combating drug use, violence, and contempt for authority while exalting positive values like academic achievement and family values.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097722/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Hero]]'' (1992) Even those with character flaws can do good.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Day of the Jackal]]'' (1973) celebrates conservative values like honor and duty.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The 6th Day]]'' (2000) Pro-Life, Anti-Cloning movie Featuring Republican Governor [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]&lt;br /&gt;
#''Ghostbusters'' (1984).  Fitting satire of an environmental regulator.&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Facing the Giants]] 2006. Trust in [[God]], let him take over, and good things will happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Flash of Genius'' (2008) - the intellectual property of a hard-working, solitary inventor is promoted, and his children stuck by his side through enormous difficulties.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Oh, God!'' (1977) - Acceptance of God's calling is rewarded, the faithful are vindicated, and naysayers are proven wrong.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Courageous]]'' (2011) - Upcoming [[Sherwood Pictures]] film focusing on the role of fathers.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Air Force One (film)|Air Force One]]'' (1997) - Positively portrays a strong U.S. president who takes an uncompromising stance against terrorism. Includes positive material about family, authority, the military and sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Fellowship of the Ring (film, 2001)|The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring]]'' (2001) - Clear distinction between good and evil with positive themes of friendship, bravery, honor, sacrifice and overcoming temptation.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Two Towers (film, 2002)|The Lord of the Rings: the Two Towers]]'' (2002) - Strong portrayals of redemption and good over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World]]'' (2003) - Promotes many positive conservative values including faith in God, patriotism, duty, honor, respect for authority, discipline, bravery, sacrifice, and friendship.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Return of the King (2003 film)|The Lord of the Rings: the Return of the King]]'' (2003) - Bravery, heroism, sacrifice and good ultimately triumphing over evil.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe]]'' (2005) - Based upon the Christian allegory written by C.S. Lewis.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Coach Carter'' (2005) - Promotes the theme that graduating from high school and having proper moral values are more important than becoming famous athletes.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian]]'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader]]'' (2010)&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Seventh Sign]]'' (1988) - starring Demi Moore, a fictional account of the return of Jesus to usher in the apocalypse and judge mankind. Catholic themed movie has Demi offering her life for the souls of others.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Maafa21]]'' (2009) - the film explores the inception of [[Planned Parenthood]] as an organization created to destroy the Negro population. It exposes the words of its' racist founder [[Margaret Sanger]] and their impact on black genocide more than a century later. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.maafa21.com www.maafa21.com]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Twelve O'Clock High]]'' (1949) - a thrilling movie about the heroics of fighter pilots during [[World War II]]; used as an educational film for management training seminars&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Escape from Hell]]'' (2001) Drama about a doctor and near-death experience.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Waiting for Superman]]'' (2010) Documentary on the failed public school system.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Hurt Locker'' (2008) - A look into the life of an American bomb disposal regiment in Iraq risking their lives for their country and for the innocent by confronting evil. Rated R for violence and language.&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Tunnel'' (''Der Tunnel'') (2001)- Based on a true story a group of East Berliners escaping harsh Communist rule and hatch a plan to help others escape that same oppressive regime. &lt;br /&gt;
#''A Charlie Brown Christmas'' (1965) - The real meaning of Christmas is discussed, as Linus quotes Luke 2:8-14. Decries the materialism that can surround the Christmas holiday.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Great Global Warming Swindle]]'' (2007) - Exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Dark Knight]]'' Christian allegory with message of not giving in to terrorists.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Fiddler on the Roof]]'' (1971) - A celebration of tradition, faith, and the importance of family, against a historical background of the persecution of Russian Jews.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Kids Aren't Cars]]'' (2011) - How the teachers' unions are destroying our public schools. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.kidsarentcars.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/KACOneSheet.pdf KAC Summary]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[How We Should Live]]'' (1976) - Christian film that traces Western history from Ancient Rome until 1976. A study of philosophic, scientific, and religious movements reflecting changing patterns.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Forrest Gump'' (1994) - A retarded man escapes the toxic ideologies of the 1960's to espouse true Biblical wisdom through fidelity to his mother, spouse, and country. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=YWQ4MDlhMWRkZDQ5YmViMDM1Yzc0MTE3ZTllY2E3MGM=&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Juno (film)]]'' (2007) - A pregnant teenage woman rejects [[abortion]] and decides for an adoptive birth instead. This movie empowers young women who have made bad decisions to bear their children and adpot them to families better capable of raising them.&lt;br /&gt;
