Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Duke University

2012-03-17T12:06:09Z

KenN:

{{University
|name=Duke University
|image=
|text=white
|background=rgb(12,34,119)
|type=Private
|city=Durham, North Carolina
|sports=baseball, basketball, cross country, fencing, field hockey, football, golf, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, swimming and diving, tennis, track and field, volleyball, wrestling<ref>http://www.goduke.com/</ref>
|degrees=Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral<ref>{{cite web|work=College Board|format=HTML|language=English|accessdate=May 29, 2010|title=College Search - Duke University - Duke - At a Glance|url=http://collegesearch.collegeboard.com/search/CollegeDetail.jsp?collegeId=535}}</ref>
|colors=blue, white
|mascot=Blue Devils
|website=http://www.duke.edu/
}}
'''Duke University''' is a liberal private university located in Durham, [[North Carolina]] and stands as one of the most respected universities in the world. It is currently ranked eighth in the ''US News and World Report'' guide to America's best colleges, down from its historical high of third in 1998. Despite its longstanding status as a liberal bastion in a relatively conservative state, Duke counts among its graduates a number of noteworthy conservatives, such as [[Richard Nixon]], [[Henry Hyde]], and [[Elizabeth Dole]].

==Sports==
Duke's sports teams, namely its basketball and lacrosse programs, are widely recognized as consistently being among the best in those sports, and they have several championships between them. The team also plays several other sports, but those do not get nearly the recognition of the basketball and lacrosse teams.
===2006 Lacrosse case===
In 2006, three Duke players were falsely accused of raping an [[African-American]] woman. The lead prosecutor, Michael Nifong (who has since been disbarred) insinuated that this could have been a hate crime. Before the media convergence on the trial, problems began appearing within the woman's story, as she began to contradict herself. [[Ann Coulter]] wrote several columns in the players' defense. Soon, the players proved their innocence with a negative DNA test and with electronic evidence that they were elsewhere, but a corrupt judge refused to dismiss the charges. The 2006 season was canceled, and the players lost their reputations. Eventually the charges were dropped.
:[[New York Times]] sports reporter Joe Drape could have been an early hero for the truth, but when Drape began to divert from the favored storyline of Times editors, he was replaced by another reporter, Duff Wilson, who hewed more closely to the pro-prosecution slant preferred by the liberal editors at the Times ...<ref> [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/clay-waters/2007/09/19/new-book-destroys-credibility-nyts-duke-lacrosse-rape-coverage News Busters]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==Links==
*[http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/05/22/duke-case-journalists-rush-to-judgment/ Journalists Rush to Judgment] - excellent media analysis of how the politically-motivated charges were supported by ideological bias

{{Nb_US_universities|North Carolina}}

Talk:Rush Limbaugh

2012-03-04T18:44:03Z

KenN: /* The Sandra Fluke controversy, ongoing . . . */

Rush _was_ caught illegally scoring painkillers. Should we leave that out just because it 'looks bad'? Truth is truth, even when it's ugly. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:03, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

: It's gossip. It's not educational. We're not Wikipedia where nearly every entry has some gossip in it. Feel free to see what other editors think, but that's my view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:06, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I've got to wonder where the line is drawn for this. This site still needs so many fundamental topics covered, but since January there's been an article on Chappaquiddick. Still, CP doesn't want to include the dirty bits of people's biographies? Hunh.

::And before you say it, I'm no Ted Kennedy fan (if I had a vote in MA. I doubt I'd have ever voted for him), but I just about lost it when "Random page" led me that article. Where are the priorities? :p Anyway, the "gossip" argument doesn't hold much weight imo. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not gossip, it is part of his biograpghy. ref <http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/>

Yes, but it makes him look bad, therefore it lacks sufficient truthiness to be posted here. --[[User:Ballon|Ballon]] 18:28, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::I would say it can be mentioned only because he talked often about illegal drug users on his show, so the irony is rather large. Also, it was in the news extensively. BUT, it needs to be dealt with factually, not emotionally from either side.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 18:29, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== First source ==

Could somebody tell me how the first source backs the statement? I couldn't find any mention of "Limbaugh" or "Franken" on that page... I left it in because I didn't dive deeper into the thread, but a quick explanation would be appreciated :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought it was Bill O'Rielly and Al Franken that clashed constantly?

==On painkillers==
Limbaugh himself admitted doing it, so it's not gossip. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 17:18, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Parkinson's ==

The previous editor said that Fox's jerking actions were the results of his medication, not his disease. However, the citation itself says the exact opposite, stating that Fox often goes '''off''' of his medicine to make the symptoms more pronounced. Any assertion to the contrary of would need a new cite, one strong enough to disprove the citation offered (USA Today), common knowledge, and medical journals.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:For what it is worth, my grandfather suffered from Parkinson's. The shaking occurs because of the disease, not the medication.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 00:18, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::Absolutely, that's true. But Rush didn't know it, and claimed that Fox was faking the shaking by taking his medication. Completely wrong, and completely vile. - [[User:Factcheck|Factcheck]] 20:02, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Denounced as a Witch? ==

Can anyone verify that? Took it out until someone can.

== Trivia ==

I removed the unsourced trivia (deaf in left ear, six toes, three divorces). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 08:14, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
: I agree with this removal. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 10:16, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Illegally" ==
It is a descriptive term—not a legal claim. For example, the article on Hitler says he “murdered” 6 million Jews in the Holocaust, should that be deleted because Hitler was never arrested? Or tried for murder? Likewise, in the Clinton article says he “committed perjury”, but Clinton was never arrested or tried for perjury (He was Impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” but not convicted), should that be deleted? Of course not, nether should be deleted, the claims describe the facts not the legal situation. Here, what Rush did was illegal, though he was never charged—I see no reason to omit that fact.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 09:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

: It is libel to say that someone committed a crime, when he was never convicted. Yes, those other pages should be fixed. Hitler is dead, and cannot sue. The Clinton page is wrong. Clinton was accused, but acquitted by the Senate. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::I disagree with your reading of libel law—it’s only libel (since we are talking about a public figure) if the person making the statement can be shown to know it was false. But, that aside, if you honestly believe the position you are advancing here, I have pointed out two major changes that need to be made and I urge you to do so (I will refrain from doing so, since I am not yet convinced by your position)—if your position is correct then there should be no major backlash.
::I maintain that, libel aside, if one breaks the law one has committed an illegal act, whether on not they were ever charged with a crime, and whether or not they are ever convicted. If that is correct, then the adjective belongs in the article, if it is not then it should be taken out of the article—I’ve yet to hear any argument that it is not correct. --[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 13:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Controversy section - how much should be kept or removed? ==
How is any of that information relevant or encyclopedic? I thought we were trying to avoid the gossip that is so prevelant on Wikipedia. I removed it, but some liberal agitator put it back almost immediately.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 16:41, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:See [[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] scandals the political personality is known to have been involved in—not just rumored to have been involved in—are considered appropriate content. Here, Limbaugh is known to have been involved in all of these scandals and has given comments on them, so they are not simply gossip and are considered appropriate content.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 16:50, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::<s>Don't misquote: it says 'non-gossip scandals'.</s> --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:14, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: "It's pure gossip. If I were to add a reference to a cigar in Clinton's article or Gore's son's pot arrest, you'd throw a fit and you know it.)" -- If Gore's son's arrest would be appropriate material, so would Bush twins being arrested for under age drinking[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBX/is_1_8/ai_78052874][http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1379000.stm]. Things the ''politician'' were involved in yes. Family members - no. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 16:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::So you would have no problem with me adding a cigar reference to Clinton's article?--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:01, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::: Is that appropriately family friendly that should be read by a 12 year old? As it stands, the Starr report is blocked at the company I work at for "Erotica and Sex". I seem to recall that under the Communications Decency Act (granted, struck down) that the Starr report would have been considered an explicit document[http://www.i2i.org/main/article.php?article_id=846]. Feel free to link to it, but I doubt such explicit material is appropriate here when other explicit material is blocked. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 17:06, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It would be no worse than the references to @n@l $ex found [[homosexuality|here]], which I have complained about in that talk page.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:10, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

When you read an article about a perversion, you expect to see references to gross or raunchy stuff. Not when you are reading the biography of a respected adult. Clinton and Limbaugh are respected adults (okay, maybe only liberals respect Clinton). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: The Oxycontin story is significant, but the other stuff is just stupid trivia. It is not a scandal just because someone criticizes him. Rush says controversial stuff every day. I say it should be deleted. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:13, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::Removed all but the pain-killer story. If we report every unkind remark made by politicians and pundits, we'll be swamped in gossip. Better to talk about the things he repeatedly says, like ''feminazi'' or ''talent on loan from God''.

::I don't really want to explain to my kids what a semen-stained dress is, or what Clinton and his girl intern were doing with a cigar. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 17:22, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Me either, and thanks to you and RSchlafly for making the right decision on how to improve this article.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:25, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::At the very least, Limbaugh’s repeated comments condemning illegal drug users should be restored to the Oxicoton controversy—otherwise it lacks context. It was the hypocrisy of doing what he had soundly condemned that made this scandal so big.--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:44, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::The Viagra stuff is also a legitimate scandal—it involves illegal drug use just like the other one—and it is all the more relevant as it follows the Oxycontin scandal (illegal drug use after illegal drug use after criticizing illegal drug use is legitimate information). As far as the other two “Controversies” go—Allegedly attacking a 13 year-old child for who her parents are says as much about who Rush is perceived to be as the fact there is a newsletter named after him, and is relevant to understanding both why he and why talk radio are so controversial—the Michael J. Fox thing is probably relevant as the most recent time Rush made the national news (it was all over CNN, over and over and over again—in a very boring and monotonous way, but in a way that made national headlines that his other controversial statements don’t).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 17:34, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Conservapedia is not a forum for liberals to attack people they don't like with rumors and innuendo. Viagra is not an illegal drug, and Limbaugh was never arrested for being in possession of it. If you want to be a scandalmonger, feel free to take it to Wikipedia where it belongs.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:42, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Utilizing a prescription not made out to you is a crime—hard to prove, so no arrest, but, I think, relevant given his past drug abuse. I’d be happy to discuss the merits of my position with you, but if you insist on descending to ad hominem attacks, I fear that will be impossible.
::::My objection to Rush, by the way, is not a “liberal” one, I think he makes conservatives sound like school-yard bullies—and no one (or very few people) would vote for the school-yard bully—if I was a “liberal” I would love Rush the same way that most conservatives I know love [[Michael Moore]] (he makes liberals look so bad that it is easier to convince undecided voters).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:20, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

It is not a scandal that Rush makes fun of people. Do you ever listen to his show? He makes fun of people a lot. I did revised the oxycontin paragraph. We really don't know that anyone did anything illegal, except that his housekeeper got immunity for something. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 17:58, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

:Ok, I think there is a difference between making fun of politicians and a 13-year old child, but if you don’t that’s fine. (I don’t listen to his show anymore, because I find his “humor” offensive, and counter-productive.) What about the Viagra and the Michael J. Fox things? Also, the revised section on painkillers is, currently, miss-sourced. The link goes to the transcript of Rush’s admission that he had been abusing pain-killers which doesn’t support the vast majority of the claims in the paragraph it is currently the reference for (in fact most of the events in the paragraph it is the reference for occurred after the statement was made).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 18:08, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

: I think that it is tacky to make fun of a 13-year-old, but not a scandal. Viagra and Fox? Not scandals at all. Who cares? I wrote the painkiller stuff largely on memory. If I got anything wrong, please correct it. I didn't like the earlier text that implied that Rush had hired someone to buy illegal drugs for him. The charges were dropped. The prosecutor claimed to want to get him for "doctor shopping" anyway, and different offense. The prosecution appeared to be politically motivated to me. But I left that out. Try to stick to the facts. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 18:47, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

::It all seems politically motived to me, except the inconsistency about the prescription pain-killers. Wikipedia recently beefed up their standards on "how much you can attack a public figure" in a biography article.

::Basically, people attack your character when they run out of ways to respond to your ideas. It's like an [[ad hominem]] argument. He insulted a kid, so his critique of feminism must be wrong. Should we attack Clinton's senate votes on the grounds that she abused FBI files or (may have) covered up the death of [[Vince Foster]]? I'd rather not.

::We should present verifiable (reliable) information about the careers and viewpoints of public figures. Well, that's only my opinion - I'm the new guy around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:57, 30 March 2007 (EDT)
:::I guess I’m not seeing the same distinction you are—I’m more than willing to concede the point, but I’d like it if there could be clearer guidance on what counts as a “scandal” and what is “just gossip”. (I wouldn’t have bothered to defend the inclusion of these scandals for nearly as long as I have were I not concerned that their removal as “gossip” would get the people who added them (and I am one of those people) labeled as a violator of the [[Conservipedia Commandments]], or just as too liberal, and then banned—my inclusion of the Viagra information was (I assure you) in good faith, but, apparently, I was adding gossip— clarity is much needed here and would be much appreciated).--[[User:Reginod|Reginod]] 10:32, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Nobel Peace Prize nomination? ==

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html says:

:*Can I nominate someone for the Nobel Prize?

::If you are not invited you cannot nominate.

:*Has X been nominated as a candidate for the Nobel Prize?

::Information about the nominations, investigations, and opinions concerning the award is kept secret for fifty years.

:*What about the rumours circling around the world about certain people being nominated for the Nobel Prize this year?

::Well, either it's just a rumour, or someone among the invited nominators has leaked information. Since the nominations are kept secret for 50 years, you'll have to wait until then to find out.

Although the Landmark Legal Foundation issued a [http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/02-01-2007/0004518421&EDATE press release] giving the text of a letter offering Limbaugh's name as an "unsolicited nomination," it does not give any evidence whatsoever that the Foundation, or Mark R. Levin, was invited to make any such nomination. If there was no invitation, there was no nomination. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:08, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. S. Personally, I think Levin's use of the word "unsolicited" strongly suggests that he is not an invited nominator. The Nobel Foundation has a list of [http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/nominators.html qualifications for nominators], and the only one I can see him as meeting as "directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes."

I think it's a (successful) publicity stunt to counter the (equally baseless) rumors that Al Gore has been nominated. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:27, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

P. P. S. Google News search on [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_Limbaugh&action=edit&section=8 limbaugh nobel peace prize] only turns up four hits, none of them looking to me like a genuine news story. Two are from Rush Limbaugh's own website, one is about a (phony) "nomination" of Muhammed Ali, and one rambling essay that touches on Gore's rumored nomination and also mention Rush Limbaugh (not Limbaugh's nomination, just Limbaugh) separately many paragraph's later. '''If''' someone can find evidence that anything resembling a news source has reported this, a line could be added to the effect that "News sources have reported that 'Rush Limbaugh was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.'" [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 14:37, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Rush's "Nobel nomination" was by Mark R. Levin, aka F. Lee Levin ( who is a Limbaugh flunky ).

::If we include his <ahem> "nomination" we should also include Elvis' FBI badge. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 17:50, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

== Help! ==

<s>I tried to undo vandalism, but it was spread across two edits. Someone please revert!--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 13:59, 17 July 2007 (EDT)</s>
:Nevermind. I got it.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 14:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

==Who's phony?==

Based on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298858,00.html this] and other news stories, I'd say that Limbaugh was using the term ''phony'' ambiguously. But there are no grounds to suggest that he mean "all soldiers who oppose US military policy in Iraq".

He apparently had two other meanings in mind, although (unlike yours truly) he's not an expert on clarifying word meanings:
#a phony is a [[ringer]], someone who pretends to be representative of a typical person but has been specially selected, with the hope of swaying public opinion; or,
#a phony is someone who says something he knows to be false (also with the intent of swaying public opinion)

Reid correctly pointed out that Limbaugh used the same term for more than one soldier. But his error lies in concluding that Limbaugh had the entire "anti-war" population of soldiers in mind.

It doesn't make sense for Reid to condemn a remark (especially when it's only two words long, in an unscripted conversation). Now condemning an opinion which a speaker confirms and stands by is another thing. But Limbaugh has repudiated the meaning Reid attributed to him, so what's to condemn?

Only a chimera, an false image constructed for the single purpose of discrediting a man. And it's pretty clear that Reid is not after truth but about making Limbaugh shut up.

Democrats and Republicans should debate the issues; neither side should engage in [[ad hominem]] arguments. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 07:42, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Cochlear Implant ==

I'm not overly familiar with Mr Limbaugh, but he is a notable [[cochlear implant]] recipient[http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432]. Is this worthy of mention? [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 07:22, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

*Indeed, I think it most certainly is. If you want, prepare a paragraph, and I can either open it for you to add, or paste it from here, crediting you. Whatever works best for you Ferret. --[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:20, 25 October 2007 (EDT)

::Given time zone issues, probably easiest if I leave something here for you to post. Many thanks TK.

