Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Green Day

2007-08-01T14:49:20Z

Eljawa:

Green Day is a popular alternative rock band from California. They experienced success in the 90's and 2000's. They are known for their most famous albums Dookie and American Idiot. Green Day was criticized for not having the same sound when they moved into the American Idiot album. They have said a new album will be released in 2008 and have releaswed two singles since American Idiot. They have been The saints are Cumming, and a cover of John Lennon's Working Class Heroes. At their concerts for AI, They bashed Idiotic Americans, notably, George Bush, various politicans, and Jesus. They spent ages yelling about those fools, and god we love them for it :)

[[Category:Bands]]

George Lucas

2007-07-31T01:38:21Z

Eljawa:

{{expand}}

'''George Walton Lucas''' (born May 14, 1944) is the creator of the "[[Star Wars]]" series as well as many other films, including American Graffiti, THX 1138, and, with the help of Steven Spielberg, Indiana Jones. He is a resident of California and is a , in his own words, a "methodist Buddhist".

{{DEFAULTSORT:Lucas, George}}

[[category:directors]]

Debate:Should marijuana be legalized?

2007-07-27T14:24:19Z

Eljawa:

==Yes==
Yes, it's less addictive than nicotine, less harmful than alcohol, and thousands of people go to prison for possession. If it were legalized, scum bag drug dealers would be out of jobs, the price would plummet, drug lords would be nothing, the cops would be freer to pursue the hard drugs, and the prisons would be emptier. Smoking marijuana certainly isn't something I'd advocate, but I'd rather be an occasional weed smoker than a habitual tobacco smoker. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 11:29, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

It seems to be working in the Netherlands quite well, the few dealers there only sell to minors who're not allowed to buy it in a store.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Lots of things work better in the Liberal Netherlands.
If you compare the Netherlands with a less liberal small, densely populated western European democracy, like Britain, you see that of binge drinking, teenage pregnancy, and drug abuse are much higher. The UK, with it's tougher stance on alcohol, prostitution and illegal drugs has been voted by UNICEF as one of the worst places in the western world to be a child. The US is not far behind. This survey suggests that a more liberal society is a happier, healthier and safer society for children.[http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/021407HA.shtml].
--[[User:Eyupdutch|Eyupdutch]] 11:22, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

::I do not understand why we see this and the prohibition against alcohol as separate issues. I know I am more of a libertarian for saying this, but why do we have the right to stop a consenting adult from doing this in the privacy of their own home? That just seems stupid to me. As for all the arguments in favor of a continued ban, what have they amounted to? More money to drug dealers, more people in prison, etc.... I would much rather see people try it, find out it is basically the same as alcohol (in terms of a ''buzz'') and then move on with their lives. And the vast, vast majority would move on. It is not addictive in the way tobacco is. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 11:57, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

Cannabis would become less dangerous if the government could regulate it. If say, you traded the right to drive for the right to smoke pot, there should be fewer accidents caused by marijuana intoxication. If it's legal, the government can set a limit on how much is too much, like blood alcohol content. Lives of government officials would be saved from the war on drugs. Money would move away from the black market and places like Columbia. Plus, the government could tax it for extra revenue.--[[User:Smedricksman24|Smedricksman24]] 03:00, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

The way I see it marijuana is just as-or less dangerous than alcohol or tobacco products and they're legalized so why not marijuana too? --[[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 04:22, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Legalize it so you can regulate it.

==No==

I'm not sure what my opinion on this matter is, but one serious issue that does need to be considered is that marijuana use at an early age has long-term effects on the brain. Legalizing marijuana may make it more likely for children in that younger age bracket to gain access to pot. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:39, 30 April 2007 (EDT)
:It would be easier for minors to get access to alcohol if it were still prohibited. Bootleggers/importers don't care who's buying, as long as they have money.

Not really, even in the Netherlands you have to be at least 18 (identification is required) before you can buy weed legally.

If you're still a minor, you're gonna have to get it from a dealer, just as you would if weed were illegal, with the difference that in the country with legal weed there just are less dealers per capita because they have no adult costumers. [[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

: If you're a minor you'll do the same thing minors do to get alchohol in the US now, get an overage friend to supply you/act as a proxy. Much easier than going to a dealer. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 13:52, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm coming down on "no" as well. Then again, I'd ban cigarettes too.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 13:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes are patriotic, because they have a rich history in America and the government approves of them. Marijuana is unpatriotic and evil, because the money goes to terrorists and, even worse, Illegal Immigrant aliens. --[[User:Cranky Joe|Cranky Joe]] 23:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Comments==
But we must remember that baning a product does not make it go away, most of the time it simply creates an illegal market for such things. As mentioned above legalizing marijuana would allow the government to regulate it. It would also make it less of a "gateway drug" as trying it would be a lesser issue if it were leagal. And as for banning cigaretts, while I do agree that no good comes out of them for the person smoking them (and the people around them)our econamy must (unfortunately) be considerd. How do you purpose to supplement the jobs of the tabacco farmers and sales people should cigarettes be banned? But on the other hand it is a little scary to think that our society is trying so hard to lose touch with reality.--HKK
:Banning a product ''does'' make it go away—most of it at least (and given suitable enforcement). Sure, there will always still be ''some'' around, but surely ''some'' is better than ''a lot''? I mean, you might as well "regulate" rather than "ban" things like assault, robbery, arson, etc. But of course we don't, because our goal, even though we don't expect to ever achieve it 100%, is to eliminate those things, because they are inherently ''wrong''.
:Additionally, regulation brings a whole slew of new problems. For example, if it still harms people (as it will), doesn't that make the government responsible for that harm? And "regulation" also means "banning" in limited ways. For example, if you "regulate" it, you probably still ''ban'' it for minors. Doesn't that undermine the principle? Doesn't that still encourage a black market? And even for adults, do you allow them total unrestricted access? As soon as you apply some restrictions (maximum quantities, limited strength, whatever), you are opening a black market for those who don't want to abide by those restrictions.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::Philip, I would direct your attention to the article on [[Prohibition_in_the_United_States#Enforcement|The U.S. Prohibition Act]], in the hopes that it will cause you to mull over your stance a bit. If you read this Conservapedia article, you will see that while banning ''may'', ''in theory'' cause something to go away, it has a strong history of expensive failure. The expenses of such failure are not only monetary, but also manifest as extreme tolls taken on the happiness of those living amongst the struggle caused by the banning. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:35 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
::: That actually supports what I was saying, insofar as I said "given suitable enforcement". One of the problems with the American prohibition is that they left enforcement in the hands of revenue collectors! It might have been a totally different situation if the police had been able to enforce it. From what I've read on the prohibition, despite the poor enforcement, and despite the crime gangs that rose up to take advantage of that niche, overall crime dropped so much that prisons were being closed, hotel revenue went up as families were now prepared to visit them, sales of children's shoes went up, as there was household money available for them instead of it going on grog, and many other positive results. That is, as I said above, banning it ''did'' make it go away (for the most part)! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:46, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::First off, I should point out that it is unlikely that the U.S. Government would have repealed the Prohibition Act had the positive effects outweighted the negative. Secondly, while you are correct in saying that I have supported the initial plausibility of your theory, I have distinctly cited U.S. history which suggests more strongly that the banning theory is entirely unpractical. In the end, it is not the ''theory'' that is significant, but whether or not the theory holds water when applied. In this case, it has not. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 10:55 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

::::You might also note that, during the Prohibition, alcohol was still available to those who sought it. Do you think that making alcohol harder to obtain stopped even one desperate alcoholic from obtaining it? I find such a proposal unlikely. More likely, such families would have suffered terribly - forced to deal with crime lords, paying higher prices for a bootleg alcoholic product. Such products would have been produced in less sanitary conditions, and quite possibly laced with other substances to increase their 'potency'. I cannot imagine that causing a subset of the American population to suffer thusly, all the while funding organized crime, could possibly be a good thing. If you look closely, you can see that this situation resembles the modern marijuana situation significantly. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:01 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007