== Debatable Whether Conservative ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[The Passion of the Christ]]'' (2004) -- downplays the [[Resurrection]],&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;The original version of the film had no references at all to the Resurrection.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and strength of Christianity and omits powerful angels; instead exaggerates triumph of evil; film had little lasting effect on public or its producer; portrayed nails as through the hands rather than through the wrists as depicted by the [[Shroud of Turin]] and confirmed by modern science.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[It's a Wonderful Life]]'' (1946) -- falsely teaches that humanism is what makes life worthwhile; marginalizes [[faith]] with a cartoonish depiction and demonizes capitalism as sadistic and greedy.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[High Noon]]'' (1952) -- Bill Clinton saw this movie 20 times, and John Wayne said it was the most un-American movie ever;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/47/highnoon.php&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; though susceptible of various interpretations, most of all it seems to scare people into wanting more government.&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[P.C.U.]]'' (1994) - college students fight back against a campus where the administration promotes official [[diversity]] awareness weekends and radical [[feminism]], [[vegan]]ism, and [[political correctness]] run amok, but a conservative group on campus is also portrayed just as negatively as the P.C. groups.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Pillow Talk'' (1959) - a classic starring Rock Hudson and Doris Day in which conservative values triumph over liberal ones.  There are no distortions by feminist ideology.  Indeed, in one scene a leading man slaps the leading lady, but then is beaten up by dimwitted bystanders for it!&lt;br /&gt;
#''[[Blues Brothers]]'' (1980) - comedy musical. A story of redemption, &amp;quot;A mission from God&amp;quot;, raising money to save a Catholic orphanage. R-rated movie for vulgar language, slap stick comedy. Vatican approved. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/06/18/vatican-blesses-blues-brothers/ Vatican Calls The Blues Brothers “Catholic”, FOXNews, June 19, 2010]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
#''The Way We Were'' (1973) - unique in the way that it appears liberal to liberals while unintentionally sending a [[conservative]] message to young women.&lt;br /&gt;
#''Grease'' (1978) - some [[conservative]] messages and no [[feminism]] or other [[political correctness]]; mocks [[public school]] and even [[television]].&lt;br /&gt;
#''Fargo'' (1996) - Pregnant sheriff with traditional American family values solves an elaborate criminal embezzlement, kidnapping and murder scheme.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays about Conservatism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Hollywood]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Al_Smith&amp;diff=858860</id>
		<title>Al Smith</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Al_Smith&amp;diff=858860"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T03:26:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Al Smith''' (1873-1944), was the dominant Democratic politician in [[New York State]] in the 1920s and was elected governor five times. He was defeated in the 1928 Presidential Election.  Smith was a leader of the [[Progressive Era]] because of his efficiency-oriented, growth-promoting pro-business policies as governor.  He moved from a leader of liberals in the 1920s to a leader of conservatives in the 1930s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Presidential candidate==&lt;br /&gt;
Smith was defeated in 1924 for the Democratic Party's nomination for president, but won the nomination easily in 1928. He was the first [[Catholic]] to win a presidential nomination&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; John F. Kennedy was the second, in 1960. John F. Kerry, a Catholic, was the Democratic nominee in 2004, but lost.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, Smith's was a highly visible Catholic and religion rallied millions of new Catholic voters, while alienating Southern Baptists and German Lutherans. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith lost the 1928 election to Republican [[Herbert Hoover]] because of national prosperity, and Smith's leadership of Catholics and wet opponents of Prohibition. Although he was personally honest, people distrusted his close ties with the notoriously corrupt [[Tammany Hall]] Democratic machine in Manhattan.    Smith was a model [[Progressive Era|Progressive]] reformer in his ability to master the technical details of government as an expert, and pursue constitutional, statutory, and administrative changes to make government more efficient. Smith reached out to Republicans including Charles Evans Hughes, Elihu Root, Joseph Proskauer, John Raskob, and others when it furthered these goals, and he won their genuine admiration for his intellectual ability.  He broke with [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] after 1928, lost the Democratic nomination to Roosevelt in 1932, and helped form the [[American Liberty League]] to rally conservative Democrats in opposition to the [[New Deal]] and in favor of [[Jeffersonian Democracy]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Early life==&lt;br /&gt;
Smith was born to Alfred Emanuel Smith and Catherine Mulvihill and initially grew up in the multiethnic [[Lower East Side]] of Manhattan, on Oliver Street, [[New York City]]. His four grandparents were Irish, German, Italian, and English, but Smith, a devout Catholic, identified with the [[Irish Catholic]] community and became its leading spokesman in the 1920s.  He was thirteen when his father Alfred, a Civil War veteran who owned a small trucking firm, died; at fourteen he had to drop out of parochial school, St. James School, to help support the family. He never attended high school or college, and claimed that his higher education came from studying studying all manner of people at the Fulton Fish Market, a job for which he was paid $12 per week to support his family. An accomplished amateur actor, he became a notable speaker.  On May 6, 1900, Alfred Smith married Catherine A. Dunn, with whom he had five children.&lt;br /&gt;