Limbaugh is a sufferer of Auto-Immune Inner Ear Disease, a condition which leads to a profound hearing loss. In 2002 he became one of the highest profile people to receive a [[cochlear implant]] [http://www.audiologyonline.com/news/news_detail.asp?news_id=432], a device which can provide some deaf people with the ability to hear artificially.

== Rush Limbaugh on Paul Hackett ==

Paul Hackett is an Iraq War veteran who served in the U.S. Marine Corps as a civil affairs officer assigned to Ramadi. After he returned home, he ran as a Democrat in a special election for Ohio's 2nd Congressional District seat in August 2005, narrowly losing to Republican Jean Schmidt. On the day of the election, Mr. Limbaugh accused him of "hiding behind a military uniform" while "lying and denying his liberalism." Mr. Limbaugh claimed later in the show that Mr. Hackett went "to Iraq to pad the resume." -- [[Frey]] December 12, 2007 (Forgive me if this is inappropriate for the talk page, but it's relevant to Rush Limbaugh's attitude on certain things, and the article itself is currently locked from any additions.)

:I am thinking this might be more appropriate under an article on Paul Hackett. Rush Limbaugh, as a talk show host, talks on many people each day. I don't see this particular incident as standing out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:09, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Phony soldier incident ==

Phony soldier incident
CALLER: No, it's not. And what's really funny is they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and spout to the media.[4]
Here the caller is using the word real in the typical media way, distinguishing interviewees picked at random (as in a legitimate survey) from those specially selected to give predetermined views. The context is the liberal media's desire to portray the average US soldier as opposing administration policy or otherwise bad-mouthing the military.

There was not even a hint that the soldiers called "phony" were in any way not doing their jobs competent. The meaning of phony in this context was obviously "picked to give a predetermined" view.

A parallel can be found in the distinction between models and "real people" often made by photographers. Another example is employees to demonstrate a product vs. casual users or customers (real people).

In the street hustle of three-card monte, shills will place bets and give and receive money from the dealer, but it is all a sham. The shills are not "real people" (actual gamblers) but ringers.

Why is this here? This is the most irrelevant piece of information that I have ever seen on a biography on any website. Limbaugh has done many amazing things in his career and this piece of imformation is placed on his short biography. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 00:20, 25 December 2007 (EST)Creationist

:It's here because a senior officer of the [[United States Senate]] dared threaten a media executive with some unspecified business harm in connection with that call to Rush's radio program. It is not here because we believe for one second any part of that Senator's fevered claims.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 02:56, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:Limbaugh used "phony soldiers" to identify those individuals who claim to have fought in Iraq, got wounded in Iraq, and were discharged from the Army when in fact they were never in the Army at all. This grew out of an individual who was washed out of boot camp at Fort Bragg during his fourth week; this same man did a video that was posted on YouTube dressed in his Army battle dress uniform, but wearing the insignia of an officer. As a veteran myself, I'm not going to put up with phony soldiers, neither am I going to put up with those who'll believe their idiotic rants and dare to broadcast them here as if they were gospel truth. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

::This is the link to Rush Limbaugh's site, which he goes into detail about his use of "phony soldiers" [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html]; it also includes references to other sites, as well as the original phony soldier himself admitting he's a liar. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 05:18, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::Based on the eBay sale of the letter Senator Harry Reid and other Democrat senators sent to Roger Ailes complaining about Limbaugh, Rush raised $4.2 million dollars which he donated to the Marine & First Responders college fund for children. [[User:RushEcho|RushEcho]] 19:00, 2 March 2012 (EST)

== 1/2 News Hour ==

Should read "was involved" as the show lasted about six episodes before being canceled. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:17, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

== Please add a link ==

Please add a link to his brother's article [[David Limbaugh]] -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]]
[[Special:Emailuser/Deborah | email me]] 18:24, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

== Unlock Please ==

I'd like to add some information to the article. Could a sysop please unlock? Thanks. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:52, 11 August 2008 (EDT)

:Normally unlocking is only done by the Sysop who first protected the article, but since he is no longer active I can do that for you. Please be considerate of what additions or updates are appropriate and add those as you see fit. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

== Obama will Fail ==

Can I inquire as to why no one has talked about how Rush recently stated that he wanted President Obama to fail? {{unsigned|Hwuya}}-- 19:18, 2 February 2009

: I don't know why. I think it was very unpatriotic of Rush Limbaugh to say that. I really didn't have an opinion of Rush before that, but now I resent him. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::Can you show us exactly what Rush said? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:42, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here's his [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html statement from his own web site]. "I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: 'Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.'" [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 18:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::And for what reason does Limbaugh want Obama to fail in? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:55, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::Well, I'm sure you can read it yourself - the link's right there for you. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 18:57, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::::That isn't good enough. I want YOU to read it and SAY it here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:01, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::Sorry?!!!! I'm only here to provide the information, not to take drive-by insults. And I'm not doing ''anything'' you tell me to - this isn't even my thread. Please read the information yourself and form your own opinion. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 19:07, 4 February 2009 (EST)

::::::::Excuse me, but when you say that you're only here "to provide the information" does not give you the authority to distort it, which is what is implied in the above remarks. A question has been put to you because I am not going to tolerate this distortion of what Limbaugh said, and this liberal/MSM distortion is not going to be pushed here. Now, please answer the question. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:14, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::EXCUSE ME???!!!!! Who on Earth are you? Please READ the above thread. Note that I DIDN'T START IT. Next, note that ''YOU'' asked to be shown exactly what Rush said. Next, I dropped into the thread and provided ''YOU'' with the information ''YOU'' REQUESTED. I note that you never once said "thanks for the link, FNNoonan". Note that I provided NOT ONE opinion on what Rush said, merely quoting the relevant passage in this discussion. Now - where the H*LL do you get off accusing me of distorting information? Who's liberal/MSM distortion? WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Finally, no, I'm not going to answer your question. perhaps JArneal will, since your beef would appear to be with him? Right little Hitler, aren't you? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 19:36, 4 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::::And you just exposed yourself as another liberal fascist who takes the exact same line used by the MSM and pushes it here...and refuses to read the rest of what was said, namely that Rush fully intends Obama to fail in his socialism and his liberalism and the pushing of both on Americans, and NOT to fail over-all as president. Something you were afraid to admit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:44, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:::::::::::WOW. Just WOW. You're quite a piece of work. I didn't even read the article, and was simply providing the link for you. Please point out to me where anything I submitted above contained any ''opinion'' on Rush's words? And "liberal fascist"? Where does that come from? And what was I "afraid to admit"? I really can't believe this unbelievably aggressive attack. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 20:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
::::::::::::Yes, I am quite a piece of work aren't I? You admitted to not reading the article, just pulled up a single line and used it like the MSM in a brief statement...exactly as I've said. And the term "liberal fascist" comes from way back in the 1930's by sci-fi author [[H.G. Wells]], an admitted far-left socialist who admired Benito Mussolini's facsism and wanted the leftists in this country to adopt it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*You can't FNNoonan? Really? I am not as accommodating with liberal, argumentative trolls as Karajou. Before you (or anyone else) continues to waste our time here with silly, extended, non-issues taken from out-of-context quotes, agree with them, and then continue to argue, understand I will be wishing you God's speed if you do. If you are so delicate, that the comments "offend" you, perhaps the entire Internet isn't the place for you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:46, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:This is absurd. Karajou plainly started an argument out of nowhere, accusing FNNoonan of things that he had never said. As I was reading this argument, I was struck by how rude, thankless and spiteful Karajou was being to someone who gave him exactly what he asked for without editorialization. If FNNoonan is being punished for being a "troll" then I must register by disagreement with this frankly unfair decision. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]
::No, JWeatherman, I did not start an argument out of nowhere; I responded to a troll who chose to not read exactly what Rush said; he chose to twist four words into a mantra like the MSM has been doing. And no, he did not give me what I asked for, and his admission that he never read it (nor did he intend to) proved my point. So don't continue his little game. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:38, 29 March 2009 (EDT)
:::Noonan provided a brief comment that gave you both "exactly what Rush said" and a link to what he said. He did not make any judgment calls, he simply provided the data in a brief comment, likely because he didn't feel he needed to paraphrase Rush's argument when the argument was right there for anyone to verify. I do not know whether or not he is being punished for this, but if he is then it is unjust. Would a liberal troll give the source before quoting the exact words Rush said? If he were a troll, then he is the least effective, most honest one I have ever seen. [[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]]
::::And what are you by comparrison? Right now, both of you have refused to even read what was on that link, let alone post anything beyond "I hope he fails" here; the discussion stopped right there. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:04, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

*The link was real, the explanation, or set-up here was false, inasmuch as it ignored Limbaugh's full statement, and focused, misleadingly so, that he wanted Obama to fail, as if that was the totality of Limbaugh said, and it certainly was not. It was a nice, semi-clever wiki parlor trick, but futile here.

*JWeatherman, here is my ''instruction'' to you: Stop with the endless trolling/arguing, and show that you are serious about wanting to help and contribute substantially to content, rather than bloviate on talk pages, or I will block you. Also, use the signature button above to sign and timestamp/date your posts.
--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:57, 29 March 2009 (EDT)

== '''From Sean Hannity's interview with Rush Limbaugh, 22 January, 2009:'''[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html] ==

''HANNITY: Coming off record-ratings year for you, but you — you are a passionate conservative. You've defined conservatives for many people in this country for years. He represents the antithesis in terms of his world view.

So then the question becomes, do you want him to succeed?''

LIMBAUGH: Now — this — I am so glad that he asked me that question. That you asked me this question.

''HANNITY: I'm glad to.''

LIMBAUGH: I'll tell you why. I am hearing many Republicans say that — well, we want him to succeed and prominent Republicans. Yes, we wanted — they have laid down. They have totally — they're drinking the Kool- Aid, too. They have no guts to stand up for what their beliefs are because they're afraid of criticism, they're afraid of being called racists, they're afraid of not having gotten with the program.

Now success can be defined two ways. I said earlier I don't know about this guy. I really don't. I've got my — I've got my suspicions, and they're pretty close to convictions, but we're going to have to wait to see what he does. Now if he turns out to be a Reagan, if he adds Reagan to his recipe of FDR and Lincoln, and if he does cut some taxes.

''HANNITY: Yes.''

'''LIMBAUGH: If he does not eliminate the Bush tax cuts, I would call that success. So yes, I would hope he would succeed if he acts like Reagan, but if he's going to do FDR, if he's going to do the new, new deal all over which we will call here the raw deal, why would I want him to succeed?'''

'''Look, he's my president. The fact that he is historic is irrelevant to me now. It matters not at all. I — if he is going to implement a far left — look it. I think it's already decided. $2 trillion in stimulus? The growth of government. I think the intent here is to create as many dependant Americans as possible looking to government for their hope and salvation.'''

'''"If he gets nationalized health care, I mean, it's over, Sean. We're never going to roll that back. That's the end of America as we have known it because that's then going to set the stage for everything being government owned, operated, or provided. Why would I want that to succeed? I don't believe in that. I know that's not how this country is going to be great in the future, it's not what made this country great."'''

<big>'''''"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"'''''
</big>

*So, Karajou, you are absolutely correct. Liberal trolls make a out-of-context headline statement, and the knee-jerker's respond with their usual hate and [[deceit]]. What is acceptable for liberals is not allowed for conservatives, ''in their book''. As Rush said:

{{cquote|'''Were the liberals out there hoping Bush succeeded or were they out there trying to destroy him before he was even inaugurated? ''Why do we have to play the game by their rules?'' Why do we have to accept the premise here that because of the historical nature of his presidency, that we want him to succeed? This is affirmative action, if we do that. We want to promote failure, we want to promote incompetence, we want to stand by and not object to what he's doing simply because of the color of his skin? Sorry. I got past the historical nature of this months ago. He is the president of the United States, he's my president, he's a human being, and his ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me. We're talking about my country, the United States of America, my nieces, my nephews, your kids, your grandkids. Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, "I hope he fails."'''}}

'''Context is everything.''' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:41, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:But what did FNNoonan do wrong?? --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 01:25, 5 February 2009 (EST)

::And aside from you both being Aussies, your business in this is? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:12, 5 February 2009 (EST)

:::I couldn't keep away. After being so insulted, I couldn't resist popping back to see what, if any, were the repercussions. I see there are few. But I'd just like to point out I'm not Australian, and I'm curious as to why you thought so? No matter. I'd also like to point out that as a 17 year listener and fan of Rush, I'm pretty damn disappointed with the way this dialog went. Best to you all. [[User:FrankNN|FrankNN]] 14:37, 5 February 2009 (EST)
::::You previously admitted that you never read the link you yourself provided, just pulled a line out of context. It could have been solved had you read what was in the link and pulled out the whole paragraph involved, but you chose a different route. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:58, 5 February 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, I actually understand Rush's statement now. I'm now not as appalled as I once was. But here's the problem with the logic: Barack Obama and liberalism are not the same thing. If Barack Obama fails, the United States will suffer, especially with the scale at which Obama wants to do things. I don't know why anyone would wish suffering on their country. That's my two cents. Either way, Obama seems to be failing so far with his cabinet appointments. That couldn't have been executed more poorly. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 19:54, 5 February 2009 (EST)

He isn't talking about anything other than socialism will fail, because that is what he is trying now, JArneal. If we fail because of that, allowing him to do so, we deserve to. Let me resurrect an old saying from before your time: "Better Dead, Than Red.". Think about it. I doubt there are more than a handful here, including Andy, who understands with, and agrees with what that means. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:33, 6 February 2009 (EST)

:There is also something else here, and it's the pushing of the "I hope he fails" line by the MSM despite everything else that was said with it; it's as if that line was the ''only thing said'', and it's continually being pushed in another effort to shut down conservative talk radio and the First Amendment which protects it. All the liberal media and their surrogates are doing is following this little statement by [[Adolf Hitler]] to the letter: ''"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."'' Liberal fascism at work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:58, 6 February 2009 (EST)

::Exactly. That's the mantra of liberals, Communists and Nazi's and all the other leftist slime in history. Lie. Lie big, lie bigger, but always make the argument about your opponents, not yourself or the truth. ''Exactly what CP faces from our enemies, and those people, in those secret, unlighted places, where secrecy rules their plans to destroy us, with their parody, vandalism and trolling.'' And their true masters like Soros, Pelosi, Reid and Obama plan the destruction of America itself, ready to remake the "Workers Paradise" anew. And it seems like only yesterday most of the World celebrated its rightful consignment to the ash heap. How quick people are to trade their freedom for a little, precious little, silver! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:00, 6 February 2009 (EST)

:::The irony being that liberals wanted Bush to fail while we were at war with troop's lives on the line, but Obama failing upsets them? Liberals :P --[[User:Paulcspring|Paulcspring]] 05:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)

== Reversion of "Role" comments ==

I'm not going to edit-war over this, but I object to the characterization that my edits reflected "liberal Bias" and were "introduced without context and without citations". This was a top news story today (3/2/2009), and coming off of the CPAC conference mentioned on the CP home page they are certainly in context. They are also sourced from the same CNN story, and a 30-second effort on news.google.com can find multiple correlating sources so there is no lack of citation. Finally, the characterization of Limbaugh as an incendiary entertainer versus a legitimate leader for conservative Republicans didn't come from me - it came from RNC Chair Michael Steel as quoted, and followed up by Eric Cantor stating that the GOP does not want Obama to fail, as Limbaugh did to great applause.

The bottom line is that many would see my edits as Limbaugh-bashing and want to censor them as liberal bias, but all I did was point out divisions of opinion within the GOP itself. This a legitimate issue that conservatives and Republicans should examine openly and be wiling to discuss in a civil manner. Does the future of the GOP lie with moderates who look to bridge differences with the Obama leadership, or with conservatives like Limbaugh who feel the party can only succeed by moving further to the right and embracing the difference of being more conservative instead?

