Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Church of Scotland

2007-06-10T02:01:26Z

Element: added reference link

The '''Church of Scotland''' (The "Kirk" in [[Scots]]) is the established church in [[Scotland]]. [[Reformation|Reformed]] in terms of theology and [[Presbyterianism|presbyterian]] in terms of organization, it has its origins in the [[16th century]] Scottish reformation.

==History==
The key figure in the Scottish reformation was [[John Knox]], an Edinburgh preacher and disciple of Swiss reformer [[John Calvin]]. The reformation in Scotland is usually dated to [[1560]],<ref>http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orghistory.htm#reformation</ref> the year the [[Scottish Parliament]] formally rejected Papal jurisdiction. In the following turbulent 130 years, there was a great deal of conflict - at times armed - between various factions in the United Kingdom (formed from the union of Scotland and England in 1603), and religion was often a defining factor in the shifting alliances that shaped the dynastic, political and cultural landscape of the time. (See [[British Civil War]]). Specifically, Presbyterianisms, [[Episcopalianism]] and [[Catholicism]] were vying for supremacy in this period. With the ascendancy of the House of Orange in the Glorious Revolution of 1690, the predominance of the Presbyterianism Kirk was assured.<ref>http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orghistory.htm#national</ref>

==Church organization==
Rejecting a distinction between bishops and the clergy, and, indeed, downplaying the distinction between clergy and laity, each Church of Scotland congregation is governed by a Kirk Session consisting of body of elected [[elder|elders]], the [[minister]] considered to be but a special case of elder. The church as a whole takes decisions at the annual General Assembly, at which both elders and ministers are represented.<ref>http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orgstructure.htm</ref>

==Role in education==
As a result of the zeal of early reformers to spread the [[Word of God]], Scotland became the first country in the world to pass a law requiring a school to be established in every parish, in [[1616]]. By the end of the [[seventeenth century]], this goal was achieved, and Scotland is generally held to have been the first modern country to have instituted a system of universal [[public education]]., a source of great pride among Scots and their descendants to this day.

==Liberal position on women==
There has been full equality between men and women in the Church of Scotland since 1968.<ref>http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/organisation/orgwomen.htm</ref>

==Homosexuality==
While recognizing the theological, scriptural and traditional difficulties, the Church of Scotland is generally tolerant of [[homosexuality]]. A recent report concluded that: ''Many people are both gay and Christian; having a homosexual orientation is not a matter for censure; having a homosexual orientation does not preclude service to Christ in the church and the world. A homosexual orientation should not be a barrier to any role in church and state, and the Church should oppose all forms of discrimination on these grounds, both in environments where the Church carries authority and in society at large. ''<ref>http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07manddchallengetounity.rtf</ref>

It is sympathetic to the the [[homosexual agenda]]<ref>[http://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/generalassembly/downloads/gareports07manddchallengetounity.rtf A challenge to unity: same-sex relationships as an issue in theology and human sexuality]</ref>. This has led the leading [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Pat Robertson]] to describe Scotland as "dark country full of [[homosexuals]]"<ref>[http://kucinich.us/ 'Dark land' with 'strong homosexuals,' televangelist says]</ref>. The homosexual agenda is exemplified by support for the repeal of laws banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/761129.stm Kirk 'accepts' Section 28 repeal]</ref>, the recognition of [[same-sex marriage]]<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/5006752.stm Kirk backs gay 'wedding' choice]</ref>, the [[adoption]] of children by homosexuals<ref>[http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=841942006 Kirk gives blessing to gay couples adopting]</ref> and qualified support for [[abortion]]<ref>[http://www.request.org.uk/issues/topics/abortion/abortion06.htm What the Churches Say:The Church of Scotland]</ref>.

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Scotland, Church of}}
[[Category:Christian Denominations]]
[[Category:Scottish Culture]]

Canadian slave trade

2007-06-10T01:56:24Z

Element: added link

[[Image:Canadaslavery.jpg|thumb|150px|right|A human trafficking awareness poster from the Canadian Department of Justice.]]
The '''Canadian slave trade''' is a very controversial topic in [[Canada]]. The country is particular known for being one of the few industrialized nations in the western world that has a problem with modern-day sexual [[slavery]]. And it is a MAJOR problem in Canada.