==Political career==&lt;br /&gt;
In his political career, he emphasized his lowly beginnings, identified himself with immigrants, and campaigned as a man of the people.  Although indebted to the [[Tammany Hall]] political machine, particularly to its boss, [[Charles Francis Murphy|&amp;quot;Silent&amp;quot; Charlie Murphy]], he remained untarnished by corruption and worked for the passage of progressive legislation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith's first political job was as a clerk in the office of the ''Commissioner of Jurors'' in 1895. In 1903 he was elected to the [[New York State Assembly]]. He served as vice chairman of the commission appointed to investigate factory conditions after a hundred workers died in the disastrous [[Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire]] in 1911. Smith crusaded against dangerous and unhealthy workplace conditions and championed corrective legislation. In 1911 the Democrats obtained a majority of seats in the state Assembly, and Smith became chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. In 1912 he became the majority leader, and in 1913 he was elected as Speaker of the Assembly.  By now he was a leader of the [[Progressive Era|Progressive movement]] in New York City and state.  His campaign manager and top aide was the Jewish leader [[Belle Moskowitz]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After serving in the patronage-rich job of sheriff of New York County (Manhattan) beginning in 1915, Smith was elected governor of New York in 1918. [[William Randolph Hearst]], a leading newspaper publisher, was the leader of the left-wing of the Democratic party in the city, and had combined with Tammany Hall in electing the local administration; he had been attacking Smith for &amp;quot;starving children&amp;quot; by not reducing the cost of milk. Smith effectively destroyed Hearst's political career, denouncing him as, &amp;quot;A man as low and mean as I can picture&amp;quot;. Hearst swore revenge.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith was the expert in politics who mastered all the details of legislation and administrative procedure. Furthermore he could negotiate in the back rooms with politicians, and give a speech that swayed the voters by communicate his goals.  He learned by explaining things to himself, and using his own rich vocabulary he used homely parallels and examples that smoothly conveyed his meaning his attentive audiences. One weakness was not building a strong statewide party using his patronage powers. Smith won elections on his own popularity; since he was indispensable to party victory, the various factions and organizations always followed him, until Roosevelt became governor in 1928 and did build a patronage machine.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith lost his bid for reelection in 1920, but was reelected as governor in 1922, 1924 and 1926.  As governor he became known nationally as a progressive who sought to make government more efficient and more effective in meeting social needs. His young assistant, [[Robert Moses]], constructed the nation's first state park system and reformed the civil service system; Smith later appointed him New York State Secretary of State. During Smith's term New York strengthened laws governing workers' compensation, women's pensions, and child and women's labor with the help of [[Frances Perkins]], soon to be FDR's Labor Secretary, and ahead of many states.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 1924 Smith was ready for the White House, but the Democratic party was bitterly split along regional lines, North versus South, and issues involving prohibition and nativism.  Roosevelt made the nominating speech in which he saluted Smith as &amp;quot;the Happy Warrior of the political battlefield.&amp;quot;  The Democratic convention was deadlocked between the big city &amp;quot;wets&amp;quot; (led by Smith) and the rural and Southern &amp;quot;dries&amp;quot; led by [[William McAdoo]]. A dark horse was nominated, who lost in a landslide to incumbent Republican [[Calvin Coolidge]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== The 1928 election ===&lt;br /&gt;
The Republican Party was riding high on the economic boom of the 1920s, which their presidential candidate [[Herbert Hoover]] pledged to continue.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith finally secured the Democratic presidential nomination in 1928.  He was the first Catholic to win a major-party presidential nomination.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Compare [[John F. Kennedy]], who in 1960 was the first and only Catholic elected U.S. President.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A major controversial issue was the continuation of [[Prohibition]]. Smith was personally in favor of relaxation or repeal of Prohibition laws, which were embedded in the nation's Constitution, but the Democratic Party split north and south on the issue. During the campaign Smith tried to duck the issue with noncommittal statements.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith was an articulate exponent of good government and efficiency— and so was Hoover.  But as Smith became known for saying in his campaign, &amp;quot;Let's look at the record.&amp;quot; Smith swept the entire Catholic vote, which had been split in 1920 and 1924, and brought millions of Catholic ethnics to the polls for the first time, especially women.  He lost important Democratic constituencies in the rural north and in southern cities and suburbs.  He did carry the Deep South, thanks in part to his running mate, Senator [[Joseph Robinson]] of Arkansas. Part of Smith's losses can be attributed to Protestant fear that as president, Smith would answer to the Pope rather than to the Constitution, to fears of the power of New York City, to distaste for the long history of corruption associated with [[Tammany Hall]], and to Smith's own mediocre campaigning.   Smith's campaign theme song, &amp;quot;The Sidewalks of New York&amp;quot;, was not likely to appeal to rural folk, and his city accent on the &amp;quot;raddio&amp;quot; seemed a bit foreign.  Although Smith lost New York state, his ticket-mate Roosevelt was elected to replace him as governor of New York. Historians agree that the prosperity made Hoover's election inevitable, as he was a national symbol of efficiency and prosperity. He defeated Smith by a landslide in the 1928 election, the third consecutive GOP landslide.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Voter realignment===&lt;br /&gt;