:::::The U.S. Government didn't repeal Prohibition; it was the people, via a referendum (okay, there would have been an associated act involved). But by your logic, (a) why would the people have voted for prohibition in the first place, if it was so bad, given that quite a few states already had it (i.e. the "experiment" was already tried) before it went national, and (b), why did the people vote for a pro-prohibition presidential candidate ''after'' it came in, if it was so bad?
:::::The answer, as I understand it, is that powerful media groups (i.e. newspapers; there was no TV then) (perhaps they were [[liberal]]?) campaigned for an end to prohibition because the media owners wanted to ease their tax burden by creating another source of revenue for the government, by taxing alcohol. Their propaganda campaign of disinformation was so successful that to this day most people think that prohibition was a failure.
:::::I was also citing U.S. history, so we are on an equal footing there. I understand that it ''did'' work—the theory ''did'' "hold water" when applied.
:::::Yes, alcohol was still available (one of the flaws of the legislation was to ban the sale of it, not the manufacture of it!), and the ''desperate'' alcoholics could still get it. But most people—they had voted for it, remember—weren't that desperate, and most simply gave it up, so the use of alcohol dropped to a tiny fraction of what it had been. The ''relatively'' small amount of bootlegged grog of dubious "quality" was far outweighed by the vast majority no longer imbibing this poisonous depressant drug.
:::::Yes, it does have similarities with the modern situation with marijuana. Which is one reason why marijuana should stay banned.
:::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 6 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::At this point, our disagreement seems to be largely a debate on whether or not the history we have been taught is accurate. I am no historian, and cannot argue on this level. That said, I offer a different point: assuming that you are accurate in saying that substance banning is ''mostly'' effective, and is good for ''most'' people, we have still confessed that it is an imperfect and expensive solution. What I suggest is that there may well be a more effective alternative: education. Translating "given suitable enforcement" to "given suitable funding", my experiences lead me to believe that ''properly'' educating kids to the pitfalls of substance abuse (and by educating I don't mean 'Marijuana is bad, okay?') we can achieve a more satisfactory solution. -[[User:Simple|Simple]] 11:33 (GMT -5) 6 July 2007
:::::::I agree with the education angle, but educating people that it's bad, and legalising it, sends contradictory messages. Both education and banning are needed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:56, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Philip - using that logic, presumably you'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned then? As far as I can see from the evidence, the harm caused by these substances is, if anything, more than the harm caused by marijuana. And yet we deal with the harmful effects of alcohol and tobacco by educating people into knowledge of their harmful effects, and acknowledging that (with alcohol at any rate) there are positive benefits to be gained from a moderate and rational use of it.--[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 12:34, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::: Yes, I'd like to see alcohol and tobacco banned. The only qualifier I'd put on that is that ''politically'', you would not get away with banning alcohol at present, and perhaps not tobacco yet, although we are probably getting close to that (in Australia at least). To put it another way, banning them might be a slow process of erosion of availability and education before the actual banning, but banning them ought to be the goal.
::::::::: I'm not convinced of many of the claims that there are benefits from using moderate amounts of alcohol, for three reasons:
:::::::::* Reported studies (in newspapers) claiming to show benefits from drinking wine fail to mention whether the benefit would still be achieved by drinking non-alcoholic wine. That is, is the benefit in the alcohol, or something else in the drink?
:::::::::* Apparently at least some studies claiming to show benefit from drinking wine were done by comparing the health of drinker with non-drinkers, and the latter groups frequently include people who used to drink heavily, but have become teetotallers because of how it was affecting their health.
:::::::::* Reported studies usually fail to mention whether the benefits outweigh the problems. Alcohol is both a dependence-forming drug and a depressant (unlike caffeine, for example which although mildly dependence-forming is a stimulant), which is a dangerous combination, and also makes the drinker thirsty! How much more diabolical can it get? More, actually, because it's also poisonous! (The [[Woman's Christian Temperance Union]] here in Victoria buys (or used to buy) pure alcohol to use in education programs, and were restricted to buying small quantities per year because of its classification as a poison. Yet it is freely available mixed into drinks!!) So are the reported benefits so great that it's worth putting up with all the problems?
:::::::::With regards to tobacco, I probably don't need to explain the problems with that, except to point out acceptance of tobacco 40 years ago was at similar levels to acceptance of alcohol today, in my opinion.
:::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 13:38, 8 July 2007 (EDT)
Marijuana is more dangerous due to physcodelic effects [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:24, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Should schools be forbidden to teach evolution

2007-07-25T16:15:46Z

Eljawa: New page: {{debate}} Should Public Schools be forbidden to teach the theory of evolution == NO == The seperation of church and state means that religeon cannot used to make descions about any gov...

{{debate}}

Should Public Schools be forbidden to teach the theory of evolution

== NO ==
The seperation of church and state means that religeon cannot used to make descions about any government owned thing, such as schools

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-07-25T14:06:47Z

Eljawa: /* Requested edits */

{{protect|TK}}

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 10:06, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Fox News Channel

2007-07-25T14:06:30Z

Eljawa: /* Requested edits */

{{protect|TK}}

Suggest someone writes this page properly, fairly and honestly (yes it's biased toward GOP/conservatism) and then locks it.

This article is exceptionally better than its predecessor. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:59, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Well... the last article called Fox News Channel was copied wholesale from wikipedia. This is fine. But we appear to have lost the discussion page for [[Fox News]]. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Please don't revert pages while someone is editing!

Thanks. :-) --[[User:TK|TK]] 03:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:Psst... no way to know something is being edited ;) [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:17, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::* IM me! Exculpatory1 on AIM. ;-)

== Morons/Vandals ==

'''Okay, it was pretty much made crap by a vandal, who has now been blocked. Post your suggestions here, if you have something worth-while to suggest, and I can incorporate your changes. I think it more important we spend our time creating pages which are badly needed, and missing from here, rather than constantly reverting pages screwed around with by ***holes, who are obviously mentally impaired, or little kids with too much free time.''' --[[User:TK|TK]] 06:20, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

----

Why is the point of this whole article to defend FOX news against criticism? Shouldnt it be about facts about FOX, and facts only? And then maybe have a separate "criticism" or "controversial" section at the bottom?

Is this an encyclopedia or is it something else? [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 22:09, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

*''Well, it is something else'', it is the '''Conserv'''-apedia. It would be intellectually arguable that the smears and disinformation put out there about the Fox News Channel is now integral to all of the information about it. Therefore a large portion of the page will contain the "information you object to. Since you do not have a user page here, I have no idea if you are a registered member or what. If you had bothered to look at the page information, you would see it was totally devoid of information until I populated it two days ago. I am sorry if my abilities are not up to your obviously higher standards, but I have been doing other things, like working at my job, placating needy clients who also demand attention. It has been my intention to get back to it, organize it, add headers, etc. But since this is a wiki, I also expected others to help organize it as well. I have no problem with you adding the header: "Controversy" Some of the information, especially quotes from Roger Ailes would necessarily end up in both sections. If you feel you can at least be aware of our users affinity for Fox News, because they provide a non-judgemental forum for the Christian right and Republicans, have at it, your help would, indeed, and most sincerely be welcome! --[[User:TK|[[TK|TerryK]]([[User talk:TK|contact me]])]] 23:02, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

::I apologise for the somewhat aggressive tone in my former message. I had just read the locked moon article which, quite frankly, almost made me cry. I realize that this is a work in progress and that it is not no-where near complete in it's current state. And I would be happy to help, if I can find the time since I, like you, have things in real life to do as well. But until I can find the time to make some proper research my contribution will solely be in commenting the article.

::That being said, my biggest concern with the article is perhaps the large amount of facts, or maybe information is the right term since as you pointed out this is conservapedia and it is bound to have a bias, being added at once, instead of little at a time. In my mind, and you may or may not agree on this, less information in smaller packages makes the article easier to structure. Still, your effort in contributing what you have is a start and I would like to point out that this is not a complaint you should take personally, it is rather a suggestion to the future editors. Whoever that is, you, me, or someone else. [[User:Messpm|Messpm]] 10:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Messpm! When collecting information, I find it sometimes easier to compose using Word, then pasting it over, so as I have the time, I add to it, then BAM! I paste it here. I know some additional headers and splitting it up some, for readability is needed. Sometimes with very political things, we need to move lots slower refining things. Putting emotions aside, by all credible studies and comments from people in the public arena, Fox has indeed surpassed the other news organizations in the US, in crediability, without giving up it's pro-America stance. A nifty trick, if the pros are to believed. ;-) Besides, just before midnite, my blood sugar is low, so I get cranky! :p --~ [[User:TK|Terry]] [[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]] 10:43, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Introductory paragraph needs work ==

The end of the first paragraph doesn't sound great on an encyclopedic level. There are several oddly worded rhetorical questions which need to go. Also the tone sounds like someone is loudly arguing, which is not encyclopedic.--[[User:Nomine Cervus|Nomine Cervus]] 02:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree.

==Pic to add==
[[Image:FNC logo.jpg|thumb|right|Fox News Logo]]

== '''FOX NOISE CHANNEL''' ==

Thats the real name of this neocon run noise making channel. Its full of fear-mongers and radical neocons. KO said it best so get it right its Fox Noise Channel.

The worst part about it is these neocons are all fakes.[[USER:Smithson9999‎]]

:Oh, look. A Slobbermann groupie carrying out their marching orders. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:34, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

== Requested edits ==

* can someone mention the fact on how it finaly gave a voice to white middle class american males. Also,. it is an unfair unbalanced network

* Could this article be added to [[:Category:Broadcasting]]? Thanks. --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 02:20, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

Indeed it can! --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:23, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== It's okay.... ==

Three Sysops editing at once, LOL. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:48, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
:This article is starting to look fair and balanced. We probably need a little more about Ailes & his background. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, maybe we can get another two or three admins in here working on it! :p --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:50, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

==Independent?==
You guys are conservatives, so facts don't always matter... But Bill O'Reilly has been shown as a registered Republican Many times. [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 08:04, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia talk:About

2007-07-25T13:33:11Z

Eljawa: /* Liberal bias of Wikipedia */

Is that "LIBERAL BIAS" economic or social?

Well, I'm going to assume economic bias, unless I hear otherwise, and change the page accordingly.