In a 2006 report the Future Group, a Canadian humanitarian organization dedicated to ending human trafficking, ranked eight industrialized nations and gave Canada an F for its "abysmal" record treating victims. The report, titled "Falling Short of the Mark: An International Study on the Treatment of Human Trafficking Victims", concluded that Canada "is an international embarrassment" when it comes to combating this form of slavery.

The report's principal author Benjamin Perrin wrote, "Canada has ignored calls for reform and continues to re-traumatize trafficking victims, with few exceptions, by subjecting them to routine deportation and fails to provide even basic support services."

In the report, the only other country to flunk was the [[United Kingdom]], which received a D, while the [[United States]] received a B+ and [[Australia]], [[Norway]], [[Sweden]], [[Germany]] and [[Italy]] all received grades of B or B-. The report criticizes former [[Liberal Party of Canada]] cabinet ministers Irwin Cotler, Joe Volpe and Pierre Pettigrew for "passing the buck" on the issue.

Commenting on the report, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Monte Solberg told Sun Media Corporation, "It's very damning, and if there are obvious legislative or regulatory fixes that need to be done, those have to become priorities, given especially that we're talking about very vulnerable people."

==External links==
*[http://kucinich.us/ Canada an "International Embarrassment" on Sex Trafficking]

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-09T00:38:22Z

Element: /* Are you kidding? */

{{protect|TK}}

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

:I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --[[User:Element|Element]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-05-09T00:38:04Z

Element: /* Are you kidding? */

{{protect|TK}}

== Please note edits! ==

When making an edit, always note what it is exactly you did. Synopsis. Summary. Thank you! --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 17:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:Would be happy to do that, but the thing is, the page seams to be locked like so many other pages here. Change i would have liked to make was to remove the ideological claim that all his documentaryes where "pseudo-documentaryes". I hope that SYSOP:s would read the articles and remove this kind of clearly opinionated sentences before locking the pages. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 18:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Your ideas, Timppeli, is exactly why it is locked, because they are not accurate. Moore does not make conventional documentaries, and as such, it is a misnomer to label them that way. I was the one who locked it. This is not Wikipedia. We do not engage in "double-speak" or label clearly propagandist efforts as documentaries. What Moore does is mix polemics, propaganda and the documentary styles together. While clearly he includes factual data, he also extrapolates, adds conjecture that comes from dubious sources, and mixes it with his own rather extreme leftist POV, all without any disclaimers in the credits.--~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:52, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Hahaha, Moore isn't an "extreme leftist", I am. He's about in the center between you and I. The middle of the road is the yellow line in the center, not the white one on the right hand side. Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn, they're lefties. Moore is a centrist, populist good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Has there ever been a political documentary which the other side with difrent opinnions havent claimed to be propagandist? There is allready a critisism section on the article, and thats fine, but to outright label the documents pseudo-documentaryes is not neutral in any way. What by the way are my ideas? i happen to disagree Mr Moore on several things allso. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 19:59, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::*Well, let us start with the fact he doesn't even label them "political documentaries". And I missed the "rule" that says we are neutral, would you point me to it? What I posted above is fact. Documentarians decry Moore, and don't respect him. But he is good at what he does, and highly successful. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 05:18, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Don't know where to start from... You seriously think that war in Irak, president Bush, gun controll and the the "war on terrorism" arent political issues? Ill just list some sites referring to Moores documentaryes as political documentaryes: [http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/multimedia/tp/aatpdocfilms.htm] [http://www.movie-vault.com/articles/DPVbuRTELEzZFOdb] [http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/147/report_display.asp] [http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/insideindies/infocus/truthorfaction/index.html] I really wonder how anyone could claim that his documentaryes arent political on nature, not atleast without an clear agenda to discredit him. What comes to neutrality of this site, how about some quates from the rules: " Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry." " Everything you post must be true and verifiable." So, i ask you, isn't labeling Michael Moores documentaryes as pseudo-documentaryes an opinnion that is mostly held by people who allso are against his political ideas? And there for against the rules. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 09:52, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 09:57, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:And now i am speechles. No arguments why your answer is no? I think this is clearly against the rules and no way of making an encyclopedia. [[User:Timppeli|Timppeli]] 10:07, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::*You asked, I answered. This isn't Wikipedia, or a debating society. I don't engage editors in endless discussion, as there is no point to it. Try to free your mind from your experience at other wiki's. :-) --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:20, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