In long-term perspective Al Smith started a voter realignment &amp;amp;mdash; a new coalition &amp;amp;mdash; based among ethnics and big cities that spelled the end of classless politics of the [[Fourth Party System]] and helped usher in the [[Fifth Party System]] or [[New Deal coalition]] of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Degler (1964)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  The Catholic ethnics for the first time turned out in huge numbers, and brought their women to the polls as well. However the wet Lutherans voted for Hoover with anti-Catholicism a factor. In the South the more modernized cities and middle classes voted for Hoover, while the traditional strongholds and Black Belt (where only whites voted) remained loyal to the Democratic party.  As one political scientist explains, &amp;quot;The election of 1896 ushered in the Fourth Party System.... [but] not until 1928, with the nomination of Al Smith, a northeastern reformer, did Democrats make gains among the urban, blue-collar, and Catholic voters who were later to become core components of the New Deal coalition and break the pattern of minimal class polarization that had characterized the Fourth Party System.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;David G. Lawrence, ''The Collapse of the Democratic Presidential Majority'' (1996) p 34.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Finan (2003) portrays Smith as an underestimated symbol of the changing nature of American politics in the first half of the century. He represented the rising ambitions of urban, industrial America at a time when the hegemony of rural, agrarian America was in decline. He was connected to the hopes and aspirations of immigrants, especially the Catholics and Jews. Smith was a devout Catholic, but his struggles against religious bigotry were often misinterpreted when he fought the religiously inspired Protestant morality imposed by prohibitionists. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Opposition to Roosevelt===&lt;br /&gt;
Smith felt slighted by Roosevelt during Roosevelt's governorship. They became rivals for the 1932 Democratic presidential nomination, but Smith's old enemy Hearst used his influence to help swing the nomination in favor of Roosevelt. After losing the nomination, Smith begrudgingly campaigned for Roosevelt in 1932 but was not offered any post in the new administration.  When President Roosevelt began pursuing the liberal policies of his [[New Deal]], Smith began to work with the conservative opposition. Roosevelt's heavy spending was a betrayal of Smith's good-government Progressive ideals, and ran counter to the goal of close cooperation with business.  Above Smith was committed to a society with unlimited opportunity and he feared Roosevelt was putting a ceiling on that opportunity. He had warned in 1932, against the &amp;quot;Demagogic appeal to the masses of the working people of the country to destroy themselves &lt;br /&gt;
by setting class against class and rich against poor.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; Raymond Moley, ''27 Masters of Politics'' (1949) p. 22  &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  He joined other prominent conservative Democrats in 1934 to form the [[American Liberty League]], the focus of political opposition to Roosevelt's [[New Deal]]. Smith supported the Republican presidential candidates, [[Alfred M. Landon]] in the 1936 election and [[Wendell Willkie]] in the 1940 election.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although personal resentment was a motivating factor in Smith's break with Roosevelt and the New Deal, Smith was consistent in his beliefs and politics. Finan (2003) argues Smith always believed in social mobility, economic opportunity, religious tolerance, and individualism&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Business leader==&lt;br /&gt;
After the 1928 election, Smith became the president of Empire State, Inc., the corporation which built and operated the [[Empire State Building]]. Smith cut the ribbon when the world's tallest skyscraper opened in May 1931, built in only 13 months.  As with the Brooklyn Bridge, which Smith witnessed being built from his Lower East Side boyhood home, the Empire State Building was a vision and an achievement constructed by combining the interests of all rather than being divided by interests of a few.  Smith, like most New York City businessmen, enthusiastically supported World War Two, but was frozen out by Roosevelt and not alllowed to play any role in the war effort.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smith died on October 4, 1944, at the age of 70, broken-hearted over the death of his wife from cancer five months earlier. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further reading==&lt;br /&gt;
* Burner, David. ''The Politics of Provincialism: The Democratic Party in Transition, 1918--1932'' (1968).&lt;br /&gt;
*  Craig, Douglas B. ''After Wilson: The Struggle for Control of the Democratic Party, 1920-1934'' (1992) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;amp;d=10806989 online edition] see Chap. 6 &amp;quot;The Problem of Al Smith&amp;quot; and Chap. 8 &amp;quot;'Wall Street Likes Al Smith': The Election of 1928&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
* Degler, Carl N. &amp;quot;American Political Parties and the Rise of the City: An Interpretation,&amp;quot; ''Journal of American History,'' 1964 51:1 pp 41-59. [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-8723(196406)51:1%3C41:APPATR%3E2.0.CO;2-%23&amp;amp;origin=historycoop in JSTOR] &lt;br /&gt;
* Eldot, Paula. ''Governor Alfred E. Smith: The Politician as Reformer,'' (1983)&lt;br /&gt;