==Finally!==

Finally a way for me, the oppressed white Christian male to have '''his''' voice heard. Next stop taking the vote away from women and minorities! After that let's go kill some gays after all if we listen to Leviticus 20:13 ''' "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death."''' You're all with me right? Or do you love the gays and hate Jesus?[[User:Mrreaper|Mrreaper]]

This is utterly disgusting and shameful. It is not often that I am offended enough to create a login name merely to respond to one misled person, but this is more than merely fallacious, it is detestable. The above contributor has presented us with an ultimatum that we must either want to "kill some gays" or love the gays and hate Jesus. If it wasn't for the already upsetting claims that this is any sort of a encyclopedia rather than a collection of blind (there is a difference between blind and merely biased) opinions that shy away from addressing any slightly controversial topic. We will revisit that subject, but meanwhile back to the pugnacious bit above: find the place where Jesus, whose ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' you invoke in your ultimatum, advocated any sort of killing. If you claim to believe in this God, and you think that you have nailed down any aspect of his character with your little tirade than you serve a disgusting and unworthy God. Mrreaper, I assume you go to church. I assume that if at church at some point you have taken part in the Eucharist. For one second look at your blindness and stop spreading hateful ignorance. The Gospel of your named Lord is a Gospel of peace-not of hate and murder. The Eucharist, if you have ever taken a part of it, is a spreading of that peace. By invoking the ''Italic text''name''Italic text'' of Jesus you have implicated yourself in what He is about. And that is peace and love, not war. You quote Old Testament law in your posting. Those laws we must understand existed for a reason, but we do not live in the Old Testament. Your Savior Jesus is supposed to have changed all that, you now live in an age not of law, but of mercy and grace. For God's sake (and I do not take His name in vain here) either do not use the name of Christ, or temper your pathetic war-mongering and spread a Gospel of love and peace.

And why is homosexuality a sin? Because it is a perversion of what your God created as sex. A bit similar to the process of mast ur bation (I split this up because the site deemed to flag this word as unacceptable, perhaps on account of the stubborn practice of running headlong from real issues). Perhaps in our battlecry against the homosexuals we should raise another against the mast ur bators (this is ridiculous). Unfortunately that might implicate more people than we are comfortable with?...Correct? Shame. {{unsigned|Tjames}}
:I took Mrreaper's comments to be those of a non-Christian writing a parody of how he saw Christians, and not worthy of a response. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:16, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

I a Christian think this website is unnecessary and useless. This website serves only one purpose in my eyes and that is for weak people to hide. Wikipedia and other online encyclopedia's allow '''Everyone''' to express their opinions. A Christian God has told us about difficult times and I believe running away from and hiding from critical views is cowardice. Surely any Christian would agree that not standing up for your faith and your beliefs is shamming yourself and your Lord.
Caznoob
--[[User:Caznoob|Caznoob]] 17:46, 9 July 2007 (EDT)
: Wikipedia does ''not'' allow "everyone" to express their opinions. Wikipedia is supposedly not about opinions, but despite its NPOV policy, it allows certain POVs to be pushed. I have experienced this first-hand with the creation/evolution/Intelligent Design issue. We are most certainly not "running away and hiding"; we are presenting an alternative. By having this site, we are indeed "standing up for [our] faith and [our] beliefs". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 9 July 2007 (EDT)

==What kind?==

"Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

What kind is this, exactly? Is it the kind of source that has an inherent bias and slant towards a point of view? Because in my readings of CP articles, there hardly seems to be an attempt to be factually correct and completely bias-free... – [[User:frijole|Fʀɪɺøʟɛ]] ( [[User_talk:Frijole|тɐʟк]] • [[Special:Contributions/Frijole|¢ʘи†ʀ¡βs]] ) 12:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Conservapedia will never become one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind. Nope. --[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:50, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Thank God somebody said that. This site is utterly useless. I mean, totally useless. There is no way I could use this for research on a project, not even one on conservatives.

When are you conservative, home schooled, fundamentalists going to realize that you've been lied to all these years!
I've read some of the trash that constitutes "conservapedia". Why are there no references to our ancient ancestors?
Why no mention of Homo Habilis, Cro Magnon or any of the other fossil remnants of early humans that
scientists have discovered over the years. Could it be that the conservatives don't know how to put a literalists
bibilical spin on the overwhelming evidence that WE EVOLVED and that the Earth is indeed ancient?
Anyone who would use this forum to gather knowledge is simply using nonsense, lies and distortions to substantiate
there own myopic, misguided understanding of the world.

Who's the closed minded one now? [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 21:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Ahem. Exuse me but this site is only a few months old. It may not be a large source ''now'' but if we receive alot of contributions it will. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:16, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Also, this thing doesn't deserve to be called an encyclopedia. It's full of bias. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is full of what the editors here call "liberal bias", which is just neutrality policy... just goes to show that this "conservapedia" os not worth the suffix "-pedia".--[[User:Materialist|Materialist]] 13:16, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:Wikipedia claims to be neutral but is riddle with bias. Conservapedia doesn't claim to be neutral, but to be conservative. What's the problem? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:09, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== WHAT? ==

Another example of the closed mind of the conservative. Running scared, as it were, from anything that might challenge or make them think out-side of their comfort zone. This is the most biased site I have come across, and the claims it makes are unfounded and untrue. While
Wikipedia is a world-wide resource, this I imagine will be mainly used in the United States... I'm suprised that you don't have to go through security and background checks and prove you're a legal US citizen to join this site.
Good luck!

:: I agree. Whereas this site forces you to use American English, Wikipedia allows Commonwealth English in articles. Some of the articles on this site are a disgrace too. Many are one sentence long, and articles that are somewhat controversial, e.g. [[Homosexuality]], are locked. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Please everyone, don't take this site too seriously. It is intended as an ironic joke. Isn't it? [[User:Mralph72|Mralph72]] 08:31, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

:::: This site is not a joke, but your edits have been. Do you know something worth contributing? 100,000 page views a day is your audience here. Tell us something worthwhile. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:38, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
::::: Vandalism is not something worth contributing. I've banned him and reverted all his non-talk-page edit. (See [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Koala&diff=prev&oldid=144426 here] for an example of his vandalism.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:17, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Bias ==

Anything that anyone doesn't believe in can be considered a bias, but shooting down the other point of view as a bias and creating a site with the other biased side without trying to make a non biased site is completely ridiculous. I am a conservative my self, but I believe that creating this site for the reasons that wikipedia is biased for showing a liberal view and making this site have only a conservative view is even more biased. By doing this for all of the wrong reasons, and degrading wikipedia, you have shown how naive some people can be.
--[[User:Erik|Erik]] 23:07, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Well said, this site gives conservatives a bad name. [[User:O2mcgovem|O2mcgovem]] 19:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

No it doesn't. I think it is a good effort by conservatives to get their voice out. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:18, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

By creating a site that attempts to offset the "liberal bias" (I use quotes because the real situation is one of more liberal journalists working for organizations which are controlled by more conservative owners, thus the conservative bias is one of coverage while the liberal bias is one of how it is covered.) it simply creates a setting for a one-sided dabate, which tends to solidify and even lead to more of an extremist positions. This fails to even adress the issues and instead bypasses debate and simply creates a politically slanted version of reality. If bias was actually the issue, then the existance of this website would surely be needless, as bias can be confronted and a compromize can be reached between conservative and liberal ideals. Bias, when hardened beyond the reach of compromize and the strival for neutrality actually becomes propaganda. Acording to the dictionary definition "propaganda" is: "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." --[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 21:58, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

: I don't follow your logic. Sure bias can be confronted, but when control is overwhelmingly in the hands of liberals intent on imposing their bias, then the bias will continue. I consider Wikipedia to be an example of that, and [[Bias in Wikipedia]] contains ample illustrations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== This says it all. ==

"Conservapedia" was founded by high school students. I suppose that explains the ridiculously uninformed political slant. Great job, guys!

== Liberal Theologians ==

If this site is against the liberal ideology, would it then be fair to say that it is against the liberal view of the bible? Liberal view referring to the viewpoints that came out of people like Carl Barth. --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 10:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? --[[User:Ymmotrojam|Ymmotrojam]] 15:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do - I work in a counter-cult ministry and am frustrated to see how secular humanism is the true "proponent" of the American Public.

Public schools are trashing conservative worldview at an alarming rate. There are more neo-marxist, neo-darwinian, neo-pagan and feminists than I have ever seen in my life. Their views are "compatiable" with neo-darwinian worldview which is promoted in our courts of law. The whole thing is just sad.

Nancy Pearcey writes a wonderful book on this for recovering the evangelical Christian worldview titled Total Truth. While not everyone who may be conservative certainly isn't evangelical, it's still an excellent read! --[[User:JollyCharacter|JollyCharacter]] 21:11, 10 April 2007 (MDT)

== Worry Not ==

Like you, for me this site was a source of disbelief, outrage, amusement and finally, hilarity. Sadly, it's already getting SENSIBLE. Because other people are editting it. And it's now getting the same liberal/leftie/international/The Rest of the World 'bias' that the billions of people who haven't been home schooled in the wilds of N. America have. For the record I'm from Scotland, which evangelist Pat Robertson described as 'as dark country full of homosexuals'

The Rev Robertson certainly hasn't been to Scotland....is he confused by the kilts?