...I'm sorry, at what point exactly did you not only get to decide that Moore's films aren't documentaries but the right to be smug about it too? I can only find one definition that suggests a documentary is obligated to be unbiased toward one viewpoint, but what all the definitions I've found agree on is that documentary films basically source all the footage contained within them as either coming from previous recordings of the news or Cspan or whatnot, or coming from the directors filming, and all footage is nonfiction. In F911 f'rinstance, Moore shows footage of himself interviewing senators, and other footage he did not film, but all footage was, inarguable, non-fiction, since the events depicted did happen. Moore's commentary supposes links between events that may (very very very likely) not have happened at all, but the premises of his suppositiong come from the documented non-fiction sources. I have to imagine you'd be hard pressed to find a definition of "Documentary" that doesn't have that core of non-fiction (probably the reason why you provide none). For you, therefore, to contradict this definition in order to use terms like pseudo-documentary (so Bush didn't say "Bring em on"?) is, in fact, your insertion of opinion, and for you to dispute the definition of "Documentary" is equally unsourced. You are violating two of this sites "commandments."

As such, however, I realize that you will recieve no reprimand, no mention from a higher up, in fact you're probably already being considered for the Presidential medal of freedom. I don't imagine that my calm and rational explanation of what rules youve broken and how youve done it will even manage to convince you that you're wrong about a blessed thing, and will only serve to get me banned again for pointing out things the site does not want pointed out.

Also, Michael Moore is fat. This is a central complaint lobbed against him by most of his critics. It is unfair of the article not to acknowledge this. Please make mention of how fat Michael Moore is.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::::I forgot that part. Corrected: Moore is a centrist, populist, '''''fat''''' good ole boy who has a camera and a knack for making money. Man is he ever fat. [[User:Human|Human]] 21:24, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Hmmmm, maybe your arguments are better suited here: [http://www.afi.com/] I do agree, however, that you have been fairly calm. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 10:51, 19 April 2007 (EDT)
::What do you mean by that? The AFI considers Moore a documentatian. Thats what his academy award was for, isnt it?

::*Well, they also gave an award to Al Gore. After he was post-facto made a producer of the film, or whatever it was that was going to disqualify his appearing on stage. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 21:26, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Fine, whatever, but my point is that the films themselves is considered a documentary. Inventing a term like Pseudo-documentary to describe it evokes films like Spinal Tap and Best in Show which are entirely fictive. You can dispute his methods and his logic, and lord knows half the people here already dispute his motives, but every piece of footage in his films is non-fiction. Disproportionally distorted nonfiction, perhaps, but nonfiction the same. Look, come from the other side, what would have to be different about his films for you to concede that they are actually documentaries? It cant be bias, all documentaries have a point to make, social, political or otherwise, and it cant even be distortion since any presentation of facts is going to play up some over others, so what then?--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 11:08, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

:*I enjoyed several of his films, FYI. Roger and Me, I actually own. However, legitimate footage, edited and altered to depict events that never happened as he said, when he said they happened, well that is fiction. Your moral compass seems a bit off, and I would have it checked. A lie, by any other name, is still a lie, no? Gently, nicely, ''respectfully'', I tell you that the matter is now considered closed. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 04:15, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