* Finan, Christopher M. ''Alfred E. Smith: The Happy Warrior.'' (2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Alfred-E-Smith-Happy-Warrior/dp/080901632X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1196821904&amp;amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Hostetler, Michael J. &amp;quot;Gov. Al Smith Confronts the Catholic Question: The Rhetorical Legacy of the 1928 Campaign,&amp;quot; ''Communication Quarterly'' 1998 vol 46&lt;br /&gt;
* Moore, Edmund A. ''A Catholic Runs for President: The Campaign of 1928'' (1956) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;amp;d=94966769 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Neal, Donn C. ''The World beyond the Hudson: Alfred E. Smith and National Politics, 1918-1928,'' (1983)&lt;br /&gt;
* Neal, Donn C. &amp;quot;What If Al Smith Had Been Elected?&amp;quot; ''Presidential Studies Quarterly'' (1984) 14#2 pp 242-248&lt;br /&gt;
* Pringle, Henry F. ''Alfred E. Smith: A Critical Study'' (1927) [http://www.questia.com/read/3926153?title=Alfred%20E.%20Smith%3a%20A%20Critical%20Study online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
* Slayton, Robert A. ''Empire Statesman: The Rise and Redemption of Al Smith,'' (2001), 480pp, the standard scholarly biography; [http://www.amazon.com/Empire-Statesman-Rise-Redemption-Smith/dp/1416567771/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&amp;amp;s=books&amp;amp;qid=1196822024&amp;amp;sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]&lt;br /&gt;
* Smith, Alfred E.  ''Progressive Democracy: Addresses &amp;amp; State Papers.'' (1928) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;amp;d=62030394 online edition]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See also==&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Robert Moses]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Democratic Party]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fourth Party System]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Fifth Party System]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====notes====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New York Governors]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Democratic Governors]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Smith, Al}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Progressive Era]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:1920s]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Deal]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Conservatives]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Broke with FDR]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Religion and Politics]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Former Liberals]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:Conservative Democrats]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Conservapedia%27s_Law&amp;diff=858859</id>
		<title>Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Conservapedia%27s_Law&amp;diff=858859"/>
				<updated>2011-03-25T03:16:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The entry is just as clear as [[Moore's Law]] is, which you seem to understand without difficulty.  Why the difficulty here?  It's not due to any ambiguity in the entry.  By the way, you're wrong about [[gun control]]: the nation is far more conservative on that issue now than 5, 10, 15, or 20 years ago.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 9 June 2009 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'm not sure if it is as clear as Moore's Law. But my main concern deals more with its lack of support. You make some pretty strong claims, but you need to back them up with concrete examples or sources that prove your argument to be correct. Right now, your essay is lacking this, it is merely an argument without support. It is like an essay that only has an introduction but not a body or a conclusion, so the reader is left thinking: where's the rest? I am very interested in hearing some examples or more proof of what you are arguing as I think it would be rather intriguing. And my mistake on the gun control part - Cjohnston.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I gave over 150 examples: see [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]] and the geometric pattern it displays.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:04, 9 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I don’t understand the connection between the argument you present in the essay with that of the Best New Conservative Words. Looking at the extensive list of conservative words, many of them are not distinctly conservative, nor does the list demonstrate how societies will become conservative over time. Some of the terms presented in the list do not point to strengthening conservative though, ie. Anti-Christian, tax and spend, or tree huggers that appear to be liberal terms, as well as the many general terms that are not necessarily attached to any ideological thinking. I think you need to establish this connection more clearly in order to clarify how new conservative words displays the geometric pattern. I think this will allow for a stronger argument to your essay. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You could provide only three examples to support your objection, but all three of your examples represent conservative insights about liberal behavior.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::More than 150 terms in [[Essay:Best New Conservatives Words]] demonstrate that conservative insights increase geometrically, and that has strong implications.  I did not expect that rapid increase, by the way; it was the result of looking at the evidence with an open mind.  