I won't restore these edits since they were reverted by a sysop, but I hope my comments lead to the reversion being reconsidered. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:Oh, and the "context" continues, [http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/03/02/whos-the-boss-of-the-gop-steele-or-limbaugh/ covered] this time by the Christian Science Monitor. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:49, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::So, I missed the citations to the actual news stories, the links? Your information included Limbaugh's response, broadcast today on...what..3,000 radio stations? The "Limbaugh bashing" if there was any, was on the part of Michael Steel, who will be lucky to hold on to his job, within the next few weeks. Limbaugh is far more a leader of gravatis than is Steel or Cantor, who took what Libaugh said out-of-context, and as Limbaugh took great time to explain before CPAC, some fifty feet away from where I sat. This out-of-context hooey was also discussed/debated on another page here, right, Dinsdale? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:14, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:::I can honestly say that I haven't seen this issue raised on another CP page, so if this is redundant it's by coincidence. I saw the Steele comments earlier today while reading the online news on Google (I'm a news junkie, I admit). There's no point in discussing this further if the Steele/Limbaugh conflict is not considered relevant for the Limbaugh page. My parting comment relates to the concept of Limbaugh having gravitas - frankly, the man strikes me as a hypocrite (regarding drug abuse at least) and an opportunist, who's more interested in making millions each year being a conservative demagogue from the safety of a broadcast booth than he is in being part of the solution to serious problems in this country. It was easy for him to take shots at McCain and others last year as being unworthy candidates for conservative values, but if he's got all the answers, then let him run for national public office and walk the walk, not just talk the talk. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:56, 2 March 2009 (EST)

Well, by your own admission, DinsdaleP, you shouldn't be editing anything having to do with conservative icon's like Limbaugh, because you 1) display a gaping ignorance about him, and 2) have a pronounced un-Christian like attitude towards drug abuse, and those who, because of extreme, chronic pain, as Limbaugh was afflicted with, become dependent. And you, of all people, caring if anyone took shots at McCain is kind of hard to swallow! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:44, 2 March 2009 (EST)
:For the record, I didn't criticize Limbaugh for being a drug abuser - I criticized him for being a hypocrite who judged and attacked others for having addictions while being an addict himself. I'll move on now. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:52, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, perhaps since you threw the [[Red Herring]] out there, you would tell us who he criticized/attacked/judged, in a like situation, over drug dependency? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:56, 2 March 2009 (EST)

:::I'll respond since I was requested to. This [http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159 link] to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting provides a concise summary of not just one, but multiple statements Limbaugh has made in the past attacking drug abusers. Considering that Limbaugh worked out a plea deal with prosecutors to avoid a trial and only have to undergo rehab, this statement highlights why I consider him a hypocrite on this issue:

:::::''"What this says to me is that too many whites are getting away with drug use. Too many whites are getting away with drug sales. Too many whites are getting away with trafficking in this stuff. The answer to this disparity is not to start letting people out of jail because we're not putting others in jail who are breaking the law. The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.''
:::::''...We are becoming too tolerant as a society, folks, especially of crime, in too many parts of the country.... This country certainly appears to be tolerant, forgive and forget. I mean, you know as well as I do, you go out and commit the worst murder in the world and you just say you're sorry, people go, "Oh, OK. A little contrition."... People say, "I feel better. He said he's sorry for it." We're becoming too tolerant, folks."''

:::So because he's a prominent media figure who was sorry for his actions and could do good for others if allowed to cure his condition with rehab, he deserved that break instead of jail time. Interesting how his epiphany about contrition and tolerance seemed to coincide with him being a defendant. As for the contention that he was a victim who was driven to continued abuse once he was addicted to painkillers:

:::::''"I want to let you read along with me a quote from Jerry Colangelo about substance abuse, and I think you'll find that he's very much right…"I know every expert in the world will disagree with me, but I don't buy into the disease part of it. The first time you reach for a substance you are making a choice. Every time you go back, you are making a personal choice. I feel very strongly about that."..."''

::: Basically, this is a man who had no sympathy for trying to understand the situations of others before condemning their use of drugs, and it was only when he was caught that he asked for the double-standard of a plea bargain for his situation, when "true" conservatives are supposed to accept personal responsibility for their actions. If people here want to brand entertainer Heath Ledger a drug abuser because he tragically used legally-obtained prescription drugs in a way that led to his death, why is there a reluctance to brand entertainer Rush Limbaugh a drug abuser because he admitted an addiction to ''illegally'' obtained drugs he was abusing? Isn't that the type of moral relativism that's frowned upon here? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:36, 3 March 2009 (EST)

Equating drug dealers, crack dealers, speed dealers, addicts, pushers and pimps, is not the same thing as a person who has a painful disease and becomes addicted. Addicted, I might add, because a Medical Doctor over-perscribed, and got the person hooked in the first place. I think we can both agree there. What is surprising, but not, is a liberals lack of compassion they demand for common street pimps and pushers, yet when a conservative has the same behavior, you become harsh and even more judgmental than Limbaugh was. That is what I object to, DinsdaleP, your being a hypocrite, your double standard. The group you site is not known for being unbiased or even middle-of-the-road, and you know that. Taking statements, out of context, and from different time periods, is known as smearing. Limbaugh was ''technically'' a hypocrite. Like millions in this world, who say and think one thing unless and until they are walking in someone else's shoes. You added items, not in context, and without any explanation or more of one than to make the subject look bad. That is animosity. Two wrongs, never make a right. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:05, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:I'm not "smearing" Limbaugh - I simply pointed out that he was someone who threw stones in a glass house, so to speak. You may not like the source I used, but the quotes are still from Limbaugh, and they were taken from the time prior to his arrest to make a specific point - up until that time, he was judgmental and lacking in compassion for others who did the very things he wound up being arrested for. If you can interpret another meaning for the statements "too many whites are getting away with drug use" and "The answer is to go out and find the ones who are getting away with it, convict them and send them up the river, too.", then I'll keep an open mind.
:Personally, I have no personal animosity towards Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and their ilk because they have a right to express their views. However, I find them distasteful and repugnant because they make their livings by practicing conservatism as if it's all about condemning and belittling those who disagree with you instead of trying to win them over on the merits of a positive argument. Ronald Reagan is held up as the epitome of what a "true" conservative should be, and these people are nothing like him - Reagan, like William Buckley, worked at winning people over instead of running them over.
:You can call me a hypocrite if you want, but I'm not buying it. I admit when I'm wrong, I admit when I don't have all the answers (which is usually the case), and I don't judge others for being human and therefore subject to human flaws and fallibility, because God knows I'm fallible too. When someone like Limbaugh sits in presumptuous judgment of others, only to back off from holding himself to the same standard, ''that'' invites criticism. An experience like his drug arrest could have led him to show more humility without compromising his other values, but he seems as self-important and judgmental as ever. I have no need to disparage him on CP though - even the edit that started this thread was not intended to attack Limbaugh, but to report on the current events in the news as the GOP looks to re-establish itself and find new leaders, as even Fox News is [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/03/limbaugh-flexes-clout-gop/ covering] today. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:16, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Biographical Information Missing ==

Just wondering why there is no information about Mr. Limbaugh's family? Also, wasn't Mr. Limbaugh's father a civic leader of some sort? I think I read that he was a judge, which could have influenced Mr. Limbaugh's social views. How about educational background? What church does he go to? Is he apart of any charitable organization, or civic organization? List of accomplishments or awards? [[User:Eraticus|Eraticus]]
:Feel free to make edits pending appropriate and sufficient citations are included as a reference to the information. Because you're right, there could be more information added to the biography of [[Rush Limbaugh]]. I have a list of articles that I've been planning on improving, but it's certainly a process, one at a time... [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:49, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:''edit to add'': Okay, maybe a couple at a time. :-) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)

== The Sandra Fluke controversy, ongoing . . . ==
There is a good start on this paragraph, but it does not include the points Rush made. He has said it will be ten times bigger than the Michael J. Fox controversy and five times bigger than the Phony Soldier controversy where he raised $4.2million dollars for soldier children. Someone needs to go to his site and read the recent transcripts by entering 'Fluke' in his search-bar. By-the-way, Reid has started another letter signed by Democrats. [[User:RushEcho|RushEcho]] 00:27, 4 March 2012 (EST)
:I watch a video on it, the oddest part of it is Rush seems to think that birth control works the same as his Viagra. Flukes testimony was primarily about a lesbian school mate who needed BC for your ovarian problems, and not for preventing pregnancy. Rush needed 30 Viagra(not in his name) when he returned from the Dominican Republic, which has the 2nd highest sex trade in the world. We need not respect a sinner. He will very likely burn in hell fire if he does not repent. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:44, 4 March 2012 (EST)

Talk:Newt Gingrich

2012-01-23T21:54:35Z

KenN: /* Orphan and third wife? */ new section

Let's get a citation for the affair thing. It's publicly acknowledged, but it'll carry more weight if it has one. --[[User:John|John]] 23:11, 9 March 2007 (EST)

==Recommend==
[[Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:19, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I noticed he was categorized under Category: 2008 Presidential candidates. He never officially declared candidacy, therefore he shouldn't be in it. -[[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 17:39, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Liberal Vs. Conservative ==

I have removed Mr. Gingrich from the conservative category into that of of detestable liberals, as the front page of Conservapedia has claimed him to no longer be a true conservative, having embraced socialistic views on Medicare. --[[User:TeaPartyFreedom76|TeaPartyFreedom76]] 19:12, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Ethics Charges ==

Despite what his spokesperson says he was found guilty of ethics violation and had to pay a $300,000 fine. The panel found that he violated Rule 42 many times. The last three charges were dropped, as his spokesman said, in 1998 but not because they were without merit. The committee found that there was no evidence that he was still violating the rule and saw no reason to impose further sanctions.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/101198.htm</ref><ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/govt/leadership/stories/gingrich123198.htm</ref> I'm going to remove the quote from his spokesperson. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 14:04, 29 November 2011 (EST)

==Issues vs. quotes==

I've started a new section, which shows his stand on issues (or at least indicates areas of concern to him). This may contain direct quotations, but it would not be a random collection of quotes. Wikipedia has quote farms, some of which are use for [[quote mining]] (like "Bushisms"): Gingrich said this, see how it proves he's a nutcase!

I want our readers to be able to read a straightforward statement of the man's views, not "distortion by selection". See [[Star Parker]] for a test case. See also [[Quotation out of context]] and [[Putting words into someone's mouth]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 11:27, 9 January 2012 (EST)

----
<references/>
==Personal life==
Gingrich is an orphan. The fact an orphan rises to the third highest office in the United States and is considered a viable candidate for President would be of more interest than the marital troubles intended as an obvious attack on his character should have precedence, at least in website written from a conservative viewpoint. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:06, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:Ah, so we should give him a by for being an two-time (at least) adulterer. Okay, I give up. Whatever. Whitewash it anyway you want, Rob. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 19:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::Gingrich is an orphan, right but that does not give him the right to live a sinful life !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:09, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:::John 8:10-11, ''Where are thine accusers?'' She said, ''No man, Lord.'' "Neither do I condemn thee." [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:10-11&version=KJV] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::::I know the bible Rob, but you cannot just get out of everything with it. Would you excuse murder and rape the same way ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Moses was a murderer. So was David. And between them God wrote the Pentateuch and Psalms (incidentally, [http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Hillary_Clinton_Principles_+_Values.htm Hillary cites the Book of Psalms] as having inspired her to save her open marriage. As to rape, I'd have to do more bible research (and way off the point, I recently learned from the BBC that Uncle Joe Stalin condoned mass rape funded with [[Lend Lease]] dollars from [[FDR]], but that's neither here nor there...) [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:59, 22 January 2012 (EST)
::::::And you are the one who speaks about [[Last wordism]] ? Come on, I am sure you understood my point.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 20:48, 22 January 2012 (EST)

*According to Conservapedia, an [[orphan]] ''is a child who has lost both parents and has no one to look after them.'' I don't see how Newt Gingrich fits this description: [http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Gingrich/Parents-Grandparents.php republican-canditates.org]
*A more loose definition would probably cover Obama, too.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 00:51, 23 January 2012 (EST)

===How did CNN obtain sealed documents?===
So, the question is now, for SharonW who wishes to insert citations from what are ''supposed'' to be sealed documents, (1) [http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html How did CNN obtain personal, confidential, and what are supposed to be sealed court documents]? (2) The ethical implicationns of CNN publishing what may be illegally obtained personal, confidential, and sealed documents?, and (3) Should Conservapedia be used as a platform to further the agendas of liberal, radical, and unethical mainstrream news organizations such as CNN with the aim to cause personal, emotional, and professional harm to the reptation and career ambitions of people CNN does not like? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:09, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:The files weren't sealed. Here's a quote: "After initially '''''being told''''' that the divorce documents were sealed, CNN on Thursday obtained the folder containing the filings in the divorce, which had been stashed away for years in a Carroll County, Georgia, court clerk's drawer. Retired clerk Kenneth Skinner told CNN '''''his deputy took Gingrich's file out of the public records room around 1994''''', "when he (Gingrich) became the center of attention," '''''because Skinner feared tampering and theft.''''' [http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html]. (Emphasis mine).

:From what I remember from the 1990s, it was '''''Gingrich''''' who caused the personal and emotional harm to people - his ex-wife and children. He is an adulterer, and I don't think that should be glossed over like you're attempting to do. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 02:10, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::The files were sealed (as all divorce records are). CNN obtained sealed files. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:35, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::So they were removed to avoid tampering and theft and wound being tampered with and stolen. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 02:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::"Alan Lee, the Carroll County Superior and State courts clerk, confirmed the divorce records were never sealed. Finding the original papers, first requested by Bloomberg and then CNN last week, was simply a matter of locating the box of paperwork in the Carroll County records room, not a drawer."[http://www.atlawblog.com/2011/12/gingrich-divorce-records-pose-question-for-carroll-county-court/] Not sealed, and not stolen. Guess you need to find a different theory to use. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 03:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::So we have enough evidence to suspect the theft and illegal handling of what should have been sealed documents, their subsequent mishandling and ethical abuses by CNN and other mainstream new sources, is part of what George Steponopalous calls the [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_23_16/ai_62896460/ Clinton's "scorched earth policy"], correct? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 08:37, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Except, of course, that divorce records are not routinely sealed in many states, INCLUDING GEORGIA.
:::::"Access to divorce records. Available to the general public. The state Vital Records Office will conduct a search to determine the occurrence of a divorce."[http://www.georgia.gov/00/channel_title/0,2094,4802_5009,00.html]

::::: One of the involved parties has to request a court order that they be sealed. Really, Rob, it took me about a minute to come up with this information. That's the beauty of public records. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 12:43, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::(a) the Georgia law can tell you the records exist, that is far different from being held for public viewing; (b) how do we know whether or not one party or the other requested they be sealed, being that (1) those posted on CNN's site are incomplete, and (2) the reluctance of ''both'' parties to discuss the case openly for 30 years? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::(c) and the site you posted clearly states the office "[http://health.state.ga.us/programs/vitalrecords/divorce.asp cannot issue a record]", and only copies of the decree are available, not the actually filings and record. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:03, 23 January 2012 (EST)

:::::::I'm loving watching you twist in the wind to make this into a huge conspiracy. '''Divorce records are public records, and anyone can view them (and read them and make copies of them) at the courthouse.''' I do genealogy for a hobby, and review title searches as part of my job, and I see and obtain divorce records fairly regularly. It takes a court order to seal the records, and '''''the order sealing the records will be in the public records for anyone to see and read'''''.

:::::::And do you ''really'' think the courthouse is going to give you the original record? Of course it's a copy, and it can be certified if you pay for it. "Certified copies of divorce decrees are only available from the Clerk of the Superior Court in the county where the divorce was granted." (see previous link for quote.) A certified copy means it's an '''''exact copy''''', guaranteed by the issuing agency. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:14, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::A Certified copy of the Final Decree ''is not'' a copy of the original filings or hearing transcripts. Why don't ask the resident in house attorney, Mr. Shlafly, if divorce records are routinely available for public viewing in most states and courthouses in America? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:34, 23 January 2012 (EST)

==Stop the edit war!==
Shouldn't we agree on something instead of keep reverting everything ? My question is why do we hide this gossip whil we keep the gossip on democrats pages ? --[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 22:01, 22 January 2012 (EST)

:(ec)[http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Quick_reference ''Conservapedia articles tone, style, and content should be written with an American, conservative and/or Christian orientation or focus. ''] If you're referring to debates on several other pages about the liberal concept of "open marriage", the Clinton marriage, as accurately cited from numerous sources, fits the definition of "open marriage" on both the sexual and non-sexual planes. In the Gingrich instance, ABC News correspondence, along with other liberal, mainstream, non--conservative and anti-conservative sources and journalists, clearly attack Gingrich's personal life to cause harm and personal suffering. These same journalists and news organizations in the cases the Clinton family and Obama family have repeated stated a candidates personal life, and that of their families and children, are off limits and out of bounds. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:15, 22 January 2012 (EST)

::Because liberals. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 22:08, 22 January 2012 (EST)

Gingrich publicly acknowledges having affairs with his second and third wives. That's not gossip. There are many rumors, and have been for years, about ''other'' Gingrich adulterous affairs, but those weren't added to the article because those ''are'' gossip. The rumors about Gingrich serving divorce papers to the hospital to his "dying" wife" are also rumors and have not been added. What has been added has been cited, and in many cases have court records to back them up. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 22:12, 22 January 2012 (EST)
:None of that material was reverted; the contrast with William Jefferson Clinton who publicly lied and misprisoned a felony, encouraging others to perjure themselves, has remained. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 22 January 2012 (EST)

==Why not to add a section about Morality==
That would include the fact that he is an unfaithful overweight man ? You know, the same kind of important information that is given for [[PZ Myers]] or [[Peter Singer]].--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:33, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Good point. But I think Gingrich has confessed to his love of donuts. How this translates to morality, I'm not sure. But donut eating is consumer [[stimulus]] spending, and thus creates jobs, ''nes pas''? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::Do you mean: ''n'est-ce pas''? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 16:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

== Orphan and third wife? ==

I tried to do a little research and from the sources I found it seems Newt was raised by his biological mother who had remarried?