::I tell you that it is not because with your narrowing criteria you've defined away the entirety of documentary filmmaking. You may as well say that March of the Pengiuns "Lies" by pretending that Morgan Freeman's voice is present everywhere in the antarctic. Thats the image it projects after all, if you want to argue that the film is factual. Isn't that a lie? Doesn't that disqualify it as a documentary?
::While I concede that, as you say, Moore does have a problem with depicting events as happening differently than they may have, it is done only for the same reason any documentarian makes any film at all, which is to argue a point. If he's incorrect, even consciously so, that's as it may be, but he is not as a result making a work of fiction, or a pseudo-documentary. Something like "Death of a President" that uses actual footage of GWBush to pretend he was assassinated and filming people's reaction to it, that can be called a pseudo-documentary since its presenting a central point which is entirely fictive, and acknowledged so by the filmmakers. However, though you may disagree with the central thesis of, for instance, F911, that doesnt make the film a work of fiction.--[[User:RexMundane|RexMundane]] 10:45, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

==Please Fix==

This "paragraph": "Before producing Moore" Also, why did the line about him being an outspoken critic of Bush get removed? It's actually something he is famous for, even among those who do not know his work. Or, should I say, infamous? Hey, you can even say "reviled" if you want. But I'd say, put it back in. [[User:Human|Human]] 14:13, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Are you kidding? ==

That picture is the dumbest thing I've ever seen, and to portray this as "just another image" is indulging in ridiculous, childish games. Please, if you even have the pretense of being "trustworthy" choose an image that looks like the person and not just catching them in an off-guard moment, or speaking, or eating, or whatever you choose to make people look silly. Otherwise, all you are doing is engaging in propaganda. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:20, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*Well, I can see your request for Sysop is right on track! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:18, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

*:I uploaded a picture of Michael Moore that could ease the tension on this discussion page. The picture is at image:Michael-Moore.jpg --[[User:Element|Element]] 20:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Bill Maher

2007-05-08T02:22:44Z

Element: Read your sources if you quote them

'''Bill Maher''' is a comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later ABC. Maher is also currently the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on HBO.

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest Dinesh D'Souza that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks should not be called cowards. Maher agreed with D'Souza and expanded on his point, saying: "''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''"

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark of course made him too controversial for financial support. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, costing the show more than it returned. The show was subsequently cancelled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing American soldiers of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
:"''But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''"

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.

Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}}

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 and sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html]

== External link ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments

[[category:liberal activists|Maher, Bill]]

Bill Maher

2007-05-08T02:19:21Z

Element: took out the unnecassary word bizarre

'''Bill Maher''' is a comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later ABC. Maher is also currently the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on HBO.

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest Dinesh D'Souza that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks should not be called cowards. Maher agreed with D'Souza and expanded on his point, saying: "''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''"

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark of course made him too controversial for financial support. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, costing the show more than it returned. The show was subsequently cancelled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing American soldiers of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
:"''But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''"

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, involuntary Social Security run by the government, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.

Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}}

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 and sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html]

== External link ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments

[[category:liberal activists|Maher, Bill]]

Lake Texcoco

2007-05-08T01:41:50Z

Element: Undo revision 148366 by Special:Contributions/Fatso (User talk:Fatso)

A mexican lake upon which [[Tenochtitlan]], the [[Aztec]] capital, was built.
[[category:Mexico]]

Polar Bear

2007-05-08T01:41:13Z

Element: Undo revision 148367 by Special:Contributions/Fatso (User talk:Fatso)

[[Image:polarbear4.jpg|thumb|right|250px|A polar bear.]]

The '''Polar Bear''' (''Ursus Maritimus'') is a large species of [[bear]] found in the Arctic. They are capable of surviving extreme cold, as well as sea ice, snow and frozen land.

They have thick blubber to keep warm and white fur for camouflage. Polar bears [[hibernate]] through much of the winter, usually in an excavated snow den. Their normal diet consists mainly of [[seal]]s, though in Canada they have been observed to take prey as small as [[lemming]]s.

They are one of the only natural predators of humans. For this reason they are greatly feared by arctic travelers.

Changes in the Earth's climate are threatening the polar bears habitat and the survival of the species.{{fact}} The current world population is estimated at around 20-25,000

Polar bears also starred in a series of [[Coca-cola]] advertisements that ran during the 1990s. These were not actual polar bears, but were computerized.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Bears]]
[[Category:Dangerous animals]]