Sometimes when the curve departed from the geometric fit, the correction of a mistake would unexpectedly bring it closer to the fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:45, 10 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::There are more than just three examples from the list of new conservative words that are not distinctly conservative. Also, I’m not sure if making the argument that conservative insights increase geometrically based on the word list is all that quantifiable. Words and language evolve and develop for a variety of reasons and it would be difficult if not impossible to attribute a words creation or popular use, for example, productivity, altruism, incompleteness, initiative, insightful, elitism, deflation, accountability, hysteria, leverage, local, motivation, optimism, phonics, potential, quantify, self-reliant, self-defence, vandalism, veracity, victimization, work ethic, etc, to conservative thought. However, it would be an interesting project to undertake, albeit a time consuming one. My point is that you need to develop a stronger argument for the theory that these conservative words are increasing geometrically with proof that they are developed because of conservative thought, and that conservative thought will continue to grow. Stating that they increase geometrically with no support to back it up, besides the observation that the number of terms increases from century to century is not a strong enough argument, for me anyway. I want there to be the support and sources to back it up. I’d be willing to assist in developing this argument further. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Your long-winded reply was unresponsive.  You denied that Anti-Christian, tax and spend, and tree huggers are conservative terms.  Obviously you were wrong about that, but rather than admit it, you now claim that other terms (e.g., self-defense, note my spelling) are not conservative.  I don't have time to explain each of these concepts to you, and you don't seem to have an open-mind about this issue anyway.  If you want &amp;quot;support and sources&amp;quot; for an original insight, you're not going to find them.  Try Wikipedia if you prefer liberal regurgitation of what is in the newspaper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 11 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Mr. Schlafy, I assure you I have an open mind. I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t. I understand that you don’t have time to explain each term and I am not asking you to. Though I still believe that the terms I outlined are not distinctly conservative terms and I don’t think it is ‘obvious’ that I was wrong about that because you haven’t explained why I am. Retuning to the original issue I raised, even if you have developed an ‘original insight’ it still needs to be explained well enough to stand as a strong argument. One of the things stressed in highschool and particularly post-secondary school is an argument needs to be well developed and well supported, which includes ‘original insights.’ Perhaps this example with help clarify my argument: I could develop an ‘original insight’ that the colour (note my spelling) of the sky is green. Most people would argue that no, the sky is in fact blue. If I did not develop the argument that the sky is green any further, it would not be considered a credible or strong argument. However, if I clarified with the support that the sky can appear green during intense thunderstorms as a result of water and ice scattering green light waves during strong updrafts in thunderstorms, the argument then makes much more sense and can stand as being a strong and credible argument. I hope this helps clarify my concerns. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: You haven't clarified anything for me, and your talk-to-substance ratio is very high.  See [[liberal style]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Are you saying there are no legitimate new conservative words?  If you concede there are some, then it's possible to estimate their rate of increase, which we've done.  If you insist there are none, then you lack the open-mind you claim to have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:51, 12 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I do not deny there are no new legitimate conservative words, just that some you list are not legitimate, which may interfere with your geometric rate of increase argument. But I will reiterate my concerns a final time using as few words as possible: Your argument is weak and lacks clarification and support. - Cjohnston&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You won't deny it, but you won't admit it either.  Sounds like you should hold a debate with yourself.  Your non-committal comments have not been productive here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::You've posted ten times, all talk.  That's in violation of our [[90/10 rule]].  I'll be lenient and block you for only a day but please don't return unless you want to contribute to this encyclopedia in a substantive manner.  Godspeed if you go elsewhere to insist on your unchanging viewpoint.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:02, 13 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Did I do something wrong? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I didn't revert it, but I see why it was reverted.  You introduced unhelpful complexity to a simple analogy.  Your edit obscured rather than clarified, and earned a reversion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:41, 9 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Societies become more conservative? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I question the assumption that societies become inevitably more conservative over time.  Over the last 200 years we have seen a fundamental shift in society towards liberal values - promiscuity, for example, has been on the rise for over 50 years now.  Attitudes surrounding things like homosexuality, sex before marriage, and race relations are becoming more liberal, not more conservative.  As young generations seek solely their own gratification and try to find the easiest way to enjoy life, I fear this is a trend we will continue to see.  Thoughts?  [[User:TFWilliams|TFWilliams]] 19:21, 21 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Conservatism is based heavily on logic, and over time logic does prevail.  Promiscuity and homosexuality reduce lifespan, induce depression, and degrade participants.  Over time, logic prevails.  Promiscuity is rejected in greater numbers today than in the past, and [[Proposition 8]] in the most liberal state sent a message against homosexuality that was unexpected by the media.