Also recent edits seem to make it seem like he is still married to his second wife "Gingrich married Ginther in 1981. The couple separated in 1988, and reconciled in 1994." while removing the part of him and his aide. I'm not trying to berate the man, we are all sinners, granted some worse then others, but as a Christian Conservative I need a man who can protect marriage, and I suspect others agree. We have to be a trustworthy source for people to get to know their candidates and their values on marriage and religion. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 16:54, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Atheism vs. Tim Tebow - Tebow wins

2011-12-07T00:56:37Z

KenN:

== K. ==

Not sure about quarterbacks(can't say athletes really espouse religious views all that much let alone lack of them) but I can give you Pat Tillman. One hell of an athlete and good American if I do say so. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 13:36, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Hmmmm is Aaron Rodgers an atheist? ==

I don't know a lot about Tebow or who is an atheist, frankly I feel like that is mostly private information. But from what I know about Rodgers is he isn't married, grew up in California, and is a fantastic QB.

Rodgers > Tebow. He will be carrying the Packers to another Super Bowl victory and maybe an undefeated season. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 14:00, 6 December 2011 (EST)

:Did you trying researching a minute or two about Rodgers before commenting above? In a one mere search -- taking less than 30 seconds to find a story on point -- I learned that:
{{cquote|Rodgers decided to 'dedicate his life to living for Christ' when he was 16.}}
:Rodgers said:
{{cquote|[Church youth group leader] Matt Hock was the first person who showed me how much fun and how cool it can be to be a Christian.}} [http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2011/11/30/aaron-rodgers-on-tim-tebow-religion-controversy-i-believe-in-letting-my-actions-speak-about-the-kind-of-character-i-have/] (quoting [http://www.athletesinaction.org/news/post/Aaron-Rodgers-Leader-of-the-Pack.aspx "Athletes in Action" article]) --[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:06, 6 December 2011 (EST)

::So can I make the Aaron Rodgers vs Michael Vick article? --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 19:56, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Atheism vs. Tim Tebow - Tebow wins

2011-12-06T19:00:40Z

KenN: /* Hmmmm is Aaron Rodgers an atheist? */ new section

Talk:Essay: Ponies vs. atheism - ponies win!

2011-09-20T15:46:23Z

KenN: /* Female Atheist? */ new section

== My two cents ==

In psychological/social terms, atheism is defined as the negation of the most basic good sentiments that it is logically possible to have: good sentiments toward a good, overseeing Creator God. So, life is not about atheism. Which means atheism (especially strong atheism) is not an actual quality of good character, but, at best, a lack of certain good character. The fact that many theists are arrogant does not mean that theism is arrogance, but that theists tend to be fallen humans. Theism does not preclude arrogance on the part of the theist in terms of theism, but, neither does atheism preclude arrogance on the part of the atheist in terms of atheism.[[User:PatternOfPersona|PatternOfPersona]] 19:54, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

== Female Atheist? ==

Wouldn't a female atheist find male atheist attractive? After all, as an atheist she would like to sin and have sex before marriage, something no Christian man would do. There for I believe female atheist would only be attractive to male atheist. I know as a Christian male myself, I am not attracted to atheist women. Maybe your next essay could be about how female atheist are less attractive to good healthy skinny kind hearted accepting Christian men?--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 11:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

Conservative Dictionary Project (P)

2011-09-17T02:36:31Z

KenN:

: '''[[patriotism]]'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1729
:''True conservative meaning'' - love for one's country
:''False liberal redefinition'' - a [[military|militaristic]] and [[jingoism|jingoistic]] belief in the superiority of one's own nation

:'''person'''
:''True conservative meaning'' - A human created by god t the time of conception.
:''False liberal redefinition'' Anything liberals think is a person like animals or AI

: '''privatize'''
:[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|Conservative word]]
:Date: 1940
:''True conservative meaning'' - to give an [[industry]] over from the state to private control
:''False liberal redefinition'' - handing over an industry from [[government]], which is accountable to the people, to unaccountable private [[tyranny|tyrannies]] known as corporations

{{ConservativeDictionary}}

Talk:Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

2011-09-17T02:34:16Z

KenN: Created page with "Even though Obama would agree, I think we as conservatives should argue that only god make people, not laws. Next cars and animals can be people.--~~~~"

Even though Obama would agree, I think we as conservatives should argue that only god make people, not laws. Next cars and animals can be people.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:34, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-08T03:47:20Z

KenN: /* So... Parody */

== a couple thoughts ==

I love the idea, but i feel like I have a couple helpful ideas to act as guidelines. First people will need to decide if this should be a total dictionary or just key words. Right now we have the conservativemeaning of lawn, is there a liberal meaning ? Second,to use useful as a dictionary, does every word need its mainstream and conservative definition? If a liberal uses a word and someone doesnt know what it means, I doubt the conservative definition will help them understand what the person was saying. Since that is the main benefit in the age of spell checkers of dictionaries.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 09:10, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:Lawn is actually the ''perfect'' example of a word that should be on the list. Some people might refer to it as 'grass', which is of course, a slang for an illicit drug. Conservatives are beyond such stupidity, so 'lawn' belongs on the list. You must remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps. Putting it another way, if you spot a weed in your garden you pull it out rather than let it fester and spread. (perhaps "weed" can also be on there for the same reason- can anyone suggest an alternative word?) --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 09:21, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: Seems like you are suggesting more of a conservative Thesaurus then a Dictionary. A dictionary is a book used to find the spellings and meanings of words. A Thesaurus is useful for finding the best words. I'm thinking a conservative thesaurus would actually be a great idea. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::: This seems to be an issue we have to address soon. I notice there are entries for deltiology, chair, door, and doorknob. Are we attempting to create a complete dictionary, or just create a lexicon of words that are relevant to conservatives, or have proper conservative meanings. My suggestion would be for the latter, there are plenty of websites that can define a chair as well as conservapedia can, so it doesn't seem like the best use of our time. My suggestion would be, if you can't come up with a particular conservative definition that differs from the false liberal definition, preferably filling out both the true conservative and false liberal sections, it isn't for this project. I am as suspicious of liberals as anyone, but they probably can define a chair. Whether this is the ultimate decision or not, I do think we should figure this out before the project gets too far along.--[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:12, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::: While one word may be safe from [[liberal redefinition]] today, it doesn't mean it's safe from [[liberal redefinition]] tomorrow. This project is a safehaven for words against liberals and their [[secularized language]]. Conservapedia contains many articles that aren't political. We have articles on [[door]], [[chair]], and [[doorknob]]. What Conservapedia is to encylopedias this dictionary is to dictionaries. Instead of trying to limit people's [[freedom of speech]], why don't you contribute to the project? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 16:26, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::My apologies for giving offense, I certainly wasn't trying to limit anyone's freedom of speech. I am OK with whichever direction this project ends up taking, and I have and will continue to contribute to it. If this is the direction it goes on, I am fully on board, I was just raising the question. --[[User:GrahamB|GrahamB]] 16:32, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Conservative redefinition. ==

I agree with the premise that liberals have changed the meaning of many important words; freedom and equality being two of the most important. But if we're talking about liberal redefinition then it's important to avoid conservative redefinition. There needs to be serious and proper guidelines for this dictionary BEFORE we start adding words or it's just going to be a massive mess of peoples' opinions, and never a credible resource. Take, for example, "liberal." We're defined this as, "Somone who rejects logic and supports an overbearing government and anti-Christian policies," and coming from the 14th century. Liberal has meant many things through its time, and if we look at the Gladstonian Liberalism, it was economically very right-wing. But we must acknowledge that the word has changed. By acknowledging that the word's meaning has changed over time and simply putting an overbearingly conservative definition which doesn't even address their beliefs properly, we're not making a serious resource. And, come on, cheap comments like, "a liberal is someone who rejects logic," is just conservative redefinition, and it makes us just as bad as anyone who we accuse of liberal definition. We should always hold ourselves to the standards who hold others. And saying, "But the liberals do it," isn't an excuse. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 10:28, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I agree that this shouldn't become a conservative redefinition, which is kind of an oxymoron. If we are to take back words liberals have changed the meanings of, we have to use the original conservative meaning, not some new meaning. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:12, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Well, we're already doing it. "Liberal" is the classic example. We can all agree that liberals like big government, are anti-Christian and reject logic. But has that ever been the definition of liberal? We might all agree that Muslims reject Christianity, and as such, are going to hell. But we do not define Muslim as someone who is going to hell. The idea posted above about 'lawn' is textbook revisionism. The idea that, because people have come to use 'grass' as a term for drugs, it is no longer a conservative thing to do to consider your 'lawn' to be 'grass' is preposterous. If grass ORIGINALLY meant that, and now means something else, then claiming back the true meaning is not to call it something else. Also, when talking about using the word lawn, to say, " remember that the process of changing our language is slow and insidious. It begins with trivial, laughable things and ends up with Christians in death camps." is absurd and unnecessary. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 13:25, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I say "mow the grass", and I call weeds weeds and weed weed. Different parts of the country have different slang and dialects. Liberal can mean lots of things, and will probably mean something different, it as depends on where you set the medium of the political spectrum at. Infanticide means killing of infants, which a fetus isn't an infant. --[[User:KenN|KenN]] 13:46, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Regretabbly, this is not correct. A fetus '''is''' an infant. Christianity teaches that life begins at conception -- a fetus is an infant much like how a child is a person. Fetus is also a medical term rather than a general term (such as 'fratricide' vs 'friendly fire'). --[[User:SallyMartinez|<3 Sally]] 01:41, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Conservapedia's article on [[Liberal]] clearly states right at the beginning "is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards". If you have a problem with this definition, take it there.
:::::: This project complements Conservapedia; if you want a quick, true definition of a word, come here. If you want more in-depth analysis and insights, read the Conservapedia article. The same way Conservapedia contains all the knowledge an encyclopedia should, this dictionary should contain all the knowledge a dictionary should. --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:00, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::: How come when Ambrose Bierce writes [[The Devil's Dictionary|a dictionary for the devil]] he gets praised, but when we want to write a dictionary for conservatives suddenly it's "conservative redifinition"? --[[User:BradleyS|BradleyS]] 02:16, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Maybe a template could be useful here? ==

I don't know much, if anything, about creating templates on Mediawiki, but maybe a template that mimics the popular dictionary sites would make this a bit more organized? Something along the lines of the [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/word output from dictionary.com] (minus the advertisements, of course), perhaps? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 13:41, 3 September 2011 (EDT)
:How about [[User:KevinDavis/dictionary|this]] as a template? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 17:54, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

== May I make some suggestions ==

:[[atheism]] - conscious denial of God's existence, the belief that God does not exist
:[[atheist]] - one who consciously denies that God exists, who believes that God does not exist
:[[agnosticism]] - not having an opinion about whether God exists, not knowing whether God exists
:[[agnostic]] - someone who does not have a definite opinion about whether God exists, who does not claim to know whether God exists
:[[cosmodicy]] - the problem of evil for atheists, the problem of justifying the fundamental goodness of the universe in the face of evil
See the article [[Definition of atheism]] for some justification of why these are correct definitions, and alternate definitions proposed by atheists are an attempt to redefine some of these words.
I didn't want to just go ahead and add them myself, because I wasn't sure if I had the right idea or not. But if others agree, please add them. [[User:Maratrean|Maratrean]] 01:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Dictionary API ==

Are we aiming for a complete dictionary? If so, I could use [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2009/12/on-googles-unofficial-dictionary-api.html Google's dictionary API] and the Mediawiki API to write a lot of definitions quickly. I'm still having trouble accessing the site regularly from my home and a local university library, but if that gets cleared up I could probably write something in a few days that could work. What does everyone think? [[User:KevinDavis|KevinDavis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 11:30, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

== Parody ==

I just wanted ask if this is suppose to be satire or parady ? Personally i wouldn't define bigotry as pointing out the truth or bureaucracy as bloated ineffectiv ase government. Bigotry is a very unchristian,and bureaucracy is a hierarchy used in any corporate structure. As a conservative with a BS in Business Administration they treat you bureaucracy is part of any corporation.--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 22:49, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

: Good comments, resulting in corrections. Please feel free to edit the entry yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

::Also, a lot of users are adding words like "cow" and "door knob" which don't have any political controversy attached to them. As this project is designed to combat liberal redefinition, rather than just list every word (I assume), perhaps we should make it a requirement that any new entry is made with the 'Liberal false definition' clearly stated. Otherwise troublemakers will sneak any old word in. Thoughts? [[User:Patrick78|Patrick78]] 10:27, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::: As BradleyS states above, Consevapedia itself has an article on [[doorknob]] and other non-political subjects. Has anyone suggested removing these articles? If Conservapedia, a conservative encyclopedia, has entries on these why shouldn't a conservative dictionary have them? Also, I don't see why a word has to have a [[liberal redefinition]] to be here. Fighting liberal redefinition is just one aspect of this project. But even in this respect, it's useful. Liberals might try to redefine any word in the future, so we should define them here before then. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:26, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Because the implication of it being on here with the statement "True conservative definition" implies somebody is trying to create a false definition. When the liberals try and redefine '''Zebra''', you let us know.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:28, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
::::: No, it doesn't. Something can be true without someone else trying to make false definitions.
::::: The creator of the project above seemed to indicate all words that should belong in a dictionary should be in the Conservative Dictionary Project. Perhaps we should ask Andy Schlafly how to proceed? In the meantime, can you restore the non-political entries and cease with the mass deletions of entries? (Unless it's parody, of course). --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 22:39, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Pretty much each one i removed was never going to experience a definition change unless the language itself started to shift, or was parody. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:41, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::: Languages shift all the time. Again, I think we should ask Mr. Schlafly the purpose of the project before removing entries. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 23:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::: They have redefined '''Zebra''' as a member of the Equidae family, as opposed to the horse baramin. --[[User:JefferyA|JefferyA]] 22:43, 7 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Considering Equidae is also known as horses anyways... this is honestly not a big deal.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:45, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== A suggestion for proceeding ==

My grandfather is in the process of writing a French-Occitanian dictionary, and what he has been doing is to go through each page in his dictionaries and writing the translations. He's currently at over a thousand pages, so this precise method probably wouldn't be much good here, but perhaps if there exists a political dictionary (preferably not one written by a pundit) this could be used as a basis?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 14:51, 5 September 2011 (EDT)

== Formatting - please read ==

I think the words should be arranged in a table format, instead of simply a list. Not only will it scale better, but since Mediawiki [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Help:Sorting supports sortable tables], I think we could implement that syntax. Does this sound like a good idea? I'll try to write out the syntax when I have the chance, but please tell me what you think before I do so. [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] [[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]] 09:14, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

== So... Parody ==

Can we try and keep it out?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:56, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

:: I feel too new to remove peoples entries.... but im pretty sure the old true meaning of teabagger is ummmmm.......--[[User:KenN|KenN]] 23:47, 7 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-05T02:49:48Z

KenN: /* Parody */ new section

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-03T17:46:29Z

KenN: /* Conservative redefinition. */

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-03T17:12:31Z

KenN:

Talk:Conservative Dictionary Project

2011-09-03T13:10:46Z

KenN: a couple thoughts

Standard and Poor's

2011-08-07T02:36:13Z

KenN:

'''Standard and Poor's''' is a credit rating service with a 150-year history of providing independent, quality assessments of how likely a company or government is to honor its financial obligations.

The United States credit rating has been downgraded from AAA to AA+ by this rating adgency<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08/06/credit-ratings-agency-defends-downgrade-us-debt/</ref> as of August 5th, 2011. While this shows how the liberal policies of the Obama administration has failed us, it is important to note this is one of the same rating agencies that were giving Mortgage Derivatives AAA ratings. These ratings led to be a part of the current financial crisis.
[[category:finance]]

User:KenN

2011-08-07T02:10:44Z

KenN: Created page with "<blockquote> "I pledge allegiance to the Flag Of the United States of America, And to the Republic for which it stands: One Nation under God, indivisible, wit..."

<blockquote>
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag 
Of the United States of America, 
And to the Republic for which it stands: 
One Nation under God, indivisible, 
with Liberty and Justice for all"
</blockquote>

Ezekiel 25:17. The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you.

Tea Party Movement

2011-08-07T02:06:35Z

KenN: /* Polls */

The '''TEA Party Movement''' (TEA is a backronym for Taxed Enough Already) is an ongoing, nationwide mainstream movement of [[grassroots]] protesters, encompassing millions of individuals and thousands of self-organizing groups, all united in accomplishing a single goal: returning [[Conservative|fiscal responsibility]] and limited government to the [[United States]] through the exercise of political [[activist|activism]].<ref>[http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/15/morning-bell-the-tea-party-movement/ Morning Bell: The Tea Party Movement], heritage.org, April 15th, 2009.</ref> The main focus of the TEA Party Movement is a rebuke of outrageous mandates, overspending and a [[radical]] agenda by an out of touch federal government with values similar to King George III (see [[Boston Tea Party]]).<ref>[[Glenn Beck]]. [http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/24073/ What the Tea Parties Are About], April 16, 2009.</ref> 

=== Beginnings ===
The birth of the Tea Party Movement is often mistakenly traced to February 2009; however, while [[Rick Santelli|Rick Santelli's]] famous impassioned speech on CNBC was perhaps the most visible spark that ignited Tea Party gatherings across the nation, the movement's genesis was in progress long before that notable day in early 2009.<ref>Tea Party Arose From Conservatives Steeped in Crisis. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578332725182228.html Birth of a Movement], ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 29, 2010.</ref> One earlier manifestation of both the movement and the name occurred in the fall of 2007 when supporters of Ron Paul called for a "Tea Party 2007" to promote Paul's bid for the presidency and a return to limited federal government. It is likely the movement was in gestation for years, in the hearts and minds of American citizens concerned about the path down which [[progressive]] policies have been taking the United States of America, and its emergence has been called [[Main Street]] America's indictment against the ruling class.
<ref>Doug Mainwaring. [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/13/tea-partys-inception-a-rebirth/ MAINWARING: Tea Party's inception a rebirth], ''[[The Washington Times]]'', August 13, 2010.</ref> The rallies are promoted as protests of the [[generational theft]] of public tax monies, the tremendous extensions of United States Federal debt and authority, the apparent restructuring of the Federal government with the intent to contravene the system of checks and balances for which the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] provides, and the attempt, which some movement leaders say has been in progress for several decades, to sacrifice [[liberty]] for permanent dependency.

The Tea Party Movement held its first scheduled nationwide protest on April 15, 2009, a day that became known as the [[Tax Day Tea Party]].<ref name="WSJ">[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123975867505519363.html Tax Day Becomes Protest Day], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', April 15, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/thousands-anti-tax-tea-party-protesters-turn-cities/ Thousands of Anti-Tax 'Tea Party' Protesters Turn Out in U.S. Cities], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> In the spirit of the [[Founding Fathers]] [[Boston Tea Party]], the rallies have used themes from the [[American Revolution]] and also adopted the "American Tea Party Anthem," a song first performed during a March 21, 2009 Orlando, Florida Tea Party that drew over 4,000 people.<ref>Michelle Malkin. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/21/tea-party-usa-the-movement-grows/ Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows], February 21, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://newsblaze.com/story/20090323074552zzzz.nb/topstory.html "Tea Party" Song Becomes YouTube Hit]. ''Newsblaze'', March 23, 2009.</ref><ref>Andrea Shea King. [http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/asking/2009/04/14/american-tea-party-anthem-singer-lloyd-marcus-this-whole-thing-is-rush-limbaughs-fault/ American Tea Party Anthem Singer Lloyd Marcus: "This whole thing is Rush Limbaugh’s fault."], ''Big Hollywood'', April 14, 2009.</ref> [[Dick Armey]] of [[FreedomWorks]] is one of Washington's principal supporters of the Tea Party movement.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,516136,00.html Dick Armey to Speak at Atlanta Tea Party], FOXNews.com, April 15, 2009.</ref> [[Glenn Beck]], [[Rand Paul]], [[Michele Bachmann]], [[Sarah Palin]], and many others have encouraged and participated in aspects of the movement.

Impetus was given to the movement when radio talk-show host [[Rush Limbaugh]] criticized the [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009]] on January 27, commenting, "This 'porkulus' bill is designed to repair the Democratic Party's power losses from the 1990s forward, and to cement the party's majority power for decades."<ref>Rush Limbaugh. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html Rush Limbaugh: My Bipartisan Stimulus], WSJ.com, January 29, 2009.</ref>

On February 9, a Cape Coral woman named Mary Rakovich led a small protest outside President Barack Obama's townhall meeting in Fort Myers, [[Florida]].<ref>[http://www.news-press.com/article/20090211/OBAMA/90210068 Those outside Harborside in Fort Myers had plenty to see, say], ''The News-Press'', February 11, 2009.</ref><ref>Dick Armey, Matt Kibbe. [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704407804575425061553154540.html?KEYWORDS=tea+party+movement A Tea Party Manifesto], ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', August 17, 2010.</ref> Then in late March of 2009, faced with the prospect of heavy fines from the city for not having the proper permitting or insurance, Mary Rakovich moved forward with future protests but with the backing of national organization ''FreedomWorks''. Rakovich said ''FreedomWorks'' offered to provide the insurance per the city's rules.<ref>[http://www.cape-coral-daily-breeze.com/page/content.detail/id/504707.html?nav=5011 Tea party finds new life, broadens cause], cape-coral-daily-breeze.com, March, 31, 2009.</ref>

The first anti-spending protest, organized by Liberty Belle, occurred in [[Seattle]], Washington on February 16, 2009.<ref>Derek Erwin. [http://derekerwin.blogspot.com/2009/04/dozen-ring-liberty-belles-sound-800.html A 'Dozen' Ring Liberty Belle's Sound, 800 Cities Ring-Back], ''A 1-In-100 Blogger'', accessed April 18, 2009.</ref><ref>Michelle Malkin, Glenn Reynolds. [http://www.pjtv.com/video/Pajamas_TV/Tea_Party_Protests%3A_Mesa%2C_Seattle%2C_Denver_%28Michelle_Malkin_and_Glenn_Reynolds%29/1406/ Tea Party Protests: Mesa, Seattle, Denver], PJTV, February 16, 2009.</ref> Another protest was held the following day, held in [[Denver]] on February 17,<ref>[http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/18732002/detail.html President Signs Massive Stimulus In Denver], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref> and a protest in Mesa, [[Arizona]] on February 18 brought 500 protesters.<ref>Gary Grado, Sonu Munshi, Hayley Ringle. [http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/135640/ More than 500 protest Obama's arrival], accessed April 2, 2009.</ref>

===Shout Heard 'Round the World===
The Tea Party Movement gained support when on February 19, on live [[Television|TV]], [[CNBC]] reporter [[Rick Santelli]] argued about the [[bailout]]s and shouted, "The government is promoting bad behavior."<ref>[http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2009/02/rick-santelli-tea-party.html Transcript of Rick Santelli's speech], February 19, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.cnbc.com/id/29283701 Rick Santelli's Shout Heard 'Round the World], CNBC.com, February 19, 2009.</ref> Standing in the middle of the Chicago Stock Exchange, Santelli declared that America needed "a new kind of tea party," so that citizens can express their discontent with "the government's support of fiscal irresponsibility."<ref>Jennifer Rubin. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/mr-president-turn-back-while-theres-still-time/ Mr. President: Turn Back While There’s Still Time], ''Pajamas Media'', February 20, 2009.</ref><ref>Matt Drudge. [http://www.streetinsider.com/Insiders+Blog/Rick+Santelli+-+The+Rant+Heard+Round+the+World/4419854.html Rick Santelli - The Rant Heard 'Round the World'], streetinsider.com, February 19, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago>Andy Roesgen. [http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/TeaParty Protesters Gather for Self-Styled Tea Party], myfoxchicago.com, February 27, 2009.</ref> With the help of ''DontGo'', ''Top Conservatives on Twitter'' (TCOT), ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'' (SGP), ''The American Spectator'', ''Americans for Tax Reform'', ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', and ''The Heartland Institute'', the Chicago Tea Parties were scheduled to happen nationwide on February 27, 2009.<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/23/the-chicago-tea-party-is-on/ The Chicago Tea Party is on!], February 23, 2009.</ref>

==February 27th Tea Parties==
Americans across the country gathered in 50 cities to protest the newly-passed Stimulus Bill of 2009.<ref>[http://www.tcotreport.com/Talking_Points.htm Talking Points and Theme for the Nationwide Chicago Tea Party], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', February 24, 2009.</ref> Over 30,000 people made it to this event.<ref>Teri Christoph. [http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/video/video/show?id=2488056%3AVideo%3A24070& SGP.TeaParty], ''[[Smart Girl Politics]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref> Many at the event were upset over the economic stimulus packages and [[bailout]]s for [[Wall Street]] pushed through by both [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] and President Obama's administrations.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>

{| class="wikitable" border="1"
|- style="background:#ccc; text-align:center;"
! Location !! Sponsors<ref>[http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=page&page-id=68 Schedule of American Tea party Protests (with Sponsors)], February 27, 2009.</ref> !! Details
|-
| Atlanta, Georgia || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || A reported 300 to 400 protesters gathered outside the Georgia Capitol in protest of a $787 billion recovery bill.<ref name="georgia">[http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/02/27/budget-debate-launches-new-tea-party/ Budget debate launches new tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/71521/ Tea Party from Atlanta], pajamasmedia.com, February 17, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Chicago, Illinois]] || Don'tGo<ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/19/chicago-tea-party/ Don'tGo Movement: Pledge to Have a Representation at Chicago Tea Party], February 19, 2009.</ref> || Approximately 300 people braved the 25 degree cold and wind in Chicago.<ref name="illinios">[http://www.foundingbloggers.com/wordpress/2009/02/breaking-chicago-tea-party-pictures/ BREAKING - Chicago Tea Party (Pictures) UPDATED Now With Video!], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.dontgomovement.com/blog/2009/02/27/the-birth-of-a-new-revolution/ The Birth of a New Revolution], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name=myfoxchicago/>
|-
| Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas || Americans for Prosperity,<ref>[http://www.redcounty.com/texas/2009/02/the-tea-parties-were-successfu/ The Tea Parties were successful - here's the proof], February 23, 2009.</ref> TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo, Dallas County Young Republicans || A "Texas-sized Tea Party" of 300 or more Texans met in Fort Worth, protesting big government and taxes.<ref name="fortworth">[http://txtcot.ning.com/video/tea-party-09-made-the-world Tea Party '09 made the world news], February 27, 2009.</ref> One sponsor, TCOT, collected over 800 signatures during the event.<ref>[http://txtcot.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tea-party-09 Tea Party '09], February 28, 2009.</ref>
|-
| Denver, Colorado || TCOT, SGP, Don'tGo || At the East Capitol Steps, 100 "[[Atlas Shrugged]]" fans braved cold temperatures for a "Nationwide Chicago Tea Party" to protest the [[Obama Administration]]'s [[bailout]] plan.<ref name="dcolorado1">[http://coloradoindependent.com/23026/ayn-rand-stars-at-denver-stimulus-tea-party-protest Ayn Rand stars at Denver stimulus ‘tea party’ protest], ''Colorado Independent'', February 28, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcolorado2">[http://colorado.newsplatoon.com/2009/02/24/denver-tea-party/ Denver Tea Party], [[Colorado]], February 24, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Houston, Texas]] || TBD || Large groups, not entirely made up of Republicans, tried to create a modern day version of the Boston Tea Party.<ref>[http://houstontps.org/?page_id=163 Houston Tea Party Society, In the News, Audio, Video], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.khou.com/video/topstories-index.html?nvid=352345&shu=1 Houston's Tax Day tea party], February 27, 2009.</ref>
|-
| [[Washington, D.C.]] || Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Conservatives Coalition, The Heartland Institute || The American Tea Party made some noise outside the White House.<ref name="dc_examiner">[http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/New-American-Tea-Party-40442172.html DC Tea Party thrown at the White House], ''The Washington Examiner'', February 27, 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.freedomworks.org/petition/iamwithrick/index.html 2009 Taxpayer Tea party], February 28, 2009.</ref> Several hundred taxpayers showed up at the DC Tea Party protest in Lafayette Park,<ref name="michellemalkin">[[Michelle Malkin]]. [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/02/27/scenes-from-the-tea-party/ Scenes from the D.C. Tea Party], February 27, 2009.</ref><ref name="dcfreedomworks">[http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/bstein80/video-from-the-dc-tea-party Video from the DC Tea Party], ''[[FreedomWorks]]'', February 28, 2009.</ref> including "Joe the Plumber."<ref name="hotair">[http://hotair.com/archives/2009/02/27/joe-the-plumber-at-dc-tea-party-no-one-on-the-hill-gives-a-rip-about-you/ Joe the Plumber at D.C. Tea Party: No one on the Hill gives a rip about you], ''[[Hot Air]]'', February 27, 2009.</ref>
|}

== Scheduled Rallies ==
[[Image:Headnew.jpg|right|380px|right|Tax Day Tea Party poster]]
=== Tax Day Tea Party ===
: ''Main Article: [[Tax Day Tea Party]]''

==== 2009 ====
Success from the Chicago Tea Parties on February 27, as part of a concerted nationwide effort, led to the Tax Day Tea Party rallies held on April 15, 2009. Following the Chicago Tea Party protests, a group called ''Americans for Prosperity'' of [[North Carolina]] began implementing plans for a "Tax Day" Tea Party rally in Raleigh on the tax filing deadline.<ref>[http://www.raleigh3.com/default.asp?sdetail=1849&sc=2724 Raleigh Holds 'Tea Party' To Protest Government], ''Raleigh Telegram'', March 25, 2009.</ref> Leading up to the Tax Day Tea Parties, the events were organized and promoted by volunteers, activists, and [[Political action committee]]s across the [[United States]].<ref>http://www.freedomworks.org/press-releases/freedomworks-co-sponsoring-taxpayer-tea-parties-ac</ref> By taking advantage of online viral [[marketing]] to get the word out,<ref name="investorsnews">[http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=470054&Ntt=tea+party 'Tea Party' Protests In 35 Cities], March 2, 2009.</ref> the speed and scope with which the Tax Day Tea Party protests were organized can be attributed to the use of [[Twitter]] [[TCOT Report|#TCOT feeds]],<ref>[http://tcotreport.com/ TCOT Report], ''[[The TCOT Report]]''.</ref> on [[blog|blogs]],<ref>Marc Ambinder. [http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/tea_parties_pajamas_and_mediaevent_symbiotics.php Tea Parties, Pajamas, and Media/Event Symbiotics], ''The Atlantic'', February 25, 2009.</ref> and the social networking [[Web site]] [[Facebook]].<ref name="facebook">[http://michellemalkin.com/2009/03/04/going-galt-and-the-next-tea-party-wave/ “Going Galt” and the next Tea Party wave], [[Michelle Malkin]], March 4, 2009.</ref>

President Obama is seen to have responded to the tea parties with requested budget cuts of $100 million on April 20, 2009.<ref name="rushlimbaugh">[[Rush Limbaugh]]. [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042109/content/01125107.guest.html Obama Responded to Tea Parties with $100 Million in "Budget Cuts"], RushLimbaugh.com, April 21, 2009.</ref> Rush Limbaugh contended, "I'm sure they've got internal polling data that shows these tea parties are successful and these tea parties are a problem. So they're responding to the tea parties here. That's all this is." According to a Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey on April 20, 2009, the poll found that fifty-one percent (51%) of Americans had a favorable view of the tea parties held nationwide, including 32% who said their view of the events were "Very favorable." Thirty-three percent (33%) held an unfavorable opinion of the tea parties. Fifteen percent (15%) were not sure.<ref name="rasmussenreports">[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics2/51_view_tea_parties_favorably_political_class_strongly_disagrees 51% View Tea Parties Favorably, Political Class Strongly Disagrees], ''Rasmussen Reports'', April 20, 2009.</ref>

==== 2010 ====
The Tea Party Patriots<ref>http://www.TeaPartyPatriots.org</ref> announced a milestone in the Tea Party movement: 2 million people attended the April 15 Tea Party events across the country in 2010, and 2,000 groups are now voluntarily affiliated with the Tea Party Patriots through its [[Web site]].<ref>PR Newswire. [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20100429.DC96062&show_article=1 Tea Party Numbers Released: 2 Million, 2 Thousand], ''Breitbart'', April 29, 2010.</ref><ref>Greta Van Susteren. [http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/tea-parties-on-tax-day/ Tea Parties on Tax Day], ''GretaWire'', April 16, 2010.</ref> Recent polls have shown that 48% of voters believe their views are reflected more closely in the values of the Tea Party movement than in the views of President Obama.

=== Independence Day ===
: ''Main Article: [[Independence Day Tea Party]]''

The same organizations decided to repeat their performance on [[Independence Day]] (July 4, 2009). Even more people attended; the largest such rally was held on the grounds of the Southfork Ranch (scene of the [[television]] series ''Dallas '), in [[Plano]], [[Texas]], which drew 37,000 attendees. The themes that organizers and participants sounded at these events were much the same as were those at the Tax Day events: advocacy of limited government, decrying of high levels of taxation, and refusal to countenance plans for [[socialism]] and especially socialized [[medicine]].

=== Labor Day ===
Several organizations also organized Tea Parties on [[Labor Day]], once again sounding the same limited-government, low-tax, and anti-socialistic themes. Those organizations that did not plan such events often referred people to those that did.

=== September 12 March on Washington ===
: ''Main Article: [[September 12 March on Washington]]''

[[File:Gadsden_snake.jpg|250px|right]]The largest TEA Party event thus far has been the September 12 March on [[Washington, DC]]. This was an event organized initially by the FreedomWorks Foundation, but nearly all Tea Party organizations decided to participate in this event, primarily by chartering buses and registering people for transportation to Washington. FreedomWorks estimates that 600,000 to 800,000 persons attended, and they base that estimate on the number of persons who responded when their Master of Ceremonies asked all attendees within earshot to send the text message "Freedom" to a designated five-digit telephone number. However, the [[London]] ''Daily Mail'' estimates attendance at as many as a million persons, on the basis of eyewitness accounts and aerial-photographic evidence.<ref name=dailymail>Gardner D, "[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1213056/Up-million-march-US-Capitol-protest-Obamas-spending-tea-party-demonstration.html A million march to US Capitol to protest against 'Obama the socialist']," ''The London Daily Mail'', September 14, 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009.</ref> Estimates of total attendance are difficult to obtain, primarily because the size of the crowd far exceeded the estimates by the event planners, with the result that many attendees were never able to get within earshot of the stage or even the sound system, and the temporary sanitary facilities were hopelessly jammed, with fifty persons standing in line to use each portable "necessary."

=== Operation: Can You Hear us Now? ===
TEA party demonstrations have targeted local and national media outs across the country to oppose massive government spending. In a press release, the movement was led by FaxDC in about 100 cities across the U.S. on September 17th. <ref>[http://www.lookingattheleft.com/2009/10/tea-party-movement-denounces-media-corrupton/ Tea Party Movement Denounces Media Corruption], Lookingattheleft.com, October 19, 2009.</ref> [[Rush Limbaugh]] has previously spoke for the need for such media targeted TEA protests.

* NBC studios in Burbank
* CNN in Atlanta and
* Affiliate stations of NBC, ABC and CBS
* The New York Times
* Los Angeles Times
* Other prominent newspapers.
[[File:Canyouhearusnow.jpg|350px]]

===TEA Party Movie===
''TEA PARTY: The Documentary Film'' was released Thanksgiving Day 2009, is a documentary of five grassroots activists. The story line ''"from home town rally goers and rally organizers to national activists taking part in the 912 Taxpayer March on Washington."'' The theme is about principles, a call for a return to constitutionally limited government, personal responsibility, and fiscal restraint at the Federal level. [http://www.teapartymovie.com/ TEA Party the Movie]

===Pink Slips Campaign===

''Main Article: [[Pink Slips campaign]]''

Organized in part by Joseph Farah from [[WorldNetDaily]], they had a goal of sending each and every member of Congress more than 5,000,000 pink slips.
 
Each pink slip reads '''YOU ARE BEING PUT ON NOTICE''' and

*government health care
*cap and trade
*"hate crimes"
*any more spending

''"If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election"''

As of November 2009, 8 million pink slips have been sent to Congress at a cost of $29 each <ref>[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117136 True grass-roots effort? The 'pink slips' campaign, WND.com, November 25, 2009]</ref>

== Noteworthy achievements ==
=== Elections ===
* The first Tea Party activist to win a special election for a state assembly seat was [[Dean Murray]] in Long Island.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,586821,00.html Meet the First Tea Party Activist to Be Elected Into Office], ''[[Fox News]]'', February 19, 2010.</ref>
* The most stunning victory credited to the Tea Party Movement, specifically to the [[Tea Party Express]], was the surprise nomination of [[Sharron Angle]] over the establishment favorite [[Sue Lowden]] as the Republican candidate for the Senate seat of [[Nevada]].
* The Tea Party Movement is credited with helping to elect [[Senator]] [[Scott Brown]] in an upset for the seat formerly held by the late [[Ted Kennedy]].
* For the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]] endorsed 50 candidates running for U.S. House of Representatives; 31 of 50 Tea Party challengers won their elections.<ref>[http://www.electiondayteaparty.com/ Election Day Tea Party 2010], ElectionDayTeaParty.com, a project of the [[Nationwide Tea Party Coalition]].</ref>

=== Education ===
* The Tea Party Movement has exposed the [[progressive]] agenda and its significant correlation with the failings of higher education in America.<ref>''Our universities haven't taught much political history for decades. No wonder so many progressives have disdain for the principles that animated the Federalist debates.'' [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704631504575531913602803980.html Why Liberals Don't Get the Tea Party Movement], by Peter Berkowitz, ''[[The Wall Street Journal]]'', October 16, 2010.</ref> {{Cquote|Neither [[professors]] of [[political science]] nor of [[history]] have made a priority of instructing students in the [[Founding Fathers|founding principles]] of American [[Constitutional Republic|constitutional government]]. Nor have they taught about the contest between the [[Socialism|progressive vision]] and the [[Limited government|conservative vision]] that has characterized [[American Government Lecture Two|American politics]] since [[Woodrow Wilson]] helped launch the progressive movement in the late 19th century by arguing that the [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] had become [[obsolete]] and hindered [[democratic]] reform. ... They do little to teach about [[Federal republic|self-government]]. They certainly do not teach about the [[virtue|virtues]], or [[quality|qualities]] of [[mind]] and [[character]], that enable citizens to shoulder their political responsibilities and prosper amidst the opportunities and uncertainties that [[freedom]] brings. Nor do they teach the beliefs, practices and associations that foster such virtues and those that endanger them. ... [America's] [[University|universities]] have produced two [[Generation|generations]] of highly educated people who seem unable to recognize the spirited defense of fundamental [[American]] [[Principle|principles]], even when it takes place for more than a year and a half right in front of their noses.}}

== Themes ==
The Tea Party Movement began with a protest against two aspects of current public policy:

# Excessive taxation
# Special privilege

[[Rick Santelli]] specifically cited the mortgage [[bailout]] policies of early 2009 as a prize example of the government doing special favors for certain classes of voters, in return for their continued support, and also of the "moral hazard" in which such policies inevitably place anyone who "buys on time," i.e., buys any sort of asset, from a home appliance to a parcel of [[real estate]], using borrowed money.

As the movement has progressed, it has begun to sound broader themes, which one may best summarize as:

# Self-responsibility
# Self-autonomy
# Limited government
# A requirement that government live within its own means, just as individuals must live within theirs
# Capitalism
# Freedom of all varieties of production and trade
# Respect for the [[United States Constitution]]

== Characteristics ==
=== Autonomy of local organizers ===
Most organization of Tea Parties and similar events is local. Typical of the movement is the Morristown Tea Party Organization ([[Morristown]], [[New Jersey]]), which has a five-member board of trustees and about fifty dedicated volunteers who handle operations, communication, and logistics without assistance or direction from any regional or other organization. State-wide coordinating bodies do exist (for example, New Jersey Tea Parties United), but local organizations are responsible for most of their activities, fund-raising, and legal functioning. In this regard, the Tea Party Movement is similar to the Independent Baptist Fellowship of North America, which never seeks to dictate to individual churches how they must conduct their affairs.

=== Individual comportment and deportment ===
Event participants, and especially event planners, are urged to comport themselves in a manner respectful of the rights and feelings of others. Organizational leaders consciously endeavor to distinguish their movement from many [[liberal]] protest movements, which often characterize themselves by rude behavior, [[vandalism]], and even physical assaults against their opponents. Any person who persistently suggests that Tea Party Movement participants engage in activities remotely similar to this may usually consider themselves excluded, and in some cases organizers have summoned law-enforcement authorities to deal with provocative behavior by attendees at planning and other meetings.

=== Symbols ===
[[File:Gadsden_flag.png|200px|right]]By far the most prominent symbol at Tea Parties is the [[Gadsden Flag|Gadsden]] [[Rattlesnake (American symbol)|Rattlesnake Flag]].<ref>''Heraldric'': Or a rattlesnake sable and or coiled as to strike, facing sinister, on a bed of grass vert; motto "Don't Tread On Me"</ref><ref>[http://www.gadsden.info/Tea-Party.html Gadsden Flag at Tea Party Protests]</ref> The ''[[American historical flags|Come And Take It]]'' Flag has also appeared most notably at the September 12 March on Washington. Tea Party participants have almost always used home-made and home-decorated signs and other artifacts, in sharp contrast to the uniform, professionally printed signs carried at [[liberal]] demonstrations.

Most of the signs bear lampoons of the most highly publicized Obama Administration policies, from "Czars" to socialized medicine; moreover, Barack Obama is not the only target of criticism, the [[MSM]] has also been challenged in some rallies, both for their failings in covering the Tea Party Movement and also for what most participants regard as a collective decision by Mainstream Media organs to function as ''de facto'' government and/or [[Democratic Party]] as organs rather than the objective and disinterested commentators that they pretend to be.

Some of the signs that have been seen and photographed at these events have provoked cries of outrage from Tea Party Movement opponents, alleging bad taste, e.g. a picture of Barack Obama with the square mustache affected by [[Adolf Hitler]] and bearing the caption "I've Changed," and a sign bearing the message "Bury ObamaCare with [[Edward M. Kennedy|Kennedy]]." After the liberal Mainstream Media quickly blamed conservatives and even [[Rush Limbaugh]], some research was done to find the true source of the Hitler poster. It was later uncovered that the provocative Hitler signs were from a group of [[Leftist|far-left]] [[Lyndon LaRouche]] supporters, as they were infiltrating the Tea Party rallies as a means to spread their extreme visions.<ref>Seton Motley. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2009/08/12/nbc-cnn-msnbc-all-assign-communist-larouches-obama-hitler-poster-conse NBC, CNN and MSNBC All Assign Communist LaRouche's Obama-Hitler Poster to Conservatives, Limbaugh], ''NewsBusters'', August 12, 2009.</ref>

=== Demographic profile ===

A Quinnipiac Poll conducted in March 2010 found that thirteen percent of American voters say they are part of the Tea Party movement, a group containing more women than men. 49% told pollsters they voted for [[Barack Obama]] in 2008, while only 44% voted for [[John McCain]].<ref>[http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1436 Quinnipiac Poll, Question 50e, March 2010.]</ref> Despite these findings, the [[White House]] has been linked to efforts to label the Tea Party as [[racist]].<ref>http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-administration-linked-to-fraudulent-racist-tea-party-video/</ref>

== News Coverage ==
[[File:MSMbyTEA.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Attitude of Tea Party Movement participants toward four MSM outlets]]

By far the most industrious news organization that has covered the Tea Party Movement is the [[Fox News Channel]], especially with commentators [[Neil Cavuto]], [[Glenn Beck]], [[Sean Hannity]] and [[Greta Van Susteren]]. Coverage of the Tea Party events by the [[Mainstream Media]] has lacked both quantity and quality. The three traditional broadcast networks ([[ABC]], [[CBS]], [[NBC]]) have attempted to falsely discredit these events as corporate-sponsored or sponsored by the [[Republican Party]] and other conservative or reactionary groups, and have generally censored the movement by refusing to cover major events.<ref name=baker>Baker B, "[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2009/04/16/abc-cbs-nbc-try-discredit-tea-party-protests ABC, CBS and NBC Try to Discredit 'Tea Party' Protests]," ''NewsBusters'', 16 April 2009. Accessed September 16, 2009. Baker does a side-by-side comparison of coverage of the Tax Day Tea Parties and of several pro-immigration rallies held on 1 May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats] Supporters of the Tea Party Movement receive death threats from socialists and liberal extremists, but the [[MSM]] looks the other way and refuses mention the story.</ref>

===Uncivil Language===
Several news anchors working for [[CNN]] and [[MSNBC]] used uncivil language to describe Tea Partiers and coined the phrase "teabaggers," which is a crude term used to slur conservatives. Additionally, President Obama used the crude term as an off-color connotation attempting to mock Tea Party Movement leaders and participants across the nation. During an interview with the ''[[New York Times]]'', Barack Obama described the people of the Tea Party Movement as "the teabag, anti-government [extremists]."<ref>Michael Patrick Leahy. [http://www.tcotreport.com/obamaslur.html In Pep Talk to Democrats Yesterday, Obama Used Crude Term to Slur Conservatives], ''[[The TCOT Report]]'', November 8, 2009.</ref>

===Death Threats===
Tea Party organizers are not controlled or funded by the Republican Party or any established interest group. However, ''[[FreedomWorks]]'' and [[Dick Armey]] are well known supporters of the Tea Party Movement, and thus receive dozens of threatening and harassing calls and E-mails each day. ''FreedomWorks'' provided ''U.S. News & World Report'' with some of the recordings of the threatening calls, which include physical threats and profanity aimed at the group, Tea Party spokesmen and even [[conservative]] talkers. ''"You guys better watch it,"'' says one caller. ''"Now, we are going to destroy and obliterate [[Rush Limbaugh|Rush [Limbaugh]]] and [[Sean Hannity]],"'' said another. ''"Those two guys are dead."''<ref>Paul Bedard. [http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/08/25/tea-party-group-hit-with-death-threats Tea Party Group Hit With Death Threats], ''U.S. News & World Report'', August 25, 2010.</ref>

===Commentary===
[[Gordon Anderson]] wrote:
{{Cquote|Corruption and abuse of power seek to cloak themselves under the banner of security interests in order create elite ruling classes that are a threat to the security of those they are sworn to protect and the constitutions they are supposed to uphold. Citizens in both the United States and the European Union are witnessing the fruits of their lack of vigilance. This is a core underlying concern and reason for the rise of the “Tea Party” movement and its European counterparts. Such movements will continue arise as leaders of the so-called “free world” continue to violate the major principles of sound governance and hide corrupt actions under veils of secrecy.<ref>http://forum.newworldencyclopedia.org/index.php/2010/12/wikileaks-and-the-balance-of-political-principles/</ref>}}

===Polls===
In late 2009, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll showed 41% of Americans have a positive view of the tea party movement, and 24% had a negative view . By contrast, only 35% of Americans have a positive view of the Democrats and only 28% have a positive view of the Republican Party.<ref> see [http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/16/wsjnbc-news-poll-tea-party-tops-democrats-and-republicans/ "WSJ/NBC News Poll: Tea Party Tops Democrats and Republicans," ''Wall Street Journal'' Dec. 16, 2009]</ref> This view appears to have demised slightly recently, dropping to a low of 21% <ref>http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-06/americans-have-more-negative-view-of-tea-party-u-s-poll-shows.html</ref> in August 2011.

{{Conservatism}}

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

==See Also==
* [[Tax Day Tea Party]]
* [[Independence Day Tea Party]]
* [[9/12 March on Washington D.C.]]
* [[Boston Tea Party]]
* [[Tea Party Organizations]]
* [[Tea Party Express]]
* [[Tea Party Patriots]]
* [[Contract From America]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.nationalteapartyconvention.com/ National Tea Party Unity Convention], TEA Party Nation (TPN).
* [http://www.onlinetaxrevolt.com/march/ The Online Tax Revolt March], Choose an Avatar and March Online to Washington.
* [http://taxdayteaparty.com/ Tax Day Tea Party]
* [http://www.reteaparty.com/ America's Re-Tea Party]
* [http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ Tea Party Patriots]
* [http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html Don't Tread on Me]: Gadsden Flag History.
* [http://ccsrwm.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/shared/docs/Berlet%20paper.pdf Demonizing the Tea Party Movement by Chip Barlett (Berkeley)] PDF

===Music Videos===
{{main|Tea Party Movement Videos}}

* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2H8xHFXC8U&feature=player_embedded American Tea Party Anthem], by Lloyd Marcus
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT54cGEv7Nk I am America], by Krista Branch
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwvuimX2bjI&list=QL Rise Up], music by Jeremy Hoop from ''[http://www.teapartymovie.com/film.html The Tea Party Movie]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfH46DTAkxo When You're Holding a Hammer (Everything Looks Like a Nail)], by Kyle Hill and Bryan Glover
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3CIPnQUOK0 Tip of the Spear], music by Phil Cuomo and Phil Valentine from the motion picture ''[http://philvalentine.com/AnInconsistentTruth.htm An Inconsistent Truth]''
* [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG38P92wQlc Don't tread on me], by the band ''[[Metallica]]'' ([http://www.sing365.com/music/Lyric.nsf/Don%27t-Tread-On-Me-lyrics-Metallica/1F9C85C5B25CB6FF4825688D0034190D Lyrics])

[[Category:Taxation]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Tax Revolts]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]
[[Category:Tea Party Movement]]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-08-07T02:01:55Z

KenN: /* Particle man? Really? */

See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.

: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?

: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit

: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.

: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

==Last Kiss==
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

==Possible Addition==

Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

::"Another Brick In The Wall" is more of a neutral song. Its part of a concept album in which the main character slowly seperates himself from society. Most Pink Floyd songs are about madness, due to their original lead singer going insane. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:32, 24 November 2010 (EST)

==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==

:I'm glad the commies were thrown out
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)

== Are these truly conservative? ==

While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.

For example: The Beatles - Revolution
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing.

I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)

I would just like add that Revolution 1 was written as a reaction against the protesters against the Vietnam War who were getting violent. All Revolution is saying is for the protesters to protest, but not violently, which is still liberal, but a message than other liberal songs. However, for other Beatles songs, they range from being liberal (Why Don't We Do It in the Road?) to be being kind of conservative (Let It Be). Most however, are pretty much neutral. You usually kind Paul McCartney as being more concervative, and Lennon as liberal. [[User:TobyKeet|TobyKeet]] 05:28, 24 November 2010 (EST)

:One problem with the above analysis: Why Don't We Do It In the Road was McCartney's; Lennon was rather famously not involved at all. Personally I've always thought of it as a kind of parody of the free love movement, though apparently that wasn't McCartney's intention. [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:25, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== In Your Eyes ==

Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)

: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been "basic statistical interpretation". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|MakeTomorrow]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)

::::: Why did you cite your counterexample, if it wasn't an example of the logical fallacy #2 in [[liberal logic]]? Do you really think a counterexample disproves causation?

==Land of Confusion==
Does Genesis' ''Land of Confusion'' belong on the list? I remember the music video portraying Ronald Reagan (in puppet form) as inept, and it parodies several conservative leaders, including Margaret Thatcher, et. al. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 13:58, 5 March 2009 (EST)

: It's liberal lyric of "too many people" is enough reason to bounce it from the list. Thanks for catching this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:53, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Should Fortunate Son really be on this list?==

It's vehemently anti-war. Please correct if I'm wrong, but I don't think that's a very conservative belief. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

:I just looked the lyrics. Pretty confused stuff. I'd agree it's not conservative. Would you like to toss it from the list? Please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 7 January 2010 (EST)

:Done. [[User:JRobbe|JRobbe]]

== Long Black Train by Josh Turner? ==

To me, this song seems like a good candidate for this list. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 07:14, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== The Decision by Ricky Van Shelton ==

I think this is another good candidate for this list. It's a song about a teenage girl who gives in to peer pressure and gets pregnant and the consequences of that action. --[[User:Dfrischknecht|Dfrischknecht]] 09:02, 22 July 2010 (EDT)

== New Agey ==

I removed the new agey phrase of "the cycle of life, death and rebirth," for the "Lightning Crashes," by Live, but feel free to discuss here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

: That wasn't meant to seem "new agey" in the least, but I do understand what you're saying. The song presents a view of life as being cyclical, as the baby is being born an old woman dies, and "The confusion that was hers belongs now to the baby down the hall." I think the lyrics really speak to the significance of life (not just at childbirth), but as a whole. I don't think the song is necessarily about the old woman being reincarnated as the newborn child, but it definitely seems to speak of the circle of life.[[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 15:56, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

:: Perhaps a rewording would work then? How about replacing "the cycle of life, death and rebirth" with "the joy of childbirth in contrast with the end of life"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

::: I agree that a rewording would work, thank you for working with me. Perhaps we could just say that the song celebrates the significance of life from birth until death, almost in an as one door closes another opens kind of way? [[User:JaneX|JaneX]] 20:00, 22 September 2010 (EDT)

== Song idea ==

"One Man, One Woman" sung by ABBA. Indirectly a tribute to traditional marriage and monogamy.--[[User:TedM|TedM]] 12:14, 12 January 2011 (EST)

: Sounds good by the title, so how about adding it where you think it would be appropriate in the list? Thanks for your insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:17, 12 January 2011 (EST)

== Takin' Care of Business ==

This song by BTO is on the list for supporting "Hard work ethic", but its not. The refrain is jokingly ironic. "I love to work at nothing all day; and I've been taking care of business"

The body of the song describes a more easy going life just making music rather than waking up early, catching trains for work, etc.

I'm not saying it makes the song liberal, and not sure why its even necessary to classify songs along political lines, but it sure as heck ain't about working hard.
I'd suggest if someone wants to keep it here because its a good song, and if people can only enjoy it because it conforms to their political views, than change the reason to "Mike Huckabee performed the song" [comment by AndrewJackson]

:You left out how the song praises the self-employed, which is a very conservative, hard-working group of people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:55, 21 March 2011 (EDT)

::Fair enough, but the praise you speak of is "If you ever get annoyed [with, based on earlier lyrics, either your traditional job or the unpleasant commute involved], look at me, I'm self-employed; I love to work at nothing all day." That could be taken as either "I made so much money as an entepreneur that I no longer need to work" or "My official job title is 'Bum'." Neither one of them really expresses admiration for "hard work" in its own right, though the former is certainly a more positive role model than the latter. I do ''like'' the song, but I'm not entirely sanguine about considering it "conservative." [[User:Ptorquemada|Ptorquemada]] 17:36, 4 April 2011 (EDT)

== Adonai My Lord ==

I'm going to delete this song from the list, as it is from the atheistic industrial metal genre. The lyrics reflect a sort of militant Christianity that does not reflect well on the religion as a whole. For example, this group has a song called "Christf---"...obviously they are not conservative. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:14, 23 March 2011 (EDT)

==No U2?==

Surely -- despite the band's liberal leanings -- one of U2's unashamedly Christian songs should make it in. Gloria seems the obvious choice. The chorus, you may remember, goes: "Gloria, in te domine/ Gloria, exultate/ Gloria, Gloria/ Oh Lord, loosen my lips." --[[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 12:34, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:Agreed. Gloria is definitely a good choice. Perhaps "40"; its lyrics are directly lifted from Psalm 40. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 12:43, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
::You're kidding right? [http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/us-election/u2-honoured-to-be-involved-with-obama-celebrations-14145757.html Conservative indeed..] [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:06, 28 March 2011 (EDT)
:::Bono has had a relationship with every President since Clinton; for instance, he worked with Bush on issues relating to Africa and AIDS awareness. The band is very Christian and in no way ashamed of their Christianity. And, rare for rock stars, three of the four members of the band are married family men. They are known for their charitableness and philanthropy, which are of course [[conservative]] traits. Without a doubt, U2 is a conservative, Christian band and they should have representation on this list. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 22:21, 28 March 2011 (EDT)

::::''Gloria'''s a good choice, please add it if you agree. But U2 became increasingly liberal the more media attention it obtained.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:07, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

:::::Maybe it's possible to be Christian and pro-family, and yet left-leaning politically. Anyway, I vote for "Beautiful Day" ... The heart is a bloom / Shoots up through the stony ground / But there's no room / No space to rent in this town

:::::Reminds me of how inhospitable this fallen world can be to the spirits of believers trying to lead a godly life in the midst of a secular world which often seems to be ruled by the devil (John 12:31). Yet God's love is there, like sunshine! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:53, 29 March 2011 (EDT)

== Brothers in Arms - Dure Straits ==

I would like to suggest Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits. It's about war and having ones "brother's in arms" in support. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:32, 4 April 2011 (EDT)
:If there is no argument to it's inclusion I'll add it soon. Let me know your thoughts though...[[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:42, 5 April 2011 (EDT)

== YMCA? ==

I'd always heard that the Village People's YMCA was about [[homosexual]] men seducing other men? That doesn't sound very [[conservative]] to me. Is this just a rumor? --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 12:45, 12 May 2011 (EDT)
:This was obviously added as a joke, and no one else seems to have realized it! [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 12:25, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::Nope - the song is a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
:::Right. And Antony came to bury Caesar, not to praise him. "It's fun to stay at the Y-M-C-A. / They have everything that you need to enjoy, / You can hang out with all the boys..." [[User:TriciaS|TriciaS]] 13:32, 18 June 2011 (EDT)
::::It was probably written about more savory activities at the Y but later became identified as a gay anthem. I don't think it's a "conservative song" if it's overwhelmingly associated with homosexuality. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:43, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::The song is a good faith tribute and attempts to redefine it are not factual.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:10, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

:::::: Does anyone have any solid sources one way or the other as to what this song means? I tried some brief googling, but didn't turn up anything at all trustworthy. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:35, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::: The band leader said it was a legitimate tribute to the Young Men's Christian Association, and we respect original meaning at ''Conservapedia''.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:40, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Awesome. Do you have a source for that I can add?--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 21:28, 29 June 2011 (EDT)

== Really? Have You Looked Into These Songs? ==

I'd just like to say that I think it's really jacked that you're going around and trying to SAY what these songs mean. For example, Metallica is NOT a conservative band. James Hetfield was a heavy drinker until he went to rehab, Kirk Hammett suffered from drug addiction during his teen years, and if you listen to any other song you hear that they are NOT a conservative band.

Furthermore, Journey is NOT a conservative band. Steve Perry openly voted for Obama in 2008. --[[User:Beanna|Beanna]] 20:04, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

: This isn't a list of conservative bands. It's a list of conservative ''songs''. Even liberals are capable of occasionally singing a conservative song.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:19, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== An idea... ==

I was looking at this list and realised that most of the songs listed here are big hit numbers. I was thinking that it might be interesting to look at whether the more conservative a song is the better it does on the charts. Even though the artist might be liberal it seems there bigger hits are in fact conservative songs! Maybe by charting something like this we could prove that people respond better to the conservative message and perhaps change the minds of some liberal singers. Just an idea. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:31, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:We could add the respective chart ranking to this page and then collate the results by rank and date. Perhaps, like the conservative words, we might even see the same pattern repeated here! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:48, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

::Great idea!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
:::It'll be a big project though so it'll be awhile for me to collate the results but I fear that we'll find that the majority of new hits are liberal in nature (particulalry coming from M&M and Usher etc) but I think that is because of the "hollywood" influence. Interestingly artists distanced from "fame" have better messages and ''still'' produce amazing hits. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 23:11, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== From a youngin' ==

Citizen/Soldier by 3 Doors Down. I don't know about the band themselves, but any song that supports the National Guard should be listed here, in my honest option. If no one minds, I'll add it.

== Wish you were here ==

This is a good list of songs, but as far as I know, ''Wish you were here'' (the title track, along with the entire eponymous album) was not dedicated to a conservative president, but rather to ex-Pink Floyd member Syd Barrett. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:19, 16 June 2011 (EDT)

: I agree that this needs a citation, given that it is so contrary to the conventional story. I've looked for one, but every indication points to it being inspired by Syd Barrett, not a conservative leader (indeed; one would think, Pink Floyd being made up of Englishmen, that it would be a conservative PM, not President.). --[[User:Monty]]

== Two song suggestions ==

Hallowed Be Thy Name - Iron Maiden

1) Like Welcome to the Family, it's about death row, but not anti-death penalty.

2) Multiple references to an afterlife. "Tears they flow but why am I crying?/After all I am not afraid of dying/Don't I believe that there never is an end?" and later in the song: Mark my words believe my soul lives on/Don't worry now that I have gone/I've gone beyond to seek the truth".

3) The very title of the song is derived from the Lord's Prayer, which is also implied to be the protagonist (in the song)'s final words.

Declaration Day - Iced Earth

The whole thing is about the American war for independence, so it's probably a good choice for the list.

I'll add them for the time being, but if most of you think they don't go, I'll take them down.

: Thanks for suggesting them, but I don't see much that is conservative in your first suggestion other than acceptance of an afterlife (or judgment). That's an important message, but some of the religious references seem to be simply an attempt to give the song gravitas. Perhaps others have some insights about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:54, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

::Perhaps it's time to branch out and create a category or essay on "Songs of interest to conservatives" or [[Songs that Conservatives like]].

::I like a lot of songs, even if I would be hard pressed to say why they are "conservative songs". Not every song or book or movie I like is [[Conservative]], and I think it's important to be broad-minded enough not to condemn everything that isn't 100% in line with my beliefs and values.

::In fact, I go even further and say that one of the main differences between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are supremely narrow-minded. All the talk about "tolerance" is a one way street with them. They want us to tolerate their radical notions, but they are ready at the drop of a hat to kick us out of their cushy little world any time we offer a different idea.

::You would never hear of a Bible-belt Christian walking up to a famous liberal author and kicking his wine glass over at a picnic, saying, "We don't allow liberals here." (see [[Glen Beck in NYC]]). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:35, 15 July 2011 (EDT)

== I don't think Lola qualifies ==

IIRC, it ends with a complete lack of repentance -- "I'm glad I'm a man, and so is Lola". I don't think that this song qualifies as conservative if it celebrates that which we abhor.

:Our sister project, Wikipedia, says the song "details a romantic encounter between a young man and a transvestite" (hardly a conservative theme). --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:09, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

== Overhaul the "Greatest Conservative Songs" ==

I think this is something that needs to happen before this Essay begins to get out of control. GCSs Essay needs to reorganized into some sort of categorical order—be it alphabetical or otherwise—in order to clean up the Essay and to provide clarity to avoid double posting. I will be happy to categorize it alphabetically by either the artist or song. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:I've just rewritten most of the page. Everything is nearly exactly the same, except for a small amount of rephrasing to keep things grammatically correct. I've added peak chart position for every song, but in the interest of making that data comparable, I've limited it to US chart positions. There are some songs (like Brothers In Arms) which charted well in other countries, but didn't chart at all in the US. I eliminated two duplicate entries - Ballad of the Green Berets, and God's Gonna Cut You Down. Enjoy. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]
::Good work CGoodwin. Maybe we can have the same revision for [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]. [[User:KBarnett|KBarnett]] 15:47, 29 July 2011 (EDT)

:::CGoodwin, your tabular format and ranking information is interesting. Well done. But surely ''Amazing Grace'' has been more popular than just about every other song on the list. How should the table reflect that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:05, 29 July 2011 (EDT)
::::Billboard popularity only measures against how everything else is selling at the same time. If an song sold 100 copies a week for 20 years, it would never crack the charts. The other thing is that there are over 3000 recorded versions of the song. The highest charting individual version I've found is Elvis's, which reached #79. If you want to reflect a broader historical sense of popularity, I'd suggest doing a personal ranking. [[user:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

:::::Great Job CGoodwin! Very clean and will definatly help those looking to post songs to check to see if they are or are not already posted. -- [[User:Austenbosten|Austenbosten]] 16:32, 30 July 2011 (EDT)

== Particle man? Really? ==

I think someone must be sabotaging this page. I fail to see how "Particle man" qualifies as an allegory, rather than fun wordplay around a tune not entirely unlike the Spiderman theme song.

:I have to agree on this one, I looked up what people think is the meaning, and seems its more likely an atheist song then a conservative one. [[User:KenN|KenN]]

Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs

2011-08-05T04:07:02Z

KenN:

There are many brilliant—and popular—conservative songs.

Here is our growing list:

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
!Song
!Artist
!Comments
!Billboard Rank
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0heL2Czeraw ''I Am America'']
|Krista Branch
|American [[Tea Party Movement]] Song
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT88jBAoVIM ''Amazing Grace'']
|[[John Newton]]
|A Christian hymn published in 1779.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IStlBOX9F4o ''God's Gonna Cut You Down'']
|Traditional
|"Go tell that long tongue liar, go and tell that midnight rider, tell the rambler, the gambler, the back biter, tell 'em that God's gonna cut 'em down"
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI ''Wouldn't It Be Nice'']
|The [[Beach Boys]]
|Pro-marriage
|8
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iYY2FQHFwE ''Okie From Muskogee'']
|Merle Haggard
|Anti-drug and anti-hippie; a song about praising the traditional American values in Mid-America. Was written in response to the Vietnam War protests and counter-culture movement.
|1 (Billboard Hot Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl6yilkU1LI ''Fast Car'']
|Tracy Chapman
|Self-help, free market, division of labor, and a criticism of alcohol. "I know things will get better/You'll find work and I'll get promoted/We'll move out of the shelter/Buy a bigger house and live in the suburbs"
|6
|-
|[http://youtu.be/EgkBx8csEws ''Goodbye, Yellow Brick Road'']
|Elton John
|The same message as the [[Prodigal Son]]: look objectively at our own lives, and realize that "I should have listened to my old man."
|2
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5RkzbHb-w ''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)'']
|The Supremes
|Abstinence for rock fans. Also performed by Phil Collins.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6yLQRF-cEU ''Have You Forgotten?'']
|Darryl Worley
|Patriotic response to [[September 11, 2001 attacks]].<ref>http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=15568</ref>
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5aMMRes2u4 ''Still the One'']
|Orleans
|A tribute to fidelity in relationships.
|5
|-

|[http://youtu.be/oHg5SJYRHA0 ''Sweet Home Alabama'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereotyped attacks by [[liberal]], Canadian rocker Neil Young. "Well, I hope Neil Young will remember/A Southern man don't need him around anyhow."
|8
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-1_d6bbM1I ''My Love'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|A Christian love in secular form.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16u0wwCfoJ4 ''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)'']
|The Crickets
|Its title says it all. The version by ''The Clash'' has a particularly good tempo.
|9 (Bobby Fuller Four version)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/pEnLNWoln1c ''Anything Goes'']
|Guns N' Roses
|A blatant message about the dangers of premarital sex
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/6j7huh5Egew ''Seven Nation Army'']
|The White Stripes
|A song about the growing power of conservatism
|1 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew ''Stand By Your Man'']
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|Don't expect [[feminists]] to like that one! Or [[Hillary Clinton]]!
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/r5Q8Xa0bPy8''Battle Hymn of the Republic'']
|Lee Greenwood
|"As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/lnk8SKD9zcA''You Light Up My Life'']
|Debby Boone
|One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=np0solnL1XY ''Free Bird'']
|Lynyrd Skynyrd
|Because [[Conservatives]] want a free country, and [[liberals]] are in love with [[communism]].
|19
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= ''Jerusalem'']
|William Blake / Sir Hubert Parry
|Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms'']
|[[Dire Straits]]
|We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeWZhuzFMM8 ''The Ascent of Stan'']
|[[Ben Folds]]
|Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.
|NA
|-
|''Starting All Over Again''
|[[Petula Clark]]
|Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/bCFWyLwcR6E ''Thank You My Lord'']
|[[Petula Clark]]
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/7NJMTmz7pkg ''Brick'']
|Ben Folds Five
|Shows the regret involved in abortion.
|6 (Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/Dw6qmYX1ny4 ''Alive'']
|P.O.D.
|About being thankful for the gift of life.
|2 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html ''Gotta Serve Somebody'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|"It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."
|24
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lydBPm2KRaU ''Jesus, Take The Wheel'']
|[[Carrie Underwood]]
|A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPBwXKgDTdE ''Mine'']
|Taylor Swift
|Talks about how her parents stooped to [[liberal values]] and divorced, and how she doesn't want that to happen with the guy she meets, dates, and marries.
|1 (US Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://youtu.be/FAvQSkK8Z8U ''Red Barchetta'']
|[[Rush]]
|Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/K5N2WJ1szHE ''Father of Mine'']
|Everclear
|A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.
|4
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM ''Taxman'']
|[[The Beatles]]
|George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4eonyfRet8&feature=related ''Back in the U.S.A.'']
|[[Chuck Berry]]
|A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.
|16
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZVPv9B-ZlM ''Government Cheese'']
|The Rainmakers
|Humorous spoof of welfare.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErPywgiMb4k ''Angry Young Man'']
|[[Billy Joel]]
|The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzU2iJ9qfXg ''Gimme Back My Bullets'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|The name says it all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPPlGFh6OpQ ''Spirit In The Sky'']
|Norman Greenbaum
|
|3
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38oeBgvbMYA ''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'']
|Grand Funk Railroad
|A father gives his son some sage advice.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=096LhjGNNCk ''Something For Nothing'']
|Rush
|"You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/kD5M_i6JceU ''Neighborhood Bully'']
|[[Bob Dylan]]
|Israel's right to exist and defend itself.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2duiu0W_TSA&feature=fvst ''New Divide'']
|Linkin Park
|Depicts a typical scenario of conservatives having to defend themselves from unreasonable liberal attacks and the ever-widening divide between the two ideologies.
|1
|-
|[http://youtu.be/4ZEE8utquP8 ''Get it Right the First Time'']
|Louisiana's LeRoux
|Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.
|NA
|-
|[http://youtu.be/QCQTr8ZYdhg ''Wish You Were Here'']
|Pink Floyd
|A song about wishing that a conservative president would return back to office.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace'']
|[[Yes]]
|Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.
|NA
|-
|''Fair Exchange'' and ''Sparks of the Tempest''
|[[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]
|Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''In America''
|The [[Charlie Daniels]] Band
|Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
|11
|-
|''Storm the Embassy''
|The Stray Cats
|Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis. "Fifteen man taken captive in a hostile foreign land/Scorchin' sun beaming down onto miles and miles of sand..."
|NA
|-
|''We Must Take America Back''
|Steve Vaus
|Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.
|NA
|-
|''Renegade''
|[[Steppenwolf]]
|[[John Kay]]'s childhood escape from Communist [[East Germany]].
|NA
|-

|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqXAW2snGMI ''Capitalism'']
|Oingo Boingo
|There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.
|NA
|-
|''Unborn Child''
|Seals and Crofts
|This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.
|66
|-
|''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)''
|Steve Taylor
|Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".
|NA
|-
|''Last Kiss''
|Wayne Cochran and the C.C. Riders
|"Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when."
|2 (J. Frank Wilson version)
|-
|''Love Me, I'm a Liberal''
|Phil Ochs
|Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.
|NA
|-
|''America USA''
|Joey Sudyka
|Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6XZDb045xU ''Red White & Blue (Love It or Leave)'']
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|
|27
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBohsCG8emk ''Simple Man'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.
|12
|-
|''That Smell''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A very strong anti-drug use song by America's most well-known Southern rock band.
|NA
|-
|''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''
|[[Toby Keith]]
|
|1 (Hot Country Songs)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pldyz9VS2yY ''Under God'']
|[[Pat Boone]]
|
|NA
|-
|''Christmas Shoes''
|NewSong
|A Christmas song by a Christian band.
|1 (Adult Contemporary)
|-
|[http://www.scoutsongs.com/lyrics/proudtobeamerican.html ''God Bless the USA'']
|Lee Greenwood
|
|7 (Hot Country)
|-
|''God Bless America''
|Irving Berlin
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed'']
|Richie Havens (Covered by Yes)
|"...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you..."
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g ''Supper's Ready'']
|[[Genesis (band)|Genesis]]
|''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoaH0I9UwLI ''Your Love Is Extravagant'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnnhYE1DhC4 ''What If His People Prayed'']
|Casting Crowns
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EBiei21-C8 ''King Without a Crown'']
|Matisyahu
|A Hasidic Jew raps about God as the source of happiness and salvation from the things of this world: "If you're drowning in the waters and you can't stay afloat ask Hashem for mercy and He'll throw you a rope."
|7 (Hot Modern Rock Tracks)
|-
|''Take Me Home, Country Roads''
|John Denver
|Celebrates Southern country landscape and traditions.
|2
|-
|''Sin City''
|The Flying Burrito Brothers
|Attacks modern decadence and predicts divine punishment for sin.
|NA
|-
|''I Saw The Light''
|Hank Williams
|Redemption of sin through faith.
|NA
|-
|''No Son of Mine''
|Genesis
|
|12
|-
|''Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)''
|Fleetwood Mac
|Used by Bill Clinton as his campaign theme song in 1992, but liberals often try to appeal to conservative themes for elections.
|3
|-
|''Lightning Crashes''
|Live
|The joy and significance of childbirth.
|1
|-
|''Takin' Care of Business''
|Bachman-Turner Overdrive
|The work ethic and promoting self-employment.
|12
|-
|''Cat's In The Cradle''
|Harry Chapin
|The importance of traditional families and responsible fatherhood.
|1
|-
|[http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=6547 ''The Devil Went Down To Georgia'']
|[[Charlie Daniels]]
|A deeper message here, as Daniels explains.
|3
|-
|''The Big Money''
|Rush
|Pro-[[capitalism]]
|45
|-
|''Real American''
|Rick Derringer
|Patriotic anthem, known as [[Hulk Hogan]]'s pre-match song.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP5EfwBWgg0&feature=related ''Go Down Moses'']
|[[Louis Armstrong]]
|
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5zEP4kvfnc ''Walking Contradiction'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]], here [[Green Day]] mocks the often self-contradictory and inconsistent [[liberal]] ideologies, hence the term "walking contradiction".
|21
|-
|''God and Guns''
|[[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]
|A powerful new song that elaborates on the song title.
|NA
|-
|''Stayin' Alive''
|The Bee Gees
|Pro-people and pro-staying alive, and this: "we can try to understand/the [[New York Times]]' effect on man."
|1
|-
|''Sympathy for the Devil''
|The Rolling Stones
|Reminds humanity conservatives are perfect and evil is present in the world and needs to be fought.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVsZap7WBm8 ''All In'']
|Lifehouse
|Describes a relationship with God as being full of commitment and without reservations.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y5GDvN9_OE ''The Ballad of the Green Berets'']
|Sergeant Barry Sadler
|Pro-American and pro-military.
|1
|-
|''Iraq No Phobia''
|Pro-Pain
|It is a pro-American, pro-military heavy metal song about the first [[Gulf War]]: ''"Mohammed's no match for the great Uncle Sam."''
|NA
|-
|''Bus Stop''
|The Hollies
|Pro-[[chivalry]], pro-romance and pro-marriage: "Someday my name and hers are going to be the same."
|5
|-
|''Stranger in Blue Suede Shoes''
|Kevin Ayers
|Defends the right of businessmen to choose their customers: "we don't serve strangers in blue suede shoes".
|NA
|-
|''Union Sundown''
|Bob Dylan
|The title says it all.
|NA
|-
|''People Get Ready''
|Curtis Mayfield and the Impressions
|An all-time classic song about the glory of the [[Lord]].
|3
|-
|''Get a Job''
|The Silhouettes
|Self-explanatory; a rebuke to lazy [[liberals]] who want to sit around and wait for government handouts.
|1
|-
|''Pray''
|Justin Bieber
|A song about supporting your country.
|61
|-
|''Hypnotize''
|System of a Down
|SOAD is a rather left-ish band although this song is about liberals believing anything they see or hear in the media.
|1
|-
|''Gematria (The Killing Name)''
|Slipknot
|This song is about what the liberals of America, who can get ''very'' annoying sometimes.
|NA
|-
|''Don't Tread On Me''
|Metallica
|Name says it all!
|21
|-
|''Welcome to the Family''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|A song about death row, although not anti-death penalty.
|8
|-
|''Turn, Turn, Turn''
|The Byrds
|An almost word-for-word direct quotation from the [[Bible]], specifically [[Ecclesiastes]], with the addition of the refrain "Turn, Turn, Turn".
|1
|-
|''Particle Man''
|They Might Be Giants
|Allegory for small business owners crushed by big government.
|NA
|-
|''Critical Acclaim''
|Avenged Sevenfold
|Pro-America and pro-Military.
|NA
|-
|''The Star Spangled Banner''
|Francis Scott Key
|The American national anthem.
|NA
|-
|''YMCA''
|The Village People
|This song praises youth activities at the Young Men's Christian Association; one of the biggest hits of all time.
|2
|-
|[http://www.lyricsfreak.com/p/pearl+jam/dissident_20106414.html ''Dissident'']
|Pearl Jam
|About a woman who engages in [[liberal values]] by being impregnated out of wedlock and having an abortion, but immediately regrets doing so.
|3
|-
|[http://www.justsomelyrics.com/767663/McCarthy-Keep-an-Open-Mind-or-Else-Lyrics ''Keep an Open Mind or Else'']
|McCarthy
|About the conservative value of keeping an [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness|open mind]].
|NA
|-
|''Way Out Here''
|Josh Thompson
|"Our house is all protected by the good Lord and a Gun", and "We wont take a dime if we aint earned it, when it comes to weight, brother we pull our own". It is pro gun ownership, the Lord, and hard work. Also preaches the morals and ethics that are known from small towns.
|15 (US Country)
|-
|''D-I-V-O-R-C-E''
|[[Tammy Wynette]]
|This sad song was a huge hit in 1968.
|1
|-
|''Respect''
|Aretha Franklin
|This song is about respecting woman and their choices to be equal members in society.
|1
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cxwIWPJV0I ''A Better Tomorrow'']
|Wu-Tang Clan
|A rap song about staying away from liberal excess and illegal acts in order to be a positive influence for the next generation.
|NA
|-
|''Game of Love''
|Wayne Fontana and the Mindbenders
|"The purpose of a man is to love a woman, and the purpose of a woman is to love a man... It started long ago in the Garden of Eden when Adam said to Eve 'Baby, you're for me.'"
|1
|-
|''It's America''
|Rodney Atkins
|Celebrates the American spirit and all the good things about the United States.
|1 (US Country)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eebfMFzJHNs&ob=av2e ''Warning'']
|[[Green Day]]
|Though a vocal critic of the [[Bush Administration]] and clearly supportive of [[liberal values]], here they once again challenge liberal values with this song that mocks the liberal Nanny-state.
|3 (US Alternative)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHAFmFsb9XM&feature=related ''The Fightin' Side of Me'']
|Merle Haggard
|A song about patriotism and standing up for [[America]].
|1 (Hot Country Singles)
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mA_H6C8iLPA ''Liberalism is a Mental Disorder'']
|The Infidel (Gregory Van Leer Jr.) with an opening from [[Michael Savage]]
|Clearly attacks [[liberal values]].
|NA
|-
|''The River''
|[[Bruce Springsteen]]
|Pre-marital sex and trade unionism punished by depression and redundancy.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.robertchristgau.com/get_artist.php?name=sex+pistols''Bodies'']
|The Sex Pistols
|Profane but graphically anti-abortion.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h1oRP7FfBw ''Sunny Afternoon'']
|The Kinks
|About a rich man trying to enjoy the simple things in life because the Nanny-state has nearly bankrupted him.
|14
|-
|''2+2=5 (The Lukewarm)''
|Radiohead
|A song chastising people for accepting the mainstream medias version of events and not paying attention.
|NA
|-
|''No Children''
|The Mountain Goats
|A song about a marriage falling apart because the couple has no children to hold the family together.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuUmLIPSasI ''God Loves My Country'']
|Balthrop, Alabama
|A song that declares that God loves America most of all.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J51LPlP-s9o ''Hallowed Be Thy Name'']
|Iron Maiden
|Quite possibly one of the most conservative metal songs ever: it's about death row but not anti-death penalty, the protagonist believes in the concepts of an afterlife and a soul, and the title and protagonist's final words are both based on the Lord's Prayer.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVOEoo1oXBs ''Declaration Day'']
|Iced Earth
|A song about the Revolutionary War.
|NA
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1IpcvdF6jc ''Boulevard of Broken Dreams'']
|Green Day
|Though critical of the Bush Administration, they clearly depict what a liberal life is like.
|2
|-
|-
|[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zZE0SrkyNE&ob=av2n ''Where'd You Go'']
|Fort Minor
|Shows the hardship of divorce, liberal values, and the possible future of the families of our service men who could be forced to serve in Libya.
|2
|}

Please add your best conservative picks.

== References ==

<references/>