== Reliability ==

Quote: "Conservapedia is rapidly becoming one of the largest and most reliable online educational resources of its kind."

This comment has no supporting arguments, or source.

:I strongly agree. I find it to be certainly untrue. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Bias? ==

An example of such, this page is. [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Yoda]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 21:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

==Liberal bias of Wikipedia==

What the study actualy suggests is that knowalgable internet users are 6 times more liberal than other computr illiterate people

:I agree with Aschlafly's assessment, based on my 5 1/2 years of participation in the Wikipedia project:
:*Our study suggests that Wikipedia is '''6 times''' more liberal than the American public.
:Wikipedia is stuffed with [[Liberal bias]]. Its NPOV policy sounds good, but has become unenforceable. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:36, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::But… 3:1/1:2 doesn't equal 6:1! [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::How do you work out if how liberal wikipedia and how liberal the American public is??? And anyway you need to realise there is more alot more to the world than the U.S.A. and as for the use of British English, British English is proper english because english comes from England and for those of you who consider the world to be centred around America and don't know where england is, it's in Britain (where British English is from).
User: Plqgnmv 21 April 2007

Linus, can you write out your math more clearly? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

== Edit request: copyright link ==

As there is a link to [[Conservapedia:About]] displayed at the bottom of every page, could someone who is allowed to edit it please add a link to [[Conservapedia:Copyright]] to the page so that readers can easily find out their permissions for reuse. Something like:

:Conservapedia encourages free reuse of its material. For details see [[Conservapedia:Copyright]].

Thanks. --[[User:Scott|Scott]] 21:40, 13 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not really an encyclopedia, any more than Fox is a real news station. Your articles are few, your analysis is weak, your rightwing bias is transparent. You call yourselves conservatives, but you are really reactionaries. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

I see that Conservapedia contributors, rather than researching a topic and correcting it when it is inaccurate, just delete the incorrect statement without replacing it with a correct one. This is pathetic at best. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy. {{unsigned|Oldoligarch}}

== Well, I'm pleased. ==

On the Daily Show With Jon Stewart the other night, they talked about Conservapedia. I'm pleased that the crowd booed when they read the Conservapedia description of 'Homosexuality'. Conservapedia, wake up. You claim the rest of the internet is biased? Take a look at your pages and then look up the word 'biased' in the dictionary. [[User:SierraTangoCharlie|SierraTangoCharlie]]
:The word bias also means your own attitude against this website, which you don't seem to realize. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:39, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Moderapedia?==

When are we moderates going to get a wiki?

Oh wait. It's called Wikipedia...

{{unsigned|PandaBear}}

== Who gives the facts? God? ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia You can NOT be serious] when you say Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Where did you get that your study, and I quote, "suggests that Wikipedia is 6 times more liberal than the American public"? Did you take 10 Americans off the street and multiply them by the number of abortions, divided by Liberal Biases? How did you get "6 times more liberal"? That sounds like the most made up, wish-washed, falsified claim I have EVER heard. Start using facts, ladies and gentlemen. Start using facts.

--[[User:DogChapman|DogChapman]] 02:04, 4 July 2007 (EDT)DogChapman
:Prove that it doesn't, and you've got a case. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:12, 4 July 2007 (EDT)
:: No, that's not how debate works. The burden of proof is upon the claimant. But, of course, reality has a liberal bias so why prove anything? --[[User:Afi|Afi]] 17:49, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Criticism==

OK. so you have criticism for all the democrats and the democratic party but none for the republicans. {{unsigned|Gwforlife}}

Talk:Final Fantasy

2007-07-25T13:26:59Z

Eljawa: New page: Why was this page deleted ~~~~

Why was this page deleted [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 09:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2007-07-25T12:53:42Z

Eljawa:

{{debate}}
leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.
:: Loads of sane people sin. Sex before marriage, murder greed, etc.
Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Debate:Is homosexuality a mental illness?

2007-07-25T12:41:12Z

Eljawa:

{{debate}}
leave the bible out of this! For gosh sakes, not everthing has to do with the bible. It is a book, and like the Koran, even Harry Potter, you can chose to believe in it. If you don't want to, thats fine. Homosexualioty may be a disorder from birth, a disorder won choses, or even just someone choosing to be gay. Most gays proby wouldnt chose this though considering how much flack they get mind you. if it is a disorder who cares though? Being gay should be no differnt then being black, white, or born with only one leg. We should all strive to achieve whats best for ourselfs and if being gay makes you happy, then go ahead. it doesnt matter if you chose to or not, do what you want. And by the way, how is discriminating against the gays good for heterosexuals? It benifits them in NO way.

==YES==

You'd have to be crazy to do something which you know is forbidden in the Bible, and then like the adulteress, "wipe your mouth and say you have not sinned". Denial of the sinfulness of homosexuality is part of the insanity of it all.
:Just so you know, not everyone believes in your Bible. You'd have to be crazy to believe that everyone does.

Furthermore, it is a development disorder which begins in early childhood. Attempts to consider it "normal" are politically and ideologically motivated.

Homosexuality comes from unhappiness within the family and leads to further unhappiness when embraced. It's like a facial defect (such as a cleft palate) which could be corrected with plastic surgery.

Gay rights activists complain that society's refusal to accept them as they are and to okay their sexual activities, is the only thing that stops them from being happy. But this is a foolish falsehood. Within the "gay community", the murder rate is high, The murder rate is 15 times higher among homosexuals than heterosexuals. <ref> Manfred E. Kober, "Homosexuality: Degeneracy, Debility, or Disease?" class notes, p. 1 [http://logosresourcepages.org/Believers/homosexuality&.htm] </ref>
and even in "gay enclaves" like Provincetown, Massachusetts where there is no societal disapproval at all the rates for depression, suicide, Since homosexuals have greater numbers of partners and breakups, compared with heterosexuals, and since longterm gay male relationships are rarely monagamous, it is hardly surprising if suicide attempts are proportionally greater. <ref name="SecondRef"> http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html [http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html] </ref>
drug abuse, etc. are much higher than normal.

Homosexuality is not a normal way of being. It was not created or intended by God. It is a sin and a mental illness. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:50, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

*N.E. Whitehead, Ph.D., wrote:
*:A strong case can be made that the male homosexual lifestyle itself, in its most extreme form, is mentally disturbed. Remember that Rotello, a gay advocate, notes that "the outlaw aspect of gay sexual culture, its transgressiveness, is seen by many men as one of its greatest attributes." Same-sex eroticism becomes for many, therefore, the central value of existence, and nothing else--not even life and health itself--is allowed to interfere with pursuit of this lifestyle. <ref name="SecondRef"/> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:04, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I wanted to start off by saying that a few comments that Ed Poor made are not scientific. If this is a scientific debate, than keep it that way. If you want to turn in into a theological debate justifying homophobia than move the debate elsewhere.

:To state unequivocally that homosexuality "is a development disorder which begins in early childhood," is dishonest. Homosexuality is no longer considered a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association and the World Health Organization. <ref> http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html [http://www.psych.org/pnews/00-09-01/recalling.html] </ref> <ref> http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/ [http://www.who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/] </ref> Assuming homosexuality was a mental disorder, there is no justification for excluding theories discussing the origins of homosexuality. There may still be a biological or environmental basis for such sexual orientation even if it was remotely close to being considered a mental disorder. Mental disorders are arguably subjective classifications, do not address why such disorders occur, and such a classification is overall irrelevant to understanding homosexual behavior. <ref> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/] </ref>

:If "attempts to consider [homosexuality] 'normal' are politically and ideologically motivated," then attempts to consider it abnormal are also politically and ideologically motivated.

:I'm really not sure why the cleft palate analogy would make sense. Does cleft palate develop "from unhappiness with the family?" And does it lead "to further unhappiness when embraced?" That aside, the gist of this statement is that homosexuality can be treated. I'll explain how that is just plain false.

:People who denigrate or attack homosexuals for their behavior can negatively impact those individuals and can lead to depression. Is that so hard to understand? Again, making statements about the correlation of homosexuality with crime rates, depression and suicide is intellectually dishonest. Correlation is not the same as causation.

:By far the biggest concern with Ed's statements is the use of his references. The first reference leads to "Notes From the Adult Classes 2006 Evening Vacation Bible School" at http://www.logosresourcepages.org. These notes, not to mention the parent site, are chalk full of religious ideology and scriptural references. Remember my first paragraph concerning the religious realm cutting into scientific inquiry? Keep it scientific and leave theology out of it.

:The second reference is even more disturbing, hands down. NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality espouses using reparative therapy to "cure" homosexual behavior. Reparative therapy has never been proven to work and papers published by those who use this method are never peer-reviewed. <ref> http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html [http://www.nd.edu/~amanier/leftjab.html] </ref> Here is one of their mission statements from their website:

<blockquote>
"NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychologists, certified social workers, professional and pastoral counselors and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen from a wide variety of backgrounds such as law, religion, and education." <ref> http://www.narth.com [http://www.narth.com] </ref>
</blockquote>

:Again, what does religion have to do with a scientific issue? Why are there pastoral counselors and religious lay-people working for a research and therapy organization?

:Not only that but, those working as psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and educators at NARTH are not backed by their peers. Organizations that do not accept reparative therapy include the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Counseling Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Association of School Administrators, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Association of School Psychologists, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, and the National Education Association. <ref> http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html [http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html] </ref>

:Finally, N.E. Whitehead's, or Neil E. Whitehead's, quote makes serious assumptions and leaps of logic. If a gay advocate sees the "outlaw" aspect of homosexuality as a positive benefit, that doesn't mean that all homosexuals do. Nor does it mean that "outlaw" behavior is negative. "Outlaw" behavior is in response to what society already deems to be taboo, or a sin. To then say that many people who value same-sex behavior and therefore see this behavior as the only value of existence, is just false. Is there not room to be gay, have a family, do community service, go to church, and generally "value life?" Everyone values life. In sum, this debate has already been settled by the scientific community. --[[User:Edge333|Edge333]] 16:33, 14 June 2007 (EDT)

==NO==

A person should not be said to have a mental illness unless the person's actions substantially impair their ability to function in their work or personal life. Homosexuality does not impair one's ability to function; it does not impair a person's ability to fulfill their responsibilities at work, and does not prevent them from creating and maintaining meaningful and healthy personal relationships. Additionally, homosexuals are as psychologically healthy as heterosexuals. (Strickland, B.R. (1995). Research on sexual orientation and human development: A commentary. ''Developmental Psychology, 31,'' 137-140). Problems with homosexuality stem from the attitudes and actions of others toward homosexuals rather than from a homosexual's sexual preference.

On the other hand, one could certainly make a strong argument that homophobia is a mental illness. Homophobia, as an intense, irrational hostility toward or fear of homosexuals, has a high potential for impairing an individual's ability to perform in their employment. The majority of careers will require interacting with homosexuals at some point. If a person has such a loathing or fear of these individuals that he cannot work well with them, his homophobia will prevent him from fulfilling his employment responsibilities. --[[User:Laches|Laches]] 16:07, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Laches, in that case it sounds like you might be suffering from heterophobia. If people want to apply the label of mental illness to everthing they don't approve of then that can be a serious problem also. Such as the person that said the children of Christians going to public schools should be treated as if having a mental illness. Can you see the problem with that? I would hope that such people wouldn't be allowed into a position of authority over anyone. But it is just as well they say such things so that it will show the rest of us how intense and irrationally hostile people can be.--[[User:Roopilots6|Roopilots6]] 09:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

While I don't know what Roopilots6 is trying to say with the heterophobia comment, his basic argument is concise and accurate. The fact that some individuals disagree with homosexuality does not justify the labeling of it as a mental illness.--[[User:Laches|Laches]] 12:46, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

NO!!! Homosexuality is not a mental illness,is not immoral, and is not wrong in any way, ask yourself is it your fault you like choclate, or, better yet is it your fault your conservetive, there is nothing wrong being homosexual, and homosexuality s not a mental illness, twins may have identical genetics but just grew up differently and one became homosexual it has no basis in genetics -RG :{

I understand why some people disagree with homosexuality, but, as Laches said, just because people disagree with it does not constitute calling it a mental illness. If that was so, you could call democrats, conservatives, Michael Moore (alright, he is kind of nuts), liking or not liking a TV show, or any number of things a mental illness. Also, tolerating homosexuality is different from accepting it. You don't have to think it's totally alright. Heck, I don't think a lot of things the government does are totally alright. That doesn't mean that I'm an anarchist. I tolerate it. The same thing goes for homosexuality. You may not agree with it, but at least be respectful of it. --[[User:SapphoChan17|SapphoChan17]] 7:16, 19 July 2007 (EDT)
Let me say that it is as much a mental illness as liking the color red, or living in a big house, or anything else that is just a way of life [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:41, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

==References==
<references/>

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-07-25T12:35:06Z

Eljawa:

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Ann Coulter

2007-07-25T12:30:02Z

Eljawa:

[[/1|Archive 1]]

==Protests==

Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
: I think some mention of protests should be mentioned ELJAWA
:Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Does anyone else think that she is a total B*t*h ELJAWA

Discussion:Difference between war and terrorism

2007-07-25T01:20:59Z

Eljawa: New page: {{debate-pollitical}} What is the difference between War and Terrorism == Nothing == War IS terrorism. The difference is that war is endorsed by a country, and terrorism is not. (or no...

{{debate-pollitical}}

What is the difference between War and Terrorism

== Nothing ==
War IS terrorism. The difference is that war is endorsed by a country, and terrorism is not. (or not officially)
[[eljawa]]

Debate:Crusades... Good or Bad?

2007-07-25T01:15:43Z

Eljawa:

{{debate}}

Were the [[Crusades]] Good or Bad

==Necessary==
This is no question of 'Good' or 'Bad'. It's a question of necessity. And it might be at the time to prepare for the next and maybe final crusade. It's about time to stand up and fight for your values. Currently Muslims all around the world are pressing us to accept their ridiculous values. If you do not agree it means flag burning and terrorism. So, killing people (even at war) is a bad thing, but it might be necessary for our own survival.--[[User:Jack Ketch|Jack Ketch]] 06:31, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

:Wait… you're suggesting we kill people for burning a piece of cloth that we've attached value to? Really, why is flag burning by aggressive individuals who, might I add, are not American themselves, significant? I am also wary of advocating "fighting for ones values". Where can we reconcile violence with "love one another"? [[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 09:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

Jack Ketch, are you being serious? because if so then that might have been the stupidest thing i have ever read.

==Good==

Crusades are good only if they involve Indiana Jones.

The first crusade was fine. It was wrong of the [[Muslim]]s to be killing pilgrims who traveled to [[Jerusalem]]. It was okay to fight back.

Reply: Only Against the guilty, As a Jew and a person extremely concerned with human rights my opinion is that: no matter for what reason the massive murder of civilians without cause other than religios orientation is sin. The Mass killings of Jews and Muslims are underplayed in todays textbook. Holy wars are fundamentally contradictory, as most religios scholars declare that killing is Wrong. History has tought us that murder is followed only by murder.

Today, if a nation took over Jerusalem and started killing [[Christian]]s who wanted to visit it, we would definitely fight back. On the other hand, the second and fourth crusades were not right and have left an embarrassing scar on the Christian world to this day. I don't know whose idea it was to sack [[Constantinople]], but it shows the true state of these other crusades. The third crusade was a slight exception to this general state of the later crusades, but its motives are debatable. I suppose that this whole argument really boils down to weather war is "right" or not. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 14:00, 13 December 2006 (EST)

I don't think either Billy or Tim really understand certain aspects of the crusades. First of all, Billy said there was no such thing as a just war, but really there are just reasons to fight. Not all the crusades were just but to say that no war is just is false. Billy quoted "Love thy neighbor as thy self." That's right but sometimes you need to choose the lesser of sins. Which is worse, to let the defenseless be slaughtered or to defend the defenseless? Either way you're violating the commandment. Which is why there is reconciliation. ''Double Edge''

Comment: Of course it is sinful to fight a war for the wrong reasons, but I don't believe that every war is by definition sinful. As noted above, war is sometimes the lesser of two evils. But remember that it only takes one party to start a fight. When someone is determined to start a fight, we cannot avoid it- we can only decide, through our actions, whether it will be a war or a massacre. We know that evil will result whichever course we take, but it does not follow that both courses are sinful. The course which leads to the lesser evil- or the greater good- is the right course, and therefore is not sinful. I believe that we all sin, but I do not believe that God puts us in positions where it is impossible for us to choose a course that pleases him. (See I Corinthians 10:13)- Chris J

Well said Double Edge. War is never morally right, war is never good. God never intended for war, but sadly, man is in a fallen state and has turned away from this original intent. War has become a very real thing in the world, but sometimes it is the lesser of two evils. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 18:19, 14 December 2006 (EST)

I don't see anything wrong with having a Christian holy war. Making Jerusalaem safe for defenseless pilgrims was a worthy goal. The Crusades were good.

Mr. Schlafly

Tim said the pilgrimages were useless. But the crusaders weren't only defending pilgrims they were defending their fellow christians in Byzantium and many of the jews that lived in the Middle-East.

: This is simply false. Many Jews died due to the crusades and many Christians in Byzantium were killed by the crusaders. Constantinople itself was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. The Jews were so harmed by the crusades that the standard Askenazi liturgy changed to remember the events(to give you an idea of how rare that is, the standard Orthodox liturgy didn't change at all after the Holocaust). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:58, 13 February 2007 (EST)

I believe that the first two crusades were in defense and justified and the second two were wrong. If you believe that all wars are sinful. Then a country cannot have a defense system or military at all. If someone were to try to kill and steal from your own family you would stop them by force or would you watch them get killed. This is the same thing with a war on a national level. Ultimatlely if you do not believe in war we would not have a nation. The United States had to have its own war for independence the Revolutionary war in which, many men died. The Ten Comandments says "Thy Shalt Not Kill", but are you not killing when you refuse to defend the defenseless? For example in War World II, if it were not for the Alled forces and the United States the entire Jewish people could have been destroyed. I guess when Hitler was taking over Europe you would sat back and watched because you are a pacifist. Deborah G.

---
Tim said that the Chrsitians should have been smart enough not to go somewhere where they might get killed, and that a country has a right to control its borders. ---

However, I would like to remind everybody that things were different back in the Middle-Ages, and that the first victamized christian pilgrims had no way of knowing about their impending doom. They couldn't just check the internet for the latest Middle Eastern travel information. ---

As for the Europeon reaction to such terrorism, how is it wrong? So your statement is implying that if your friends & family got intentionally mutilated by someone, that the only 'just' action would be to find a new travel desination? ---

Also all wars cannot be bad, if they were (are) then why does God often take sides? (see different Biblical wars, specifically involving the Old Testament) --- Joe B

If the European Christians were not willing to fight the expansionist Mohammedans, then the Mohammedans would have invaded Europe. Thanks to the Crusades, Europe
was not destroyed. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:27, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I guess I will weigh in here, Europe was not destroyed because of Charles Martel victory in southern France The Battle of Tours 732 AD (before the 1st crusade) and the defeat (almost destruction) of the Ottoman Empire's army at the gates of Vienna 1529 (300 years after the last Crusade) and the successful defense at Malta 1292 AD (the year after the last Crusade). None of these events were concerned with the Crusades. The sacking of Constanstiople advanced the movement of Islam by weakening a power bulwarking Europe. Europe did advance in technology by exposure to the middle east as it was the more advanced of the two areas in some ways. I am saying that this looks to be more of socio/ethic/religious broad movements to me rather than the Crusades per say.

Out of curiosity, why do you call Muslims "Mohammedans"? We don't call Americans "Washingtonans" or Jewish people "Abrahamans". I'm not saying the term "Mohammedan" is necessarily incorrect. It used to be the popular term for Muslims in the West. But why do you think it is appropriate?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:38, 24 February 2007 (EST)

: Abraham did not create the Jewish religion, and Washington did not create American political philosophy. Lots of movements are named after their original founder and leader. I use the term "Mohammedan" because it is a neutral and well-understood term, and is the most accurate term for the way I was using it. Mohammad believed in using military force to expand his empire, and so did his followers. That makes it Mohammedan. Sometimes people use the term "moslem" or "muslim" to refer to narrower religious goals. Whether those narrower religious goals include territorial expansion would just be a distraction from the point I was making. The term Mohammedan is an ordinary dictionary word, and there is no reason not to use it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 04:58, 24 February 2007 (EST)

::There is much revisionism on this subject; let's review some of the meta-historical aspects at work.

::Mohammadism arose in the vacuum of the collapse of the Roman Empire and was spread by force. However, pockets of non-Islamic and Christian communities remained throughout Asia Minor and the Middle East (as they do today). These non-Muslim's living in the midst of Islam were very oppressed, and thier lives were spared only by accepting [[dhimmi]] status. Trade relations between Europe and the East (India and China), which had been going down the [[silk route]] since ancient times was vital to all economies of ancient civilizations. The rise of Islam disrupted this.

::The first four Crusades were an attempt to "roll back" the encroachment of Islam on Western Civilization, end the oppression of Christian minorities in Muslim territiories, and restore the disruption of trade with the East which had an impact on prosperity and living standards worldwide. Western commercial trading interests, traveling the silk route in caravans were often taken hostage, forced to convert to Islam or suffer a hideous death such as beheading at the hands of persons and groups we today would probably describe as terrorists. By the end of the last Crusade it was apparant the approach of direct confrontation and rollback over two centuries had failed. Nevertheless, the economic impact of reduced trade on living standards had been felt.

::Christopher Columbus came up with an idea to restore trade with the East ''without'' direct military confrontation to gain access to the trade routes -- sail west to get east. Instead of confronting the problem head on, simply go around it. It was risky and had never been tried, but hopes of regaining the prosperity of old times fueled expectations. So Columbus was granted patronage by government in those desperate times to solve the threat of Islamic terrorists to Western commercial interests.

::History records what happened was bigger than anyones expections; rather than simply restore commercial contact between the Western Europe, India, and China, Western Europe embarked on an economic expansion throughout the [[Western hemisphere]] for the next 500 years. This was rewarding to the posterity of Europeans for several generations, however the original cause of the problem -- the threat of Islam to the economic interests and prosperity of the rest of the world -- had never been dealt with, and was forgotten.

::Today, a half millenium later, when the world is much smaller because of the ease of travel and communications, we've discovered the very problems that (1) caused the Crusades, and (2) led to the discovery of America, had never been dealt with, and now we are faced with the same problems decision makers and problem solvers of centuries ago were faced with. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 10:39, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:::Please could you provide your sources for the "disruption of trade" leading to economic problems in Western Europe? My understanding of the First Crusade is that it was largely based no reports of abuse of pilgrims, though whether that abuse was remotely institutionalised or simply the activity of individuals and small groups acting on their own behalf (just as there were thieves and bandits in Western Europe) is certainly open to debate.

::::The First Crusade is also known as the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Crusade Pauper's Crusade]; IOW, because of the widespread economic disruption over several centuries which resulted with the rise of Islam, a vast army of unemployed with little hope under the status quo and nothing to lose answered the call for the Crusade. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

==Bad==

Contrary to what some people believe I believe there is no such thing as a just war because war in and of itself is unjust, calling it a “Holy War” doesn’t change anything in fact it makes it worse because you are lying to yourself and your comrades ( no war is holy, just like no war is just.) The reason we know that no war is holy or just is that it is not just or holy to kill people for personal gain( if that is just then why are there laws and commandments to follow?). War goes against our teachings because we learn from the Bible and Jesus’ teachings to treasure human life and to be compassionate towards each other. You are neither treasuring human life nor being compassionate when you are killing your neighbor.
[[Billy M.=)]]

I Hate to say it but I Agree with Billy here, but not for the same reasons.
You can't justify a war just to protect pilgrims. It was not necessary for Christians to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem. Unlike Islam Christianity does NOT require pilgrimages. Jerusalem was nothing more than a tourist attraction. The Christian Pilgrims should have been smart enough to not go there because they could be killed. There is no justification for the crusades as a "Holy War." Christianity is not a violent religion. We do not start wars just because some Christians get murdered, if we did, we would be at war with China and many other countries that persecute Christians. A Country has a right to control who comes into that country. The Muslims had a right to control who came to Jerusalem. This does not mean that they were justified in killing the Christians, but the Christians should not have assumed the right to go wherever they wanted regardless of the wishes of the people who live there. If Muslims all of a sudden decided that they wanted to make pilgrimages to America for some reason, and did not think that the American government should have a say in the matter, we wouldn't let them would we? There may have been justification for a political war against the Muslims, if they were a threat to the the European countries. Even if there was reason for a political war, the crusades went way too far, and there was no justification for a holy war. The Pope was wrong to promise spiritual benefits to those who fought in the war. He tricked many people into joining the crusades because they thought that it would make them go to heaven if they died. Also most of the crusades were only fought for ambition and plunder.

Tim

Although I do not believe that the crusades were good, I Agree with double edge on one point: There ''IS'' such a thing as a just war! Billy's circular reasonings (see above) do not change that.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Baaad!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thoroughly bad, and completely undesirable. Killing people because of their beliefs is not justifiable. Admittedly, the Muslims were in the wrong to kill pilgrims to Jerusalem, but the wholesale massacre of the Muslims was not a viable response. Sorry to tell you, but cannibalism is not justifiable except under very extreme circumstances. (Like, say, the Donner Party, not just because you're hungry). [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 15:53, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:But the Crusades were not just motivated by peoples beliefs; Islam had disrupted East-West trade and thus people's living standards by not allowing passage of trading caravans down the silk route, taking hostage of traders and forcing conversions, or killing them outright. There were economic factors at work. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:13, 9 March 2007 (EST)

::Killing people because you want more money. Yep, that's ''quite'' morally sound. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::Has nothing to do with money; eating food is an "economic factor". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:54, 10 March 2007 (EST)

::::It's completely possible to grow your own food, thus removing the necessity for trade routes to obtain it. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:13, 10 March 2007 (EST)

:::::The thing that makes humans different from animals is trade. As Adam Smith said, no one ever saw two dogs trade one bone for the other. As Smith said, in that rude state of socierty before the division of labor is implemented, a man endevors to supply all his own needs, when he's hungray, he goes to the forest to hunt, when his roof needs patching, he goes to woods for material, etc. But once society reaches an advanced state of development (yes, even ancient Eygpt was an advanced state of development), a person cannot supply the everyday needs he has, and is far more dependant upon the produce of '''''other''''' peoples labor.

:::::Hence, trade was just as vital then for the economic needs of people and their survival as it is today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:04, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::Ummmm... Last time I checked, humans were actualy animals, being as they are mamals. AND, Animals do not farm, they scavenge. Learning ability and comprehension seperates us from other animals-[[eljawa]]

::::::That's it. I quit. I have more important things to do than try to bring people out of the middle ages. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:46, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::I'll put my retort to Rob's argument here when I have time, BTW, just so I'm not labeled as having run away because I have no defense. --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 13:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Well, okay, I guess I don't quit. Here's my retort:

:::::::''Trade can take place within a single country.'' 'Nuff said. And don't get me started about the other claim… --[[User:Linus M.|Liπus the Turbogeek]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 23:01, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

==Comment==

Christian theologians, notably [[Thomas Aquinas]], developed a set of rules for deciding whether a war was a just war. Aquinas' formulation is part of the Catholic catechism.

Perhaps someone needs to write an article on [[Just War theory]]. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:09, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Thou shalt not kill. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Christians shouldn't use reconciliation as some kind of cop-out. It's an abuse of your religion if you know you're going out to do something bad and then stop at the church on the way back to confess.

'thou shalt not murder', actually, but you're still right - pretty much everything Jesus said was against war. [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

==BAAAAAD!==

I've never heard of a situation where a bunch of barbarians burning, pillaging and raping everything on their path was a good thing...

The way I see it, the only way you could distinguish between the crusaders and the Mongols was by the colour of their skin.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

:Ah yes. The widespread rape that occured. Good point. Tell me ''that'' was a good thing! --[[User:Hacker|Hacker]]<code>([[User talk:Hacker|Write some code]])</code> 12:58, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yes indeed; so can we call this the neo-confederate view [http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=253] and fascist [http://www.sovlit.com/bios/ehrenburg.html] revisionism, condemning Sherman's march to sea and the Soviet atrocities during and after the Battle of Berlin. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:36, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Why does this topic even exist? Is there really anyone out there who thinks it's OK to start a war (and conduct it in as brutal a way as possible) just because someone lives on land that you think you have some kind of historical claim to? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 16:06, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, the palestinians do, as do the supporters of [[Hamas]] and [[Hezbollah]]. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:08, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Um, the Palestinians are in exactly the opposite situation: someone else has claimed the land they live on. Besides, only a small minority of Palestinians and even Hamas supporters are warlike, just as only a small minority of Americans, and in particular Republicans, are warlike, despite the words and actions of those they have elected. Anyway, this is irrelevant, you can't justify actions by events that took place centuries later. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::I get it. When someone holds a knife to your thoat and says "convert or die," you're supposed to convert. Duh. Why didn't I think of that? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:31, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't believe the Muslims at the time where ordering people to convert or die in the Holy Land. There are many accounts of non-Muslims living peacfully throughout the Caliphates at the time. Granted, there were instances of violence against pilgrams during the reign of some of the more extremist caliphs, but that did no last for long. [[User:Jtime|Jtime]] 16:49, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::Well let's see; about the 700 A.D. Christians were the majority in Asia Minor and Palestine, the Levant, and other areas outside Arabia, or more specifically today, the Arabian Penninsula. By 1100, they were close to extinct, as they are today. Hmmm, what caused this to happen in what really is (if the human species is 130K years old) a short period of time....hmmmm..... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:02, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::No one ever wants to answer that question, or what happened to the followers of zoroastrianism. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:28, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::::In other words, two wrongs make a right. War is very rarely justified IMHO. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 13:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::If it wasn't for war, Blacks would be slaves, America would be bowing to a king and calling Senators "Lord", and we'd all be eating sauer kraut and sushi. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::Well, I obviously meant starting wars, and if there had never been a single war, it would probably have changed world history beyond recognition, so I don't think your predictions are valid, but I feel like a rant so I'll try to address them. :)
:::::::::Blacks would be slaves? Slavery is still alive and well anyway, but most countries abolished the slave trade peacefully. Bowing to a king and calling senators "Lord"? How is this worse than bowing to a president (the current one was not democratically elected anyway) and calling senators "Senator"? I'm not quite sure what to say about your last comment; do you honestly think a war over which foods you get to eat (assuming you have sufficient nutritious food either way, anyway what's wrong with Sauerkraut and sushi?) is justified? [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 15:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

The crusades were wrong. The killing of people is wrong. It is only oaky to kill when you have to defend someone who deserves defending. As for the religious aspect of the war, religion is a poor excuse to start killing someone. Religion not like natural resources or land, its just something that gives comfort to those who strive for something to believe in. Just because you a piece of land that some guy walked on a thousand years before is not a viable reason to start a war.
by 1718

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-07-20T13:37:26Z

Eljawa:

== Criticism ==

When President Bush talked about amending the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage, he was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The Republicans against it tended to oppose the move based on states' rights. Also, the comment that Democrats "don't care about American families" is opinion, not fact. It should be removed. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 22:05, 9 March 2007 (EST)

This article has the biggest POV I have ever seen, and it offers no adequate description of the Democratic party. Rather, it is a catalog of what conservatives believe that Democrats believe, and it is filled with slanted descriptions ("The Homosexual Agenda") that do not advance the purpose of the article. Perhaps this article should be renamed "List of conservative misinterpretations of the Democratic party." That would immediately solve the problems mentioned above.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:13, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

And yet the [[Republican Party]] page has no such sections on Criticism. At least this site could have the courage to be somewhat fair in their heavily biased presentation of "facts". What a joke. I mean really, is this site trying to look idiotic??

:Yes. (Another edition of simple answers to simple questions.)--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 04:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

== Some of these? ==

"The Democratic Party, as a political unit, supports abortion, gun control, and organized labor, and the funding of '''some of these''' by taxes."

Seriously. "Some of these?" It's a list of three whole items. Gun control is legislation, unions are a bargaining community of workers, and abortion is a medical procedure. Of these, one needs funding, one can receive incentives, and one either is passed, or is not. If we're going to say "the Democratic party supports taxpayer-funded abortion", well, frankly, we'd be seriously stretching the facts, but we should at least have the courage to be concise and say that. [[User:Zondergard|Zondergard]]

Ummm, why did the post with a link to his poll numbers get taken down. That seems like it goes against your commandments.--[[User:Jack|Jack]] 17:47, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== ic ==

The name of the party is the Democratic Party. If you would like to use a disparaging name for the party, at least choose one that is an adjective. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 13:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

== Pro-Terrorism ==

So, let me get this straight. Being opposed to invading another country means that you support terrorism? That's logically unsound. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 15:13, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 18:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(A)There are terrorists in Iraq. (B) If you don't fight terrorists you are with them (George W. Bush 2003). C) Dem's voted against fighting terrorists...therefore they are with them!
How's that for logic yankee!

You make no sense. Bush is clearly a lord of the sith for being so black and white in his quote

Logical fallacy in the extreme. (A) Was not, as far as I recall, conclusively proven at the time of the vote you cite. Please cite proof that it was, or retract. (B) Is a mans opinion. No less, no more. (B) is the logical fallacy known as a Falsified Dilemma, and your reliance upon it is the fallacy known as Appeal to Authority. Look them up. The given points also conflate the notion of going to war in Iraq with war against terrorists, which is yet another logical fallacy. The whole thing is also an Appeal to Emotion.

Oh, and I'm english. That's an ad hominem attack right there. The opposite of appeal to authority. Basically, you've taken two faulty assumptions, a list of people you disagree with, and used that to make a statement of fact (C). Now, I could care less about your personal opinion of me, and of your (or my) opinion of the party we're discussing, but in something that's supposedly encylopedic, using such logical constructs. I respectfully request you restrain your enthusiasm, and keep to facts, not opinions. [[User:Stargrave|Stargrave]] 11:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Use of AD ==

The article uses AD for no apparent reason; for any given year, AD is automatically assumed unless BC or BCE is used. It also misuses it; it's AD 2007 and not the other way around. I've noticed other articles with a similar usage.

==Liberal Economics==
Liberal economics is not a '''political''' term.
Being an economic liberal means, among other things, little government intrusion into the markets or into the affairs of business. Liberal economics favors balanced budgets over either surpluses '''or''' deficits. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 02:11, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:Yes; then we can safely say Ronald Reagan was a liberal. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:40, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
:: In this classical use of the term Ronald Reagan was an economic liberal. He supported deregulation, free trade, low taxes... That is basically what an "economic liberal" is. It has nothing to do with "Liberal" or "Conservative" and is somewhat of an archaic term. To make matters worse most liberals are not "economic liberals" (they support tariffs and heavy handed forms of central planning to promote "fairness" and "economic justice"). [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
:::You've nailed the issue on the head. Ronald Reagan and Boris Yeltsin are two recent examples in history of liberals; as User:Order raised the issue here [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal#Liberal_outside_of_the_US] comparing the American use of the term vs its use outside the US. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:42, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::So if little government intervention in the economy is the liberal stance on economics... does that make socialism the conservative viewpoint? [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 23:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Good question. That presupposes liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites. Now, in a purely cycnical sense, one can say that they are, just as sanity and insanity are polar opposites. This is one reason I personally do not subscribe to the spectrum theory.

:::::In economic theory, liberality and prodigality are polar opposites. In American political culture, "liberals" really are for the most part socialists; however in its American use it carries a connotation of "treasonous". This is absent outside of America, were many American allies, Britain or Israel for example, have Socialist governments. Not just Socialist laws or policies, actual Socialist parties in control of government. So if we were to apply that American understanding of the term, i.e. that a "Socialist" is "anti-American", how do we explain close allies being "anti-American"?

:::::Thus, American political vocabulary is all screwed up. And all we can really say for sure is both terms, liberal and socialist, are abused and neither conveys a clear meaning. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== By Jefferson? ==

Democratic Party founded by Jefferson... Humm. I thought he founded the Democratic-Republican party which was actually referred to by contemporaries as the "Republican" party. The modern Democratic party is the result of several splinter and transitions just like the Republican Party. Arguably both parties are splinters from Jefferson's original party, just the Republican party went through the transition to the Whig party first. [[User:Richard|Richard]] 01:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:You should learn how to place information in a talk page appropriately
::And you should learn to make an account and sign your entries so as not to appear as a cowardly wiseguy. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 15:56, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

Seriously, I thought I would clean up the presentation seeing as I can't in good conscience touch the content... but... GEE WHIZ these sources are awful. A column? Cheesy little websites with election trivia? Pictures of maps? This is the best we could do? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 03:25, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

== Remove the polling data, it's worthless ==

Opinion polls are not worthy of mention in an encyclopedia, except maybe to provide background information for a specific political event, such as an election. If someone is reading this article two years from now, do you think the democrat Congress's approval rating in the second week of April 2007 will be relevant to them? Of course not. I'm not going to summarily remove it now, but I suspect most intelligent people will agree with me that it doesn't belong.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:07, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:I'm more than happy to let it stay...provided we add the same polling data to the Republican Party page and the George W. Bush page. We are supposed to be even-handed here, right?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 14:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::No, we're supposed to be writing educational, clear, and concise articles. Polling data is useless in almost any context. I vote to remove it. Who's with me?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:34, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I strongly disagree. I'm actually taking a Public Opinion course right now in college, and it's a very important gauge of historical support and for looking back and seeing '''why''' policies were enacted. Plus, once it's no longer April or whatever, we can remove it anyway. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well your public opinion course is probably taught by a bunch of liberals who live and die by opinion polls. And which enacted policies does the poll mentioned in this article help explain? None. My point is, if they are not being used to help understand the political climate surrounding a particular event, they are utterly useless because they're out of date not long after they're released. So unless someone wants to keep this article updated with current polling information until the end of time, there is no reason to have it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::The first major expansion to [[Iraq War]], for example, had absolutley nothing whatsoever to do with the war, it's causes, it's course, etc. It was an insertion of extensive polling data [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Iraq_War&diff=prev&oldid=33991] A lenghty edit war ensued, and the material not only is still in the article, it has its own subhead.[http://www.conservapedia.com/Iraq_War#Opinion_polls] Because opinion polls are obviously important to some editors not only in giving meaningful context, but in creating meaningful context, this material should stay in this article and be updated periodically. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:19, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I would agree if the polls were used in any meaningful context in this article, but they aren't. What is the point of saying that according to some research poll, 50% of Americans currently identify with the democrat party? Or that as of 4/18, 53% of Americans support the democrat Congress. Are these numbers rising? Falling? Are they a cause or effect of the 2006 election, or both? There's no context. People can come up with statistics to prove anything. 40% of all people know that.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::::The point is, polling obviously is important to many contributors. They evidently either make personal judgements based upon polling data, or view it as foundational to any public arguement or discourse. And it's hard to argue with statistics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:40, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

#1, your ad hominem attack on a professor you don't even know the name of (and whose political views I don't even know, because the course is taught in a nonpartisan manner) has no bearing whatsoever on this debate, and #2, I never said that the data should ever be anything more than temporary and relevant. Do we refuse to list the governors of states because this changes over time? [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

:If you think that calling a professor a liberal is an attack, I guess that's your problem. But your ridiculous question about governors just weakens your argument. There is only one governor of a state at any given time, but there are dozens of opinion polls which rarely come up with the same results. So adding opinion polls willy nilly in an encyclopedia article does nothing but detract from its intent of being factual.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:36, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

::Wait a second. This article includes the slanted weasel words "Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism[11] and insufficiently patriotic" ... they are cited, mind you, but aren't these attacks pretty much the same as opinion polls? Why not link to the copious amounts of info that says Democrats are quite patriotic and serious about terror? Why choose these two extremely biased opinion links? Are these really "facts" worth building an encyclopedia entry around? --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:27, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

===Please===
The sentence: '''Democrats in the US Congress currently have a 53.8% disapproval and a 36.8% approval rating according to the RealClearPolitics Average of several dozens of Congressional Job Approval polls conducted 04/05 - 04/18. [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/archive/?poll_id=18]'''
This is the "Congressional job Approval poll" not the "democratic congress approval poll". [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:Hmm, let's see, who controls the US House of Reps & the Senate.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
Fair enough...let us also include the pre-election numbers then '''shall we'''? Based on the Fox News Poll of 10-11-2006 Approve:31% Disapprove:63% Spread:-32% ( from the same source). [[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
:What those numbers show is the misreporting on GW Bush's poll numbers. Both Bush & the Democratic Congress suffer from negative polls, 60/40. IOW, people do not disapprove of Bush personally, people disapprove of the performance of government in general. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
::The poll should be taken out because it doesn't relate specifically to the Democratic Party. The poll is talking about the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter that the Democrats are in control of Congress. If you were able to get a statistic about just the Democrat approval rating in Congress than you might be able to use it, but as it is right now some of the people in the poll are saying how they don't approve what the Republicans are doing in Congress too. --[[User:Spyder|Spyder]] 13:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

==History==

The Treaty of Ghent called for everything to return to the ''Status Quo Antebellum.'' In other words, a draw. The text of the treaty can be read in the ''United States Statutes at Large'' found here <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=008/llsl008.db&recNum=231> --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 13:50, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
:While ''Status Quo Antebellum'' referes to territorial disputesd, it does not refere to other objectives, American complaint of British interference on the high seas. So while Britain failed in it achieving its objectives it can be considered defeated. Whereas the US achieiving its stated aims, it can be considered victorious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Most good college level textbooks (Tindall and Shi, and Ayers, Gould, et. al.) have the war as a draw. The two nations agreed to end the conflict, leave prewar boundries in place, and return prisoners. All other questions were to be settled in the future. It would be difficult to see this as anything other than a draw.--[[User:1048247|1048247]] 14:06, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
::OK, good points. No problem. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

To whoever keeps changing this part. Follow the link above and read the treaty.

==Needed citations==
This article needs some citations. I decided to help out by flagging some of the facts that needed to be supported. --[[User:Wennberg|Wennberg]] 22:21, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

== Reversions ==

In reply to Johnl's questions for the reverts, the reason is obvious: FDR failed to lead the U.S. out of the depression, instead keeping the U.S. in a depression until WWII. Nor did FDR lead us to victory in WWII. FDR was dying in 1945.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:He died I think over a month or two before VE day.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 18:56, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::Shouldn't it at least be mentioned that he led the nation during important battles; Normandy, Midway, etc.? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Looks like I am wrong. He died a little less than a month before VE day. But he was incapacitated a while before then.[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] [[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]] 19:00, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

FDR led the US for most fo the war.
:WWII was basically between the Soviet Union & Germany; if anybody "won" the War, it was the Soviet Union. 88% of all casualties in WWII were in the Soviet Union. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
:Further, FDR did not "lead the US out of the Depression"; the [[New Ordeal]] (a euphemism for "New Deal") lasted until 1949. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)

Hmmph you know I'm almost afraid to say this, becaunse I'm not the type tostart screaming conspiracy, however it does seem as if this is a blatant attempt to make a DEMOCRAT president seem as if he was completely unimportant and totally irrelevant to the nation during perhaps the biggest and most influential crisis in modern history of which we (theUnited States) were the deciding factor in. Come on... So FDR was a Democrat. So what. To make it seem as if he wasn't all that important (in apositive manner) is a bit silly. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:00, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
:True; the planet would indeed be a different place if FDR didn't get elected. Some credit should be given to the courageous souls who supported him, without whom we'd all be eating sauerkraut and sushi right now. Why I just read how [[Strom Thurmond]] supported FDR for a fourth term. [http://www.kevinbaker.info/c_wtm.html] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:11, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

::Even when you're being sarcastic it is nice to see acknowledgment and validation of his positive importance. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 16:41, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, FDR & the Kennedy's prove the falacy of Marxism; the Roosevelt's and the Kennedy's prove that rich aristocrats who never did a stitch of labor in thier life, that inherited it all by exploiting the poor, actually (a) may have a function and (b) usefulness on this planet. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:17, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
::::You're not dragging me into a loaded "debate." I don't agree with your opinion on what you just mentioned, and I find it all too convenient that you chose two figures I recently did critiques of their articles on here. But I'm not biting. Honestly I'd expect better of a sysop. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 02:08, 28 June 2007 (EDT)
:::::Huh? Wha...? Please show me where the above analysis of the Roosevelt's, Kennedy's & Marxist theory is in error. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 09:40, 28 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::P.S. No need to make personal comments directed at me over this. I apologize, my faith prohibits me from worshipping human beings; that many Democrats and liberals have looked to the messianic vision of the Roosevelt & Kennedy families for generations is a matter of record. Please, let's not allow anti-religious bigotry into this discussion. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]]

== Religion section ==

For some reason, Jim Webb of VA is listed in this section as a catholic, he is not. He is protestant of some sort. Someone should put in the name of another prominant catholic senator. [[User:JamesBenjamin|JamesBenjamin]] 10:14, 29 June 2007 (EDT)