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Meanwhile there are countless other issues, from gun control to taxes to ownership of gold to money market savings, where conservative positions are far more accepted today than in the past.  And, alas, the percentage of people who self-identify as conservative is constantly increasing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:36, 21 June 2009 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, why was my edit deleted, I feel this was a valid point. Wikipedia has over 500 entries on silly laws, but not one on conservapedia's law. I feel this is a perfect example of liberal bias. they are hiding from the truth--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 23:38, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: There are many legitimate criticisms of Wikipedia, but your edit wasn't one of them.  We're fair here and do not criticize others unfairly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 9 August 2010 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Putting Conservapedia's Law in perspective ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think we could all agree that before the fall, society was perfectly conservative. At what point would conservatism be at its lowest? Would it be before, during or after the destruction of Babel? Or maybe after the fall, conservatism decayed until the time of Jesus? What would a graph of conservatism look like across time? Could it be that Jesus will return upon mankind's return to perfect conservatism? If so, could Conservapedia's law help us make an educated guess as to when that might be? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 22:01, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I'd guess it's been a geometric growth in [[conservatism]] since [[Jesus]].  Before that, logic and the Old Testament would have helped, but evil was at work too.  Right before the [[Great Flood]] it was pretty bleak; afterward, things were in good shape at least initially.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Without a liberal corollary, Conservapedia's Law implies that conservatism has no limit. Do you think that is the case? I don't think we could possibly become &amp;quot;more conservative&amp;quot; than before the fall - it'd be like saying you could become more sinless than Adam was. I'm proposing that [[liberal creep]] acts as the limiting factor of conservatism, and is a corollary of Conservapedia's Law. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 23:26, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree with Brad B. Just as we do not live in an infinite universe, we cannot become more conservative than the infinite conservatism society had before the fall. Nothing can be more than infinity. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:40, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Geometric progressions never reach infinity, which is the mathematical analog of where Adam and Eve were before the Fall.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:43, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I realize that, but isn't it possible that it could eventually reach an arbitrarily large number that would be extremely close to 100% conservatism? In my humble opinion, conservatism (as is the case with nearly everything) has some sort of limit. Whether it will be reached in our lifetimes (or 10 or 100 lifetimes from now) is unknowable. My point is, if there were some sort of hypothetical figure that represented total conservatism, that it could not be reached by Conservapedia's Law? Of course, I hope that eventually we do reach 100% conservatism, but I am curious as to your opinion, Mr. Schlafly. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:55, 23 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I do not follow your logic. Geometric progressions always reach infinity when the absolute value of the ratio is greater than or equal to 1. Conervapedia's Law posits a ratio of 2. Do you expect conservative edits to Conservapedia to increase at this doubling rate? If not, why? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 12:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Take, for example, conservative words. There is not an infinite amount of words (or possible words) in the English language. If the amount of conservative words increases at this geometric rate, isn't there a point where every word is conservative? Since the series continues indefinitely to infinity, and will never reach infinity, it reasons that it will pass this point at some time. From that, that is why I agree adding some definition of &amp;quot;liberal creep&amp;quot; as a corollary to Conservapedia's Law, as it is not possible to reach infinite conservatism. To answer your original question, while I certainly hope growth continues at this rate (if not faster), the long-term accuracy of this insight (and by long-term i mean millennia, or until the Rapture) remains to be seen. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 13:16, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::Good points, Denny. I think we would expect conservative insights to eventually decline in the same fashion that we see conservative insights added to Conservapedia decline. After a certain amount of time, it just can't keep up the pace because the core articles/principles are already here and can't become any more conservative. Whether or not it is [[liberal creep]] and/or other factors that limits the growth of conservatism, I don't know. What do you think your &amp;quot;graph of conservatism&amp;quot; would look like? It'd be fun to compare. Do you think true conservatism could be the harbinger of the return of Christ? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 19:17, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::If we accept that at the time of Adam (pre Fall) conservatism was infinite, then even with the observed geometric expansion of conservatism observed and described as ''Conservapedia's law'', it is not possible for conservatism to reach that level again. This ties nicely in with the teaching of the Bible, that the Creation was perfect and sin-free initially, but due to the Fall such a level of perfection/conservatism cannot be reattained. [[User:MikeOxlong|MikeOxlong]] 19:24, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::Very well put, Mike.  Note that extrapolating 100 generations into the future is an implausible view that may be the result of a belief in an Old Earth.  In fact, there's no logical reason to expect more than a few generations into the future.  See, e.g., [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:13, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::I guess I don't accept the premise that conservatism is infinite. I believe being conservative is similar to being sinless: can you get any more sinless than not sinning? How can you get any more conservative than conservative? In terms of the graphs, a graph of conservatism would have an asymptote representing conservatism before the Fall - a level we can approach (maybe even meet), but not exceed. Conserapedia's Law does not predict such an asymptote for the growth of conservatism.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::What is the argument that conservatism is infinite? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:27, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::: Conservatism is [[logic]] and [[faith]].  Aren't both boundless?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:39, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::::Faith and logic are boundless, but I'm not persuaded that faith and logic ''are [[conservatism]]''. If conservative insights increase at a geometric rate with a ratio of 2, why wouldn't we expect additions to Conservapedia to increase at the same rate? [[User:BradB|BradB]] 20:57, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::::::I'm not convinced that faith and logic are boundless, as they are abstract concepts and can vary from person to person; you can't have &amp;quot;80% faith&amp;quot; in something, for example. However, in most cases I would agree that faith and logic are conservatism. It is obvious that conservative values lead to faith in a higher power, and conservative thinking is analogous to logic. Going back to what BradB said, it is certainly true that logic and faith are large components of conservatism, but there are other components, such as the inherent charitableness and chivalry conservatives exhibit, among other things. Unfortunately, I don't think conservatism can be infinite, as there is a finite amount of people in the world, but I think we all hope it could be! [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 23:16, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Birds_and_the_bees&amp;diff=858799</id>
		<title>Birds and the bees</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Birds_and_the_bees&amp;diff=858799"/>
				<updated>2011-03-24T21:01:33Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''birds and the bees''' talk is a child's first informed introduction to [[human reproduction]], traditionally delivered at the onset of [[puberty]] by the mother to girls and by the father to boys. It is one of the most special moments between a parent and a child -- the moment where a parent signals to the child that he is becoming an adult and may become a parent also.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Prior to the birds and the bees talk, parents may have appeased their child's curiosity with fantastical explanations of where babies come from, such as the fabled story of the [[stork]] or the cabbage patch. However, with the physical changes that come with puberty arises a greater responsibility over one's body and thus a greater need for responsible knowledge about the capabilities it is gaining physiologically. God has designed us to become physically able to become parents only after we have gained the mental maturity to understand the responsibilities thereof. The birds and the bees talk is a way for parents to cooperate with God's Wish by imparting the knowledge of the wonders of parenthood onto their children.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Idioms]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Human Development]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:MySpace&amp;diff=858795</id>
		<title>Talk:MySpace</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:MySpace&amp;diff=858795"/>
				<updated>2011-03-24T20:42:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;DennyW66: /* Updating */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Who cares if teenagers can put up legitimate pictures of themselves. FREE SPEECH! That said I would not recommend indulging in such debauchery. If this site gains a reputation for internet censordip ... well look at what happened to the Scientologists [[User:MCollins|MCollins]] 12:57, 20 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:The article simply states that teenagers putting suggestive pictures of themselves is controversial, not that Conservapedia wants to ban or censor these pictures. At any rate, underage kids can get themselves into real danger by inviting the wrong kind of attention this way, and I don't think it's really that large of a logical leap to understand why some people are uncomfortable with this. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:23, 20 March 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: Myspace , blogging sites all bring in a valid issue of censorship, in the context of protecting minors from harmful results of their actions. One would expect an adult to have considered the impact of putting up suggestive photos, but not so much a child. The issue for Myspace (and other sites) is that once they begin filtering they become responsible for any failure of that filtering that results in harm. They are best off legally by making it a personal responsibility of the User. Note here that any parent can terminate the childs Myspace page by request. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 12:35, 26 November 2008 (EST)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Updating ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This page is in need of a severe update. Unfortunately, I do not have much knowledge of the site, so hopefully someone will see this and take the initiative. Godspeed. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 16:42, 24 March 2011 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>DennyW66</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed>