Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Pear

2007-08-28T21:22:44Z

MrRandom: New page: A popular fruit grown on trees; Oregon State Fruit

A popular fruit grown on trees; Oregon State Fruit

Apple (fruit)

2007-08-28T21:21:22Z

MrRandom:

An '''apple''' is a popular edible fruit which comes from the [[apple tree]] (Malus sylvertris). It's widely cultivated in temperate climates. Over 7,000 varieties are known of which 40 or so are commercial important. The most popular [[United States]] variety is ''Delicious''. 15 - 20% of the world's crop is produced in the United States.

There are three main types of apples, those used for:

* cooking
* dessert
* making cider

== Sources ==

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

[[Category: Fruits]]

Apple (fruit)

2007-08-28T21:21:00Z

MrRandom:

An '''apple''' is a popular edible fruit which comes from the [[apple tree]] (Malus sylvertris). It's widely cultivated in temperate climates. Over 7,000 varieties are known of which 40 or so are commercial important. The most popular [[United States]] variety is ''Delicious''. 15 - 20% of the world's crop is produced in the United States.

There are three main types of apples, those used for:

* cooking
* dessert
* making cider
* eating raw

== Sources ==

The New American Desk Encyclopedia, Penguin Group, 1989

[[Category: Fruits]]

User:MrRandom

2007-08-22T23:09:20Z

MrRandom:

I am a liberal Democrat and am here to bring my opinion to the table, after all you can`t have a truly balanced opinion with out both sides view

"He can`t make a snow angel, he`s Atheiest"

mrRandom
a different kind of democrat, a different kind of random

{{User Christian1}}
{{User Evo}}
{{User bigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User antigun}}

User:MrRandom

2007-08-22T23:07:03Z

MrRandom:

I am a liberal Democrat and am here to bring my opinion to the table, after all you can`t have a truly balanced opinion with out both sides view

mrRandom
a different kind of democrat, a different kind of random

{{User Christian1}}
{{User Evo}}
{{User bigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User antigun}}

User talk:DanH

2007-08-22T22:27:06Z

MrRandom: /* Thanks */

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

== unicode ==

Do you know how to use unicode to avoid the spam filter? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:30, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

*I am sure you read all that on that other wiki. Check with them. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 22:57, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal? ==
So I'm a "vandal" am I? Clean out your ears, knucklehead, because I'm about to tell you something about real vandals. The real Vandals were a race of pagan barbarian murderers and thieves who swept across Europe killing anyone who got in the way of their "fun." Know who does that sound like? Not me, certainly. Maybe it sounds like those stupid teenagers you cater to on this site, who just want to "get high" and play their little murder simulators, no matter what it's doing to their family, their culture, or their country.

When I found this place, I thought it was finally the venue(look it up if you don't know what it means) for truth about dangerous parts of popular culture like Dungeons and Dragons and violent video games. You try to insert some truth into the articles over on Wacopedia, and you get shot down by mindless liberals chanting their little mantras "It's just a game," "You're a close minded fanatic," and "Get a life." I've got a life, junior, and it's a lot better than yours because I go OUTSIDE once and a while. But this was supposed to be where people can showcase a conservative(read: realistic) viewpoint on this filth. And when I come back, what do I find? Some scrawny little coward had deleted all my work and called me a "vandal."

YOU are the real vandals, peddling this smut to young children who come here to escape from the cesspit that is Wacopedia. Their loving parents see all the conservative trappings here and say, "Oh, this must be safe," but most probably never take the time to actualy read the idiotic and subversive lies you present as truth. Let's take a look, shall we?

The article on video games has pages full of nice, harmless sounding fluff, but how much information does it have on the scientificly proven pyschological effects they have on people who become violent and obsessed from playing them? A SINGLE line at the very bottom of the page about Grand Theft Auto, which everyone has already heard about and a comment from some pixelante about how we shouldn't "judge" video games based on what "a couple crazy kids did." That's the same tired rhetoric used by hippies who want their pot legalized. "Hey, man, a couple of people kill each other over drugs. But, like, the ends(brainwashed teenagers having "fun") justify the means(the death of the innocent" Here's an idea. Get out of your parent's basement and try actually living life, instead of rehearse taking the lives of those who are actually doing something worthwhile.

Your article on Dungeons and Dragons is also very telling. It's got three sections on how to play the game, and I counted at least six different places where criticism is deflected, and that's without reading the section on the "Magic System" (I don't worship the devil, and I'm not planning on casting any magic spells anytime soon, so why on earth would I read a section about how to do so?). I wander how parents would feel if they found out your website had occult knowledge right out in the open? But, hey, I suppose "If it feels good, do it." And if anybody trys to stop us, we can just plug our fingers in our ears and concentrate on something that makes us feel all warm and fuzzy inside, like how your article on Hitler calls him evil. Well, duh!. A bunch of book burners is what you are, heeping all the truth about anything wrong that isn't one of your pet causes onto the bonfire with your morals and common decency.

My page on "anime," as these perverted freak call it, was mangled. Your little slant eyed toadie, [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] Morals, only had the courage to put a little note at the end about how well this sick "art" blends into porn.(Of course, some little brain fried deliquent has already subtely changed even that, so it sounds much less disgusting than it really is.) I can only thank God that you left enough of my message in that parents will be able to see the link to porn, and stop their kids from becoming ignorant sociopaths, kinda like most of the people on this site.

And finally let's look at your little advertisement for online games(your page on Massively Multiplayer Online Roleplaying Games, in case you don't know). I clicked on a few, then went back and got rid of the links to protect children from smut. I even put a note saying that they weren't family friendly. And what did one of you little cowards do? Put them back and said "I hope he's not right about them not being family friendly." Here's a novel ideal, why don't you actually CHECK? Then you could see all the violence, New Age idealogy, and practical nudity in these "family friendly" websites. But you won't do that. I'm on to you. You've probably got a little side deal with the game companies. You give them free advertising with a spin that makes it seem like their product is harmless, and you get some money for the advertising.

That just makes me sick. These children come to you for the facts without the bias and lies most media shoves down their throats. And what do you do? Line them up and march them right into the hands of the gaming companies that don't care if people get hurt or if society is degraded, as long as they can make a buck. Most gaming companies are Japanese, did you know that? Or where you too distracted by counting your shiny silver coins to actually research what you were doing? Sure, but who cares right. Aren't the Japanese Buddhist? So they believe in love and peace, right? Islam is the FASTEST GROWING religion in the world. You're kidding yourself if you think none of the Japs have converted so they could get their 72 virgins. Even a search on the internet will show you thousands of site about people who have stolen, killed themselves or others, and wasted their lives on twisted "entertainment." How many repeats of Columbine will it take before you wake up and do your part to stop this insanity?

But, I suppose this will fall on deaf ears. After all, George Washington said "Few men have virtue to withstand the highest bidder." But you don't really understand what you're selling. Will you still mock me when it one of YOUR friends or loved ones who gets gunned down by some pale, greasy gamer who's driving down the street thinking the people he's shooting aren't real, or kidnapped so some lunatic in a black robe can sacrifice them to his Dungeons and Dragons gods(who are really demons) so he can get a better result for his latest spell? Will you still think that it's all just "harmless fun" and that you don't need to warn people about a very real danger to themselves and their families then? You can do the right thing. You can stop censoring people who come here to expose the truth. You could save a life by stopping some innocent little boy from growing up to be a deranged killer.

I'm probably wasting my time though. You've probably already thrown away your mind, drooling over the latest murder simulator with all the biggest looking swords and "coolest" spells. People who try to spread the truth are always harrassed and mocked, but good always wins in the end. Hopefully, enough people will read this and do a little research on these subjects. Then they'll try to clear up the lies and misconceptions you have all over this place. They'll get censored and thrown out of course. But soon, enough people will see through these blatant advertisments for this smut and try to correct it you'll be doing nothing but trying to stem the tide of light into the tangle of biased nonsense you're using to shield your spineless business partners, who have to use tactics like this because they're to cowardly to come out in the open and defend their dangerous product. And do you know why? Because they can't. I know it, they know it, and, deep down, you know it too.

I'll be praying that somehow you find it in your heart(or at least the part that hasn't been destroyed by the dehumanizing messages these things send) to help spread the truth.

(P.S. Oh, and I'm not Jack Chick. Contrary to what you might believe, there is more than one person in this country with that name.)

: This post wins the internet. Anyways, if I were to guess, it's this guy. [http://www.jackthompson.org/] --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 22:52, 12 July 2007 (EDT)
::This might be the funniest thing I have ever read [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:26, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

*He seemed "normal" to me on other issues. But then I have no idea what sparked his post, or anything else.... --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:33, 12 July 2007 (EDT)

Just to nitpick, at the time the Vandals attacked the Roman empire and took over North Africa, they were Arian Christian, not pagan.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 12:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== reminder ==

does the word [[Hannibal]] mean anything to you? heh heh heh[[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I'll have to get that tomorrow morning; I'm going out of town for three days. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Uh-oh... ==

looks like we have a Jack Thompson impersonator trying to take you out, Dan. Or worse yet, Jack himself... I shudder at the mere thought. Be vigiliant, don't bend, we will defend you, Dan. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:02, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::There's only one way to tell... [[Jack Thompson|*Creates Article*]].--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:07, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::*ROFL!! Yeah, like he's something to fear, Thompson! You guys kill me sometimes, giving him the reaction he wants, lol. Good idea, Elamdri! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:11, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Dunno about you, Terry, but an opportunity to take on Thompson ''mano y mano'' is something I would relish. I hope the article I'm about to write about him attracts his wrath.--[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::NOOO, you blocked him! How am I gonna have any fun now?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:15, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::Let's play with this guy - he deserves it. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:16, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::I somewhat doubt he's Jack Thompson, he even denied it. But still, wouldn't it be something if we got the real Jack Thompson to come sniffing around?--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 19:18, 13 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::::As of today, that's my new goal. We know he'll find us sooner or later (he gave Wikipedia quite a headache), so let's school him quickly and get it over with. Let's move this discussion to the sysop page, agreed? --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 19:21, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

*Hoji, AIM! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 19:24, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

== Congratulations Div. Chess Champ! ==

Go Dan! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 23:50, 15 July 2007 (EDT)

==Ranger Bill==
Sorry, I didn't do that!! My little sister (didn't ask me or anything) just put it up using my user name. Sorry that it happened.--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 15:12, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Dan, evolution article ==

Dear Dan,

My sister stated to me that the [[theory of evolution]] article was a very good article but she said, "What about the man-ape fossils?". So I added the [[paleoanthropology]] section which a leading creationist organization is going to publish at their website. I also noticed that [[Wikipedia]] did the social effects of the theory of evolution in their [[evolution]] article so I added that very briefly. I also noticed that a HUGE issue was left out and that was biological information, biological code, and genetic programs so I added a brief section.

As far as today, Andy added some material that I thought needed better footnoting and wording so that is what I was doing today.

I do think the end result was worth it. Out of 112 million articles on Google for the Theory of evolution ours is ranked #34.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:00, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

== Chess ==

Congratulations on winning. Not bad for a Jayhawk. --[[User:Colest|Colest]] 11:03, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Yes...congratulations! I was always horrible at chess...I just move a piece and see what happens...the word strategy does not exist in my dictionary :) [[User:DeborahB.|DeborahB.]] 12:42, 17 July 2007 (EDT)
::Congratulations. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 15:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks all. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:35, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:Belated congrats! --[[User:Hojimachong|'''ηοξιμαχονγ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 13:08, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Would you please categorize... ==

the article on [[pornography]]? If I read the history correctly you are the protecting sysop so I figured you'd like first crack at it. May I suggest something simple like "media" for now? I have plans to re-organize many category structures but at the moment that's likely to be your best fit. Of course, you should do as you see fit. Regards, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:09, 17 July 2007 (EDT) ''<-I'm just doing them alphabetically, honest!

:Hello again,

:Would you also please categorize [[Main Page/new style]]? Thank you, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:14, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Good Catch ==

...On the user name "Bush is retarded" spelt backwards. Of course I guess I should expect that from a chess champion. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:17, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

==Hitler's vegetarianism==
Hi. What exactly is your source that Hitler wasn't a vegetarian? I've read numerous places that he was, including, I believe, the memoirs of his friend Albert Speer. Is the argument that he wasn't a ''strict'' vegetarian? Because there are numerous definitions of vegetarianism, and some allow for limited meat ingestion. If I recall, his reasons were health and not animal ights, but I don't think that matters. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

There's at the very least, enough controversy about whether he was [http://www.slate.com/id/2096259/] that we shouldn't dogmatically say one way or the other. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler's personal chef says his favourite dish was pigeon [http://veg.ca/content/view/171/113/]; it seems from various other sources that while he ''preferred'' a vegetarian diet, he deviated enough from it to not be classed as a vegetarian. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:46, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

::Sources are numerous. One source of good criticism cites how Hitler was not sympathetic to German soldiers freezing in Russia who asked for meat. Hitler went into a long spiel about how the Roman legions survived on grains, etc., and probably regarded meat eaters as subversive to the Nazi effort. Ultimately, many meat eaters probably betrayed the Nazi cause because of this--Hitler just didn't care if meat eaters got fed or not, and expected everybody to be like him and make the same sacrifices during the privations of a prolonged war, which of course to a vegetarian of many years, are not sacrifices at all. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The sources for his meat eating and love of ham and bavarian sausages are numerous also [http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm]; many commentators also point out that Hitler never claimed to be a vegetarian, outlawed vegetarian organizations and prevented all measures aimed at easing Germany’s food shortages that involved a reduction in meat consumption. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:59, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

== Request ==

I want to put a few more pictures in the [[evolution]] article. Do you know how to do that? I want to put a picture of [[Ernst Haeckel]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Evolutionary_theory_and_Cases_of_Fraud.2C_Hoaxes_and_Speculation.E2.80.8E I also want to put a picture of [[Stephen Gould]] in this section: http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution#Theory_of_Punctuated_Equilibrium Please don't use the picture of Stephen Gould used at [[Wikipedia]]. Can you help? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:13, 18 July 2007 (EDT)conservative

== Thanks ==

Thank you for welcoming me, DanH. [[User:BrianJackson|BrianJackson]] 20:37, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Thank you for unblocking me, it is greatly appreciated -Mr.Random

== Grunge ==
I agree. A lot of post-grunge bands really ruined grunge. Everclear,Third Eye Blind,Matchbox 20, and even Daughtry (he was classified post-grunge too lol) really turned grunge to pop - rock.

(whoops forgot to sign)

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:04, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Favorite Original Grunge Band: Alice In Chains

Favorite Post-Grunge: Three Days Grace or Breaking Benjamin

--[[User:Dark1Kristen|Dark1Kristen]] 22:06, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

== Great block! ==

Great block! Well done!!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

: Wow, a second great block in the same night!!! Very well done.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:35, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== thanks ==

The user who put those questionable comments was a sock of vandal redhungary, who I think you dealt with earlier. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 23:04, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== Noah's ark ==

Heya -- I'm interested in making some changes to Noah's ark -- proposed them on the talk page -- any chance you could try unlocking it for a while and see if revert wars and/or vandalism become a problem? [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:30, 25 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please protect my signature templates ==

The templates in question are:
*[[User:PheasantHunter/TestTalk]]
*[[User:PheasantHunter/FullSig]]
and
*[[User:PheasantHunter/sig]]

I am the only person who has any business editing them (aside from Andy). Other users who edit them are probably vandalizing them. Niandra protected them, but then TK unprotected them (he was probably confused since this is a technical issue.) Could you either take it up with other sysops or just go ahead and protect the above templates? Thanks. {{User:PheasantHunter/FullSig}} 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Vandal blocking ==
:Good job blocking the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DanH&page= vandals]. [[User:JohnMorrisonBirch|JohnMorrisonBirch]] 21:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Crop Circles ==

Dear Dan

I wander why you removed the information about Stonehenge. It is now in the middle of an explanation as you can see in the talk page of that article. According to the theory (?) it is a geometrical pattern and consequently a "crop circle" (near a Myth?). Neither Jazzman831 nor you asked me about it before deleting. That is not the right way to collaborate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

*Joaquin my friend, I beleive I asked you to post in the sysop area about this, no? Please do so. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Deletion Request ==

Hi, you're an admin here, right? Could you delete [[Charlesincharge]]?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 22:31, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert on Guillotine ==

Why is it liberal bias to cite a fact? Capital punishment is indeed contrary to the French constitution following a vote of the French Parliament, in April 2007. I do not understand why you reverted this?[[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:15, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

It probably wasn't, but the term First World seems to imply that. Maybe as in most of Europe, or in much of the world would be a way to put it. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:16, 29 July 2007 (EDT)
:OK. By the way, thank you for having moved [[Maximilien de Robespierre]]. [[User:Sporean|Sporean]] 13:17, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== I would appreciate your support ==

Dear DanH,

I am sending you a note about the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]] and how it can substantially increase web traffic to Conservapedia.

The Conservapedia article on [[homosexuality]] is now ranked in the top 10 of http://www.google.com searches. I estimate that the Conservapedia article on homosexuality is giving 300-400 people new people a day to know about Conservapedia who wouldn't otherwise know about it. When the article is in the top 5 of the search engine rankings it will bring in SUBSTANTIALLY more as the top 5 entries get the lion's share of the internet traffic.

Now a main reason why the Conservapedia homosexuality article is ranked in the top 10 is that the search engines highly reward articles with footnotes that link to other internet websites. Accordingly, since our uncited template is successful in getting people to cite their material as Andy Schlafly stated, I made note of the uncited template in the following Conservapedia articles:

Conservapedia:Commandments: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments

Conservapedia Manual of Style: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style

Conservapedia:Footnotes - technical help
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Footnotes_-_technical_help

Currently about 50% of Conservapedia articles are completely uncited and a high percentage of articles that are cited are poorly cited. If this persist, not many people are going to know about Conservapedia as our articles will be poorly ranked by the search engines. However, I strongly believe that the uncited template will make a substantial difference.

Accordingly, I would appreciate your efforts in supporting the [[Template:Uncited|uncited template]].

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:33, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

'''*Conservative, around here, it is the practice of all Sysops, except you, to discuss changes before implementing them, and asking for support. The Commandments may only be changed upon direct approval from Andy. You did not receive this direct approval, no? Kindly try and act like a mannered person, post your proposals to the Sysops and Andy, then be prepared for discussion and support, not the other way around. ''I could support your idea, except for the encouragement of placing templates without limitiation. We have far too much clutter already, and your failing to limit template placement, by stating some guideline for what a minimum number of citations is, will lead to chaos and endless debate as to how many are too few and how many are "enough". '' Thanks. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]] 15:58, 29 July 2007 (EDT)'''
:::TK, that is untrue as my message on the indicated pages clearly indicates the template is to be placed on a article or section of an article that are COMPLETELY uncited. It also gives the template for merely indicating a sentence that is uncited. Lastly, my''' cited''' articles are clearly bringing internet traffic and the uncited articles are not only breaking the conservapedia commandment about citing your sources but they are creating Conservapedia articles filled with unverifiable or hard to verify information. Plus uncited articles are not making a significant impact in regards to bringing in search engine traffic. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:07, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== stonehenge ==

DanH, please do not revert me again. My new post states: broke conservapedia commandments. uncited material. please do not allow the conservapedia commandment breakers to reign freely. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:59, 29 July 2007 (EDT)

== Sc/nthorpe ==
Why did you delete this? It is a significant town in the English East Midlands and a major centre of steel production. Just because some people have dirty minds, and CP has an absurdly oversensitive spam filter, is no reason for it not to be listed. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 07:29, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== revert ==

Sorry Dan, but I had to revert you. The name of the city is Чорнобиль or ''chornobyl'', but in the russian language it is Чернобыль or ''chernobyl''. The city is both Ukrainian and in Ukraine. I have moved the article so now the link works. Its alot like Kyiv the correct way and Kiev the wrong russian way. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 02:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I shall be informing Putin of your treason. Run! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:21, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Mitt Romney]] ==

Thanks for removing the polygamy smear. I was considering removing it, but as a Mormon myself I always get nervous that I'd be accused of trying to cover up the history of my church or something silly like that. I was just about to post on the talk page asking for the opinion of others when I saw your edit; far more efficient. :-) [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 18:39, 3 August 2007 (EDT)
== Flying machine revert ==

Why did you do it? My bit was accurate and on point.[[User:Bafi|Bafi]] 20:57, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

== [[Professional wrestling]] ==

Could you delete [[Professional wrestling]]? It was created by the [[User:Dragonman|vandal]] you just blocked. Thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 17:13, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==Transcluded text==

Hi, Mountain Dew! I created [[Template:Famine of 1933]] as [[transcluded text]]. You or anyone can edit it easily, because there is a special [[edit link]] in all three articles which invoke the template. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:58, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Ah! That's really cool, and easy to work in. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:00, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

== TO: DanH from Conservative ==

Dear Dan,

Please read the email I just sent you.

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

== cabsmith ==

Who is cabsmith? I don't even see a history of any contributions of that user. [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 18:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Somebody who shared your IP with you when you were in Atlanta a week ago, or whatever it may be. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:33, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:I am lost. But am I not allowed to participate here? [[User:DaiseyCutter|DaiseyCutter]] 18:35, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Maverick

2007-08-22T00:42:46Z

MrRandom:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)}}

just because you don`t sign your name doesn`t mean I can`t track you, besides, supposedly they don`t ban ideologicly -Mr.Random

Debate:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?

2007-08-21T23:26:38Z

MrRandom: /* Yes */

{{debate-politics}}

== No ==

The answer to this is pretty obvious, a no brainer as you people put it. In the UK guns are banned. You can own a shotgun if you're a farmer, but even then you need a license and a check up. You can be a collector, but rules are strict.

OK there are more fire arms murders now, but this is down to eastern europe having a lot of Russian weapons around. However the number of people killed by firearms in the UK every yaer is less than the rate for most US cities in a week! There has NEVER been a situation where kids have run amok in there own schools with firearms - that is NEVER.

There has been ONE incident where an adult went amok in a school with guns since records started - Dunblane. There has been ONE incident where some guy with guns went postal in living memory, Hungerford Massacre in 1987. We don't need guns, criminals don't carry them - just carrying a gun on a burglary will turn it into a life sentence, police for the most part don't carry them. This is civillisation.

How anyone can argue in favour of widespread firearm ownership and compare EU gun crime rates with US ones is a mystery. Just one of the reasons I thank the lord that I wasn't born a US Citizen.

''I'd like to point out the fact that the population of the United States is approx 5X the population of the United Kingdom. OBVIOUSLY there will be fewer gun-related incidents in the UK. Besides...who would want to terrorize the UK? - Comatoseraccoon''

(Oh and by the way Conservapedia argues that US spellings should be used as the majority of English speakers are American, not so. India and Anglophone Africa outnumber American English speakers by a large factor).

Conservatism OK! No gun control No Way!

No!!!!

[[User:DeborahB.|Deborah]]

If nobody had weapons then there would be no need for weapons. Like it or not bad people have weapons so good people need weapons to defend against bad people. Why should the criminal have the advantage over the righteous?--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Right cause no one hunts hmmmm ok
NOOO!!!!!!!!
--[[User:JessicaS|Jess]] 10:08, 3 January 2007 (EST)

Okay basically heres the deal, people are goin to get shot either way. One of the main arguments for pro-gun control people is that the crime on the streets would decrease, it would be harder for those kids to get guns. Have yall ever heard the saying "Locks only keep honest people out"? the same principle applies here, people who want guns are gunna get them one way or another. The only difference is that a part of their proceeds wont be goin to uncle sam and there are no safety regulations, so therefore the chances of an accident go through the roof. Plus it will add a HUGE market to the black market, you know how drugs are now, or alcohol was durin prohibition? you will have the same thing now. By the way the second amendment contains 2 clauses independent of each other, yes the right to a well regulated militia is given and so is the right to bear arms. You know when Thomas Jefferson wrote that, he wrote it in a negative language. That means that its language is restrictive, not charitable. Meaning that it restricts teh Government, instead of pointing out individual rights to give to the people. Thus limiting the government and giving more rights to the people. He is spinning in his grave at the idea of gun control. Now i realize the Constitution was written vague so it could be made into a moving changing document, however the framers intent cannot be blantantly trampled upon. Tommy gun (i realize this name prolly makes me look like a hardcore gun nut but its a nickname given to me a long time ago and not for my pol. views lol)

Despite the fact that it was not Jefferson who wrote the Second Amendment (Madison wrote the Bill of Rights), I somewhat agree with Tommygun here. I am surprised that these radical conservatives have not yet advocated the aborting of all minority babies to solve this problem. [[User:GodlessLiberal|GodlessLiberal]] 22:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Locks only keep honest people out'?...(quote from User: Tommy gun (above)) I would probably say that a small sign saying 'Keep Out' would be enough to keep out most honest people. Bars on the windows and deadbolts would keep everyone out. Also, what about the locks that keep the very bad men in? [[User:Clownshoes|Clownshoes]]13:49 17 April 2007 (GMT)

---While the standard NRA phrase "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" holds true, the oft ignored fact is that an increased amount of firearms leads to an increased amount of violence. Gun crime rates in gun controlled countries versus the US make this clear. Gun violence is simply the price one has to pay to live in a country without firearm bans. The reason for the second amendment is to make certain the general population has a trump card to hold against the government. The American Revolution would not have occurred were it not for the fact that many colonists were armed, and willing to kill. This same holds true for other revolutions and the general overthrow of serfdom in Europe. Firearms forced nobility to acquiesce to the will of the commoner. The murder rate doesn't bother me as long as I can back up my voice with force. Hopefully that will never be necessary for me, although it has been so in the past for others. [[User:Bomber23k|Bomber23k]]

The whole question is just silly. Obviously gun control is the answer to crimes involving guns as anyone can tell by merely glancing at violent crime statistics. Yes, gun control is an effective strategy but also one that is realistically impossible to implement in the U.S.. We have been buying and using firearms for way too long to actually expect that we can round them all up. If no-one else had a gun, neither would I but while the possibility exists that a criminal element out there posesses firearms then it's really not so dumb to have a properly stored firearm in your house in case, God forbid, you need to defend your family.[[User:Neuro|Neuro]] 15:19, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Alright for all those in the "yes" section here are the facts. Most criminals with access to weapons can easily obtain them from other criminals via the black market. Enforcing gun control would simply make it easier for people to be harmed. Yes, some criminals will be prevented from getting guns but the majority will still have them. Even if you do ban guns and no one has a gun it won't matter, crime will still happen. People will simply resort to more brutal weapons in order to carry out crimes (knives, baseball bats, etc.) I remember seeing a news story where ABC interviewed a bunch of criminals serving life sentences. They convicts said that their worst fear was if their victim had a weapon because it meant that they might get hurt in the process of trying to rob somebody. Basically, taking away people's guns only hurts the victims trying to defend themselves, not the criminals you are trying to stop - Comatoseraccoon

No, there is already effective gun control practices in place such as backround checks. Of course, there are those people that wish to raid the constitution, wrong very wrong. Suing gun manufacturers is also unjustified. There is not an easy solution to prevent death by guns. Banning guns is a quick fix solution that would never work. We cannot stop the fomation of illegal gangs how can we ever stop the acquisition of illegally obtained guns? My personal opinion, which means zilch, would be to raise the price of firearms. Some iPods cost more than some weapons. Still, the criminals ruin it for everyone.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:09, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The thing with gun control is this. No matter how many bans you put on it, people will still find them and use them. The statistics for the European countries differ entirely from us because of a little thing called American Ingenuity. They outlawed drugs and so have we, the problem is our dopers know how to avoid prosecution. Secondly, the second ammendment is vital to the well being of Americans for the simple fact that this is a big nation. Were something to happen, the government could not sent militants to every part of our grand country. We need guns if there were to be some massive crisis in which we needed protection. Case and point, Al-Qaeda. If you stay paranoid long enough, sooner or later your gonna be right (Thank you Kinky Friedman). [[user: Dfairlyxed13|Dfairlyxed13]]

All in favor of gun control raise your right hand....
*does hitler salute*
--[[User:The vigilante|The vigilante]] 14:35, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Also, Sweden has no gun control, in fact everyone is in the military and has a gun, and their crime rates are through the floor. who wants to rob someone who has a desert eagle in their back pocket? Not me.

--I find it interesting how you say that if we banned guns before the 1920s then there would be less gun violence today. That is an ignorant statement and holds no ground in a gun control debate. Unless you have a time machine guns will not get banned in the past, so don't even talk about it.

Also, if guns were banned today you have no way of knowing that people would run out, remember guns will still be made in other countries smuggled in like drugs. There is also a number of craftsman who make and customize guns, if suddenly their career becomes illegal they will either find a new career or make guns illegally. In summation there's no way of proving people will run out of guns.

As for the gun control, you can't simply refer to criminals, millions of honest people who will never kill anyone use guns. I for example have been raised with guns, since I was able to shoot I have been. Not only is going out to the range and plinking a great way to spend an afternoon, its also a great way to bond with friends and family members. Some of my best memories are shooting in my backyard with my cousin and my father, not because of guns necessarily but because we were all doing something we love together. Hunting is also a tradition which has existed since the dawn of man, and has modernized to involve guns. I can truly say one of the best ways to enjoy nature is to wake up before dawn and go dear hunting with family and friends, even if nothing is shot, its still very enjoyable.

Many people view guns as weapons, or something to kill another human being with. I must say that yes guns are dangerous but when in the right hands they are quite safe. Simply because a select few individuals choose to commit crimes with guns, that is no grounds for an all out ban. Also, many underestimate how simple acquiring a gun, more specifically a hand gun is. For those of us who follow the laws, in New York State, for acquiring a handgun, the process is in fact rather lengthy. An application must be filled out and submitted to local police department, as well as a letter as to why one wants an pistol permit. Then the police review the information, send it to the FBI for a background check. After this the findings are sent back to the county judge for approval, and every hand gun bought must be place on a card carried by the owner. This process can take over a year and there is no guarantee you will be accepted.

I must say this seems quite adequate in deterring the wrong people from acquiring a pistol. Finally if we are so worried about objects that kill humans, why don't we talk about banning cars. Cars kill more people kill then guns do in the US, yet we aren't arguing about controlling cars. The fact of the matter is people die and people will kill other people, any object can be deadly, so the next time you argue for stricter gun control remember guns are merely a tool. In my personal opinion a two day waiting period for purchasing a gun is adequate gun control. I do feel that being able to waltz into a gun store and purchase 15 pistols is ridiculous. I hope I have given readers an insight into guns and their possibility for non-violent use.[[User:H20h0us391|H20h0us391]] 17:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

'''what part of NO dont liberals understand?'''
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:12, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Yes, but only part of the answer I think that there always will be some who have their own gun by illegal means but I think that if guns were illegal it would help-Mr.Random "flying butresses"

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Yes ==

No Because I am narrowminded and can't see the light.!!! Let's do some logic, shall we? Crimes involving guns ''involve guns'', do they not? So, logically, if people didn't have guns, they wouldn't be able to commit crimes with them, would they? Therefore, controlling the possession of guns should decrease the incidence of gun-related crimes, shouldn't it?

With all due respect, I do not understand ''why'' people feel the need to wave around lethal weapons with no real point. If you don't have a gun, but the guy who's mugging you doesn't either, there's no point in having a gun, is there? You can always whip out your TASER and stun him, can't you, or do you somehow believe that you need to kill him? And, if he does have a gun, you can still stun him, and then have him arrested for possessing a gun against the law. Please, just use logic. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Most gun crimes in Canada occur with handguns, illegally imported from the US. So, I'm saying a large part of the gun crimes in Canada are a result of our neighbour haphazardly handing out guns to everyone. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 12:40, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Interestingly, Canada has almost as many guns per capita as the US. But a much lower gun homicide rate. Maybe it's the overt and strong rejection of European culture that has doomed the US to its globally-high firearm homicide rate? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:42, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives argue that gun control will not decrease gun-related crime and in fact puts innocent civilians at greater risk because they will not be prepared to face an armed assailant. Right? Then, by the same logic, shouldn't marajuana be de-criminalized, if marajuana control would not help prevent marajuana-related crimes? It is clear that conservatives are not using logic to make their arguments in a fair and balanced manner. Instead, they rely on dubious "ethical" opinions that they attempt to masquerade as conservatism. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by [[User:Olifelikeweedso|Olifelikeweedso]], 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
:Marijuana(Thankfully we are not discussing marijuana so how did I get here you will never know, cause neither do I) is a addictive psychoactive drug that alters a users perception of reality. Guns are not.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 06:26, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::There is no conclusive evidence to indicate that marijuana is any more or less addictive than alcohol. Given the medicinal status of marijuana in many countries, I'd say your argument on pot doesn't fly. Keep in mind that while alcohol is a habit forming substance that alters a users perception of reality, it has no medicinal purposes (other than a topical antibacterial agent). --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 10:47, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Marijuana has no medicinal status in any country other than certain liberal enclaves of the US and California and ultra liberal socialist netherlands. Drugs made from it are completely separate from marijuana.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:AustinM|AustinM]].
::::Canada? It's grown by Prairie Plant Systems, on contract for Health Canada, in Flin Flon, Manitoba. Canada is, as of about ten minutes ago when I last checked, not part of the US. Please ensure the accuracy of comments before adding them. Warmest regards. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 17:27, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I obviously don't have your marijuana expertise ;)
::::[[User:AustinM|AustinM]], here's [http://www.drugwise-droguesoisfute.hc-sc.gc.ca/law-loi/medical_e.asp Health Canada's page on medical marijuana use in Canada]. Health Canada is a department of the Canadian government. Feel free to do some research before sounding off. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:07, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Marijuana is a legal substance in Amsterdam. Surprisingly, they have lower drugs usage rates than the United States. The logic is quite simple, legalizing marijuana takes away its mystique, that daring part of marijuana that makes it enticing (pushing the limit in other words). As one dutch official put it "[they] have succeeded in making pot boring." I myself have never nor ever plan to use drugs of any kind, but legalizing marijuana seems to be somewhat effective. - comatoseraccoon

Since when does the right to have a well-regulated militia equate to the right to carry a weapon at all times, anyway? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 18:57, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since about a week ago, maybe :-( The framers of the constitution really could have been a lot clearer about this. I don't think anyone really knows what the Constitution means, and nobody will know until a case makes it to the Supreme Court and they decide to issue a broad ruling. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 18:21, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously gun control is the answer to gun crimes: if there are no guns, there will be no gun crimes. No one can really deny that. Thus, a more logically topic for debate is whether the right to own a gun is more important than the harm done by gun ownership.
--[[User:WhatWouldJesusEdit?|WhatWouldJesusEdit?]] 11:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It would be helpful to define terms here, first. Most folks, when they hear the term 'gun control', automatically think of denial - that is, denying the public access to weapons. However, gun control does not necessarily mean denial of access. It does mean registration and possibly a requirement for training. Consider that vehicles are required to be licensed, and drivers must be trained, licensed and insured, for the simple reason that it takes training to safely operate a vehicle. By the same token (speaking now as a professional military man), given the power of modern small arms, the safe handling and use of weapons most certainly requires training.

However, let's also look at the Second Amendment, which many are fond of quoting as "the right to bear arms". However, the full statement is as follows: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A militia is, essentially, a military force for the duration, citizen-soldiers who take up arms in time of war for the nation's defense. In short, what one could call Reservists or National Guard. At the time the Constitution was drafted, this was, essentially, white men, who were liable to military service if/when required. Today, gender and skin color or race doesn't enter into it, but I submit that the spirit of the Second Amendment is '''not''' that every Tom, Dick and Harry can wander around with a Glock stuck down the back of their pants. [[User:Niwrad|Niwrad]] 02:01, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, for no other reason that because it works. In Australia following the 1996 Port Arthur massacre there a massive federal crackdown on gun ownership. A wide range of guns, including all automatic and semi-automatic firearms (as far as I know) were banned under a gun buyback scheme. Since then the gun crime stats [http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_mr_cjb98] have spoken for themselves. This doesn't have to be a philosophical or constitutional debate. In fact, given the number of lives at stake daily it really shouldn't be. Just look at the results and consider whether it is a sacrifice worth making. [[User:Paul|user_136]] 20:05, 22 March 2007 (EST)

Well dur. After watching 'Bowling for Columbine' I am even more pro-gun control then ever. Theres too many shootings and gun crimes in america compared to like every other country. Plus, kids are starting to shoot kids. I live near Camden, NJ which is one of the poorest and worst places to live in the US. All the time little kids are getting caught up in shoot-outs and stuff. I'm tired of hearing about how 5 year old so and so was on her way to preschool when she was shot in the back of the head. Guns need to go. Sure, the government should have thme for defence I guess. But I'd rather see a world with no guns or weapons. [[User:AtheistKathryn|AtheistKathryn]] 20:53, 4 April 2007 (EDT) (p.s. all that dumb second amendment stuff is so old and outdated. It's just dumb)

:The problem is not with guns, it is with humanity. No matter how many laws the government imposes, there will be someone who finds a way to murder another person. It's just the sinful nature of all people. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 21:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

::'Bowling for Columbine' was a pretty dumb movie.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 23:35, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Pro-gun activists should look up statistics on gun deaths per capita in the UK, then remind yourself that gun sales are heavily restricted (forbidden, essentially) there. Then re-read the Second Amendment, and ask yourself what that line about the militia means.-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!] 11:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
::ya, UK is real peaceful. [http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/camilla_cavendish/article1615598.ece][[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 13:20, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
::: Gun deaths? What about total crime rates? [[User:CPWebmaster|CPWebmaster]] 13:24, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

If guns would have been banned before the rise of the American gang culture, let's say before 1920, American gun crime rates today would probably mirror those of Europe and Japan.

Banning them now would decrease gun crimes in the long run, but yes, it would still take years before the criminals run out of guns (yes, they will run out, the international black market isn't open to common burglar or thieves, only major criminal organisations have access to it).

I can understand that with today's crime rate some people would choose to lock a single handgun away, somewhere safe in their homes, that said, I still believe machine guns (M16, AK47, etc..) as well as assault rifles have no place in a civilian home and should be banned immediately.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

Reducing guns will reduce gun crime, especially impulsive crimes and crimes of passion. THere is no reason for anyone to need a handgun of any sort. I can understand bolt action rifles for hunting or farmers, but aside from that, no-one needs guns, not even police (except Special ops or SWAT)
The best solution would be to amend the second ammendment. Its an ammendment, obviously this is something that can be changed and was never meant to be permanent. It was ammended because the Colonies wanted to gain independence from the British. There is no contempory need that could possibly justify a right to bear arms or form militia.
Its just plain old greedy stupidity [[User:Nhyme|Nhyme]]

Ah, yes, impulsive crimes and crimes of passion, I hadn't even thought of that, good point.

You misunderstood me, I too think guns don't belong in civilian life, but I do understand some people would like to own a single gun for self defense, and rifles aren't very practical in an urban environment, so that's why I said handguns.

[[User:Middle Man|Middle Man]]

== Present-day Baghdad? ==
The argument is sometimes made that an armed citizenry is protection against criminals, a bulwark against possible government tyranny, and even protection against armed invasion. For example, [http://www.nra.org/Speech.aspx?id=6042 Charlton Heston writes] "The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms. That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals].

I once thought that argument had some merit to it. But by all accounts [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/03/world/middleeast/03guns.html?ex=1301716800&en=5d15095b872b5e6b&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss] it is extremely common for Baghdad households to own a gun, with the Kalashnikov AK-47's being very popular, and it doesn't seem to be working out very well.

The argument against gun control seems to assume implicitly that the citizenry is all of one mind and all fighting ''on the same side.'' The Second Amendment speaks of "a well-regulated militia" but doesn't seem to address the possibility of multiple, ''poorly''-regulated militias, ''plural.''

Isn't Baghdad a fair example of one of the ways gun ownership can go wrong? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:16, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

not really. america was just a different animal when it came to this subject for MANY reasons
and really until JFK was killed everything was pertty cool here in the homeland. we just
never had the problems the rest of the world had of which there are too MANY to list.
maybe only isreal and switzerland can understand but the rest of the world is too screwed up.
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 13:10, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

The situation that is apparent in Baghdad cannot be attributed to universal gun ownership by the population. It can be attributed however to the basic desire intrinsic in all humanity to rule over more than oneself. Throughout history, whenever a large power is toppled by external forces which then do not seek total takeover, there will be an ongoing power struggle to fill the void until one group gains ascendency (the case is usually, but not always, different in the case of an internally sparked overthrow). In the case of Iraq, the US coalition is the external force. To say that gun ownership is the cause of the troubles would be to ignore that men seek power and guns empower. Since a gun is currently one of the cheapest and most effective method for an individual to wield power, it only follows that those who do not possess power yet desire it or wish to resist those who do should seek guns. If no guns existed and the current method of empowerment were a sharpen popsicle stick, thousands of people would die from popsicle stick related injuries. If it became illegal to sharpen popsicle sticks, people who respect the law would generally cease sharpening sticks. But people who do not respect the law would still carry their tools of empowerment. This leads to a rather one sided contest when one of the latter individuals attempts to exercise his power over one of the former. The argument that nobody would possess popsicle sticks due to the law or that the average person would be unable to procure a popsicle stick for the same reason is falacious. Even if every single popsicle stick were gathered up and destroyed, the ruling power would still maintain a large collection of popsicle sticks on hand in the event that people became unsubmissive to the law. And eventually people would discover rocks. Imagine the logistical nightmare it would be to collect and destroy all the rocks!

(as an aside, the greatest threat to freedom is bankers, and after that a standing army. see T. Jefferson and N. Webster)
--[[User:Historiocality|Historiocality]] 15:06, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-08-21T17:47:40Z

MrRandom: /* Are you kidding? */

== Please note edits! ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, this page is completely biased. If you want this site to rival Wikipedia in any way, shape or form you should probably remove the quotes around "documentary" when referring to "Sicko" (which by the way has won praise from conservatives as well as liberals. Not to mention under the picture it is captioned "Michael Moore, ranting". Hardly unbiased at all as you claim this site to be. Nor is it trustworth. {{unsigned|RobWW}}

==Please Fix==

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

== Are you kidding? ==

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

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

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

*Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

yet another reason for me not be a Republican the book "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David T.Hardy and Jason Clarke sounds just a little childish, once again "Micheal Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" nice

==Moore High School Photo==
[[Image:Mmoore.png|right|thumb|Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.]]

He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why the second photo? ==

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!"
--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary ==
I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But then you're pre-emptively judging his next film Sicko without even knowing what it claims by putting the word Documentary in "Sarcastic quotes". Yes, he should be, and is, scrutinized for what he says, but so then is everything. As brainslug says, people will always claim that documentaries present inaccurate facts or interpretations, but whatever the results of such scrutinous challenges, this doesnt make them not documentaries. Its enough to say, as the article does, that people challenge his claims without having to invent a word like "pseudo-documentary" (a term which seems to apply to ficticious movies like Spinal Tap) to describe a movie that the site finds disagreeable.
::--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: In addition to what Rex said above, we already have a small paragraph in which he's accused of using deceit and so on. We might as well expand that. More facts are better than fewer facts; speaking in detail about his errors is better than insinuating without detail. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Default sort ==

Please add <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}</nowiki> to the article before the categories. The article is locked. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 02:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I did, but wish I knew why we do this...--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== POlitics requires a minimum of brains? ==
I can conclude from this that RobS knows NOTHING about politics, and has never met an actual politician. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be careful with your accusations. Andy once ran for office. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 22:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement. Categroizing Michael Moore as a "political person" is an insult to people who generally are informed, and are concerned about public policy, and public discourse. I'm not sure "satirist" would apply, and if so, not a very good one. "Comedian" might offend real comedians, too. Perhaps "film maker" or some such garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Political people can be buffoons, too. Sometimes it seems like a job requirement. OTOH, I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't listed as a "Political Person", either. But I get the impressing Moore '''is''' informed and concerned--he just happens to think Conservatives are doing a terrible job. Oh, and he's fat, so there's no point in listening to him. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Good point. Do we really want to ''elevate'' Limbaugh to a political person? OTOH, Al Franken is probably running for Senate; once he's a real candidate, he should qualify for awhile, unless he wins then he can enter the Pantheon with all our other failed icons. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

You guys want to see a real masterwork of deception, check out the efforts by the "editors" at WP who refuse to identify Moore as "left-wing" for fear that it may paint him in a negative fashion. This, despite Moore's own admission to being "left-wing". WP truly is a magical land where fantasy prevails over reality. A lot like Disneyland but without the fun. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== See also ==
That whole section should be removed. Maybe if you have seen some of his movies you wouldn't say that it is all based on "junk science". Also why is there a criticism section but no praise? Since his movies have gotten much more praise than criticism [[User:Ttwashere|Ttwashere]] 20:28, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*First, welcome to CP! I pasted a welcome template on your talk page (which now exists) and hope you will read the links provided.

: Second, I don't know who is "you", but I have indeed seen all of Moore's work. I would commend to you the posted reviews, not by people considered by anyone to be defenders of Conservative thought, for you to contemplate. In the real world, Moore hasn't gotten more professional praise than criticism. Quite the opposite. Here at CP, we do not strive for political correctness, and do not tolerate Liberal [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:33, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ttwashere, I agree with TK. Liberal [[deceit]] is not tolerated and anyone here suggesting Moore is anything but a propragandist for Socialism, is deluding themselves. Moore is a liar. He uses the film medium to promote an agenda which is radical left-wing extremism. He distorts his information in his "documentaries" as well as any Nazi or Communist propagandist from the past. There are quite a few good sources for drawing this conclusion. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 09:28, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think Moore is just a greedy capitalist pig. Even limousine liberals need to be judged by thier works, moreso than the lies they advocate which they may or may not believe in themselves. The big probelm with deceit is, once a person gets well practiced in it, they become thier own biggest victim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Greed certainly does create its' own idealogy, that's for sure. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, there was a "report", news item, last year I believe, or early in this one, where someone actually go hold of some of his (Moore's) financial information. It showed large sums sheltered in the Cayman's, and a rather large block of Haliburton stock! If you ever run across it, that would be a great addition to the article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Excellant idea. For some reason Moore makes me think of [[Ken Ley]], there's a lot of similiarities between these two rich scam artists who prey on an unsuspecting public to line their own pockets. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Once at a Beverly Hills eatery, where the price of a sandwich with fries approaches what I had to spend weekly as a student for food, I was shocked to have someone point him out to me. He was in Armani, and certainly not wearing a truckers hat, and did indeed leave in his Liberal Limousine! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Earnings ==

Why does the sentence under the section Earning says "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00." when the citation given states $168,070,886? Also, the usage of the word "bilk" is subjective. Even though his films are not proper "documentaries", it doesn't mean he defrauded the public. I'm removing the sentence. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:(A) Asked and answered on the page; (B) the sentence specifically says "worldwide," the chart specifically cites "US Gross;" (C) the link provided specifically references the same language, idea, and concept. (D) the term "bilked" is commonly understood to mean defraud, cheat, swindle, thwart, frustrate, or hoax.

:Now, if you absolutely demand reputable and credible citations to support the claim, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00," that certainly is no large demand, and we'd being only too willing to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::I asked essentially the same question (elsewhere) some time back so clearly it was confusing. I have now made a change to hopefully make the distinction more obvious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:The earnings was a gross oversight on my part (missed US and worldwide). The definition you gave for "bilk" doesn't justify its use - how did Moore cheat the public that money? Even though Moore provided a very one-sided, often slanderous, and sometimes factually inaccurate story, that doesn't mean he bilked the public of the money. It is a Hollywood movie, where people pay for entertainment (if the public decides to blindly trust it as fact... then that's really their fault). Saying Moore bilked the public money is like saying the new Transformers bilked the public money because it didn't follow the original cartoon, or saying Live Free or Die Hard cheated the public because of its misrepresentation of certain technologies prominently displayed (i.e. The hovering capabilities and weapons of the F-35). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ah ha. You make the misrepresentation "how did Moore cheat the public that money?" The text does not say that. The text specifically says, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public." Now let me please explain. Michael Moore's films are specifically inanimate objects, and not a person. Very recently, I made a bank deposit which included a counterfeit $20 bill. The $20 bill was confiscated, and I suffered the loss. It was not my intent to bilk the bank, and I was not prosecuted. But I personally was bilked out of $20--an inanimate object--not by the bank, and presumably not by the anonymous person who passed it to me who themselves likely did not know of its fraudulent origins. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::How did that semantic argument change my point? In fact, I listed two other 'films', which by the definition of whoever wrote the bilking sentence, bilked the public. The movies simply portrayed Moore's representation of the subject at hand, through the use of weasel words and sarcasm (as per his usual style). My original objection to the sentence is still that "the movie did not bilk the public of their money" because it's not a proper documentary. His failure to portray both sides of the story in Sicko (as an example) is used to convey Moore's viewpoint on the US Healthcare system. As he's the director, he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants.
:::I guess my point boils down to the question "If a movie is biased, is any money made because of it considered to be <nowiki>'bilked'</nowiki>?" My answer is no. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, so as the director, "he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants" extends to outright lies, slander, smear, and fraud? And this is "art," one would suppose? Hmmph, yah right. I'm an artist, too. And as an artist, I have every prerogative to present the facts in whatever way I want. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::An artist can present information in whatever way he wants, because the work is from the artist's point of view! You can't say the impressionist movement is "false" because it's not a real photographic depiction of objects, because that's not what the artists were trying to do! It is the job of the audience of determine whether it is fact or not. You're almost saying that The Day After Tomorrow is bilking the public money by presenting lies and slander. It is a motion picture that emphasizes on drama, and only a fool would start hoarding gasoline and heating equipment after seeing that movie. Moore's film is no different - he had to structure his film in a way that maximizes profit while conveying his viewpoints across to the audience. Dramatization (or slander/lies, one could say) is just an instrument used in a movie. Moore was trying to raise questions using his films, and that's exactly what he has done. Many of the points he raised was questionable, but, like I stated so many times before, he can write whatever he wants about whatever he wants - it's all fair game in Hollywood.

:::::Even though most movies try to be factually accurate, certain creative liberties must exist - whether it is scenes (and facts) omitted, facts distorted, or anything else. (And mind you, YOU consider that "outright lies, slander, smear and fraud", but some do not - certainly not Moore.)

:::::And let's not talk about "art" - I tried to avoid it earlier. I don't have too much respect for it so... yes, I do not expect "facts" in art. Do you believe that Jesus and his disciples actually sat in the exact order as depicted in The Last Supper by Da Vinci?[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:44, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"maximizes profit"''
::::::As Michael Moore's blood brother Gordon Gekko declared, "Greed is Good." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::You seem to have a habit of dismissing most of my points and picking on a particular phrase that I used. Is that normal practice in your debates? Or should I consider that you concede the points I raised about artistic liberties in Hollywood?
:::::::The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth. The theory goes on to state that actions to benefit oneself, in a free market, can often result in benefit in others (as seen in basic examples of trade). Whether you classify that as "greed" is your problem. Would you say Warren Buffett is "greedy" throughout his career? Or Bill Gates?
:::::::I'm sorry but if there's a further lack of rational objections (read: intellectual response), I'm going to replace the word "bilk" in the article. "Bilk" includes a negative connotation that is subjective to the author, and its inclusion creates a bias in the article (not that you guys worry about it here in Conservapedia). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::using "artistic" and "Hollywood" in the same sentence is kinda oxymoronic, isn't it?
:::::::::''The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth.''
::::::::IOW, self interest, or greed. This was [[Cain]]'s problem, was it not, when he murdered [[Abel]]. So this idea is hardly "modern."
::::::::So you're argument is that commiting fraud & slander somehow benefits the free market and furthers economic progress. I may take a different view, of course, beleiving that to stop such things is why we have police, courts, and regulation. And of course morality cannot be legislated, so there is also a question of self-policing ethical standards. You seem to be arguing that slander & fraud somehow can be tolerated as artistic (or as Moore might argue journalistic) license. This is all debating what the meaning of is "is." That's fine with me, let's continue debating what the meaning of "bilked" is then, since there's a big gapping hole whether Moore's life's opus is "art" or "journalism." Right now, there seems to be a wide general concensus it is "schlock." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Haha "artistic" and Hollywood! Now I agree that many of the junk that is regurgitated by Hollywood could hardly be seen as "artistic", but it is a medium for conveyance of ideas, and it fits my broad definition of "art". (Not that I care for "art")

I didn't mention that fraud and slander "benefits the free market". I wanted to state that Moore's movies merely fits within the constraints of the free market - benefit is subjective. I don't think that increasing a person's own wealth is greed - I have a job right now, and I need the money to pay for tuition. My parents have jobs to put food on the table - is that greed? When Cain murdered Abel, he went outside the constraints of the free market - and that's wrong. That's why there are, as you stated, police, courts and regulations to punish those who don't play by the rules of the free market.

Alright, to sum up - you believe that Moore is using lies and misinformation in the production of movies; I believe that he stretches the truth and use convenient omissions to bring across his point. You believe that he did his movies to bilk the public (with the intention of monetary gains, I think?); I believe that it is his prerogative to create a movie about anything - truth or fiction - in Hollywood (and yes, he wants money, but also to bring across his point as a far-left liberal). We're obviously not going to resolve this, and if I change the word it'll just come down to an edit war. How about a compromise? Something along the lines of "Moore's films have grossed over x dollars worldwide. Some critics have ..." <insert criticism & citation here>.

See, even when I write that down it becomes obvious that there is no way the original statement can stay in an encyclopedia article. Cite it, or cut it. Even citations that says he "bilked" the money would be an opinion piece, which is not acceptable in Conservapedia. Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public the money, the world "bilk" has no place in the article.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:''Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public''
:Again, you've returned to the fiction that the entry states Michael Moore, a person, "bilked" the public. It explicit does not. It states an inanimate object "Michael Moore's films" have bilked the public. What could me more clear? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::I fail to see the distinction, and I think you're just being a nitpicker by focusing on an insignificant detail. If a person created an inanimate object which "bilked" the public, the author is held responsible. Even if you insist, the sentence could be reworded with "Moore's films", and you've still not addressed my points. This further proves that you're unwilling, or unable, to answer my concerns. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Per our rules, the CP Guidelines, Admin decisions on such matters are final, as they are the ones who set policy. Your objections, ATang, have been seriously considered and noted. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:53, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: May I ask what the serious consideration entails? Is the final decision that the article stays as it is? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Michael Moore

2007-08-21T17:46:43Z

MrRandom: /* Are you kidding? */

== Please note edits! ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, this page is completely biased. If you want this site to rival Wikipedia in any way, shape or form you should probably remove the quotes around "documentary" when referring to "Sicko" (which by the way has won praise from conservatives as well as liberals. Not to mention under the picture it is captioned "Michael Moore, ranting". Hardly unbiased at all as you claim this site to be. Nor is it trustworth. {{unsigned|RobWW}}

==Please Fix==

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

== Are you kidding? ==

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

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

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

*Thank you, Element for the kindness and reasoned response/request! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:41, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

yet another reason for me not be a Republican the book "Michael Moore Is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" by David T. sounds just a little childish once again "Micheal Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man" nice

==Moore High School Photo==
[[Image:Mmoore.png|right|thumb|Michael Moore's high school yearbook photo.]]

He looks like a lovely young lady. Too bad about the way things worked out. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:43, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== Why the second photo? ==

The article's kinda short, does it really necessitate a second photo? Also, the caption is subjective, since Ranting is kind of a POV term, and really we don't know when or where the photo was taken either. For all we know he's singing Carry On My Wayward Son. If the photo's going to be kept (in a, preferably, longer article if at all) the caption should either say when/where it was taken, or just say "Michael Moore in an unflattering pose because his mouth is open and that is funny, him being fat and all. Teh Lulz!!!11!"
--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:53, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

== Scare quotes and use of pseudo-documentary ==
I'm no fan of Michael Moore's, but using the quotes around "documentary" and writing "pseudo-documentary" in the article are needlessly pejorative. A documentary doesn't have to be purely factual, and it doesn't have to be have completely undisputed accuracy. People kibitzed about "Waco: Rules of Engagement" and about the nature facts presented in "March of the Penguins," but those are both obviously documentaries. Since you've already got a section in about factual disputes in his articles, why not clear out the stuff that takes the article from impartial to snide? [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:50, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
: Michael Moore presented his "information" as definitive fact. This places him well within the bounds of reasonable scrutiny and criticism. Even minor inconsistencies (including information later validated) that he would not have been privy to are unacceptable. Placing documentary within quotations provides all the information required to illustrate the doubt cast on his claims. Conservapedia proclaims conciseness and this is an apt and just oppurtunity to provide us with some. Having an entire section devoted to "liberoganda" backpedalling and weak attempts to legitimize his controversial films would be a clear instance of bias. It would serve no purpose other than one-sided filler material. --[[User:Deuteronomy|Deuteronomy]] 11:38, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
::But then you're pre-emptively judging his next film Sicko without even knowing what it claims by putting the word Documentary in "Sarcastic quotes". Yes, he should be, and is, scrutinized for what he says, but so then is everything. As brainslug says, people will always claim that documentaries present inaccurate facts or interpretations, but whatever the results of such scrutinous challenges, this doesnt make them not documentaries. Its enough to say, as the article does, that people challenge his claims without having to invent a word like "pseudo-documentary" (a term which seems to apply to ficticious movies like Spinal Tap) to describe a movie that the site finds disagreeable.
::--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 11:48, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:: In addition to what Rex said above, we already have a small paragraph in which he's accused of using deceit and so on. We might as well expand that. More facts are better than fewer facts; speaking in detail about his errors is better than insinuating without detail. [[User:Brainslug|Brainslug]] 11:53, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

== Default sort ==

Please add <nowiki>{{DEFAULTSORT:Moore, Michael}}</nowiki> to the article before the categories. The article is locked. Thanks. [[User:HeartOfGold|<big>H</big>eart<big>O</big>f<big>G</big>old]][[User_talk:HeartOfGold|talk]] 02:32, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

*I did, but wish I knew why we do this...--[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 02:52, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

== POlitics requires a minimum of brains? ==
I can conclude from this that RobS knows NOTHING about politics, and has never met an actual politician. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:19, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:Be careful with your accusations. Andy once ran for office. [[User:Arjen|Arjen]] 22:35, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::It's not an accusation, it's a simple statement. Categroizing Michael Moore as a "political person" is an insult to people who generally are informed, and are concerned about public policy, and public discourse. I'm not sure "satirist" would apply, and if so, not a very good one. "Comedian" might offend real comedians, too. Perhaps "film maker" or some such garbage. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:47, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
:::Political people can be buffoons, too. Sometimes it seems like a job requirement. OTOH, I guess Rush Limbaugh isn't listed as a "Political Person", either. But I get the impressing Moore '''is''' informed and concerned--he just happens to think Conservatives are doing a terrible job. Oh, and he's fat, so there's no point in listening to him. --[[User:Gulik3|Gulik3]] 22:55, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
::::Good point. Do we really want to ''elevate'' Limbaugh to a political person? OTOH, Al Franken is probably running for Senate; once he's a real candidate, he should qualify for awhile, unless he wins then he can enter the Pantheon with all our other failed icons. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:00, 21 May 2007 (EDT)

You guys want to see a real masterwork of deception, check out the efforts by the "editors" at WP who refuse to identify Moore as "left-wing" for fear that it may paint him in a negative fashion. This, despite Moore's own admission to being "left-wing". WP truly is a magical land where fantasy prevails over reality. A lot like Disneyland but without the fun. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 10:46, 14 July 2007 (EDT)

== See also ==
That whole section should be removed. Maybe if you have seen some of his movies you wouldn't say that it is all based on "junk science". Also why is there a criticism section but no praise? Since his movies have gotten much more praise than criticism [[User:Ttwashere|Ttwashere]] 20:28, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

*First, welcome to CP! I pasted a welcome template on your talk page (which now exists) and hope you will read the links provided.

: Second, I don't know who is "you", but I have indeed seen all of Moore's work. I would commend to you the posted reviews, not by people considered by anyone to be defenders of Conservative thought, for you to contemplate. In the real world, Moore hasn't gotten more professional praise than criticism. Quite the opposite. Here at CP, we do not strive for political correctness, and do not tolerate Liberal [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 20:33, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

:Ttwashere, I agree with TK. Liberal [[deceit]] is not tolerated and anyone here suggesting Moore is anything but a propragandist for Socialism, is deluding themselves. Moore is a liar. He uses the film medium to promote an agenda which is radical left-wing extremism. He distorts his information in his "documentaries" as well as any Nazi or Communist propagandist from the past. There are quite a few good sources for drawing this conclusion. Thank you. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 09:28, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

::I think Moore is just a greedy capitalist pig. Even limousine liberals need to be judged by thier works, moreso than the lies they advocate which they may or may not believe in themselves. The big probelm with deceit is, once a person gets well practiced in it, they become thier own biggest victim. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Greed certainly does create its' own idealogy, that's for sure. [[User:Scorpio|Scorpio]] 17:24, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Rob, there was a "report", news item, last year I believe, or early in this one, where someone actually go hold of some of his (Moore's) financial information. It showed large sums sheltered in the Cayman's, and a rather large block of Haliburton stock! If you ever run across it, that would be a great addition to the article! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:34, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

:*Excellant idea. For some reason Moore makes me think of [[Ken Ley]], there's a lot of similiarities between these two rich scam artists who prey on an unsuspecting public to line their own pockets. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:02, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes. Once at a Beverly Hills eatery, where the price of a sandwich with fries approaches what I had to spend weekly as a student for food, I was shocked to have someone point him out to me. He was in Armani, and certainly not wearing a truckers hat, and did indeed leave in his Liberal Limousine! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 14:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

== Earnings ==

Why does the sentence under the section Earning says "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00." when the citation given states $168,070,886? Also, the usage of the word "bilk" is subjective. Even though his films are not proper "documentaries", it doesn't mean he defrauded the public. I'm removing the sentence. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:(A) Asked and answered on the page; (B) the sentence specifically says "worldwide," the chart specifically cites "US Gross;" (C) the link provided specifically references the same language, idea, and concept. (D) the term "bilked" is commonly understood to mean defraud, cheat, swindle, thwart, frustrate, or hoax.

:Now, if you absolutely demand reputable and credible citations to support the claim, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public worldwide in excess of $200,000,000.00," that certainly is no large demand, and we'd being only too willing to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:44, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::I asked essentially the same question (elsewhere) some time back so clearly it was confusing. I have now made a change to hopefully make the distinction more obvious. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:52, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:The earnings was a gross oversight on my part (missed US and worldwide). The definition you gave for "bilk" doesn't justify its use - how did Moore cheat the public that money? Even though Moore provided a very one-sided, often slanderous, and sometimes factually inaccurate story, that doesn't mean he bilked the public of the money. It is a Hollywood movie, where people pay for entertainment (if the public decides to blindly trust it as fact... then that's really their fault). Saying Moore bilked the public money is like saying the new Transformers bilked the public money because it didn't follow the original cartoon, or saying Live Free or Die Hard cheated the public because of its misrepresentation of certain technologies prominently displayed (i.e. The hovering capabilities and weapons of the F-35). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:56, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
::Ah ha. You make the misrepresentation "how did Moore cheat the public that money?" The text does not say that. The text specifically says, "Michael Moore's films have bilked the public." Now let me please explain. Michael Moore's films are specifically inanimate objects, and not a person. Very recently, I made a bank deposit which included a counterfeit $20 bill. The $20 bill was confiscated, and I suffered the loss. It was not my intent to bilk the bank, and I was not prosecuted. But I personally was bilked out of $20--an inanimate object--not by the bank, and presumably not by the anonymous person who passed it to me who themselves likely did not know of its fraudulent origins. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:28, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::How did that semantic argument change my point? In fact, I listed two other 'films', which by the definition of whoever wrote the bilking sentence, bilked the public. The movies simply portrayed Moore's representation of the subject at hand, through the use of weasel words and sarcasm (as per his usual style). My original objection to the sentence is still that "the movie did not bilk the public of their money" because it's not a proper documentary. His failure to portray both sides of the story in Sicko (as an example) is used to convey Moore's viewpoint on the US Healthcare system. As he's the director, he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants.
:::I guess my point boils down to the question "If a movie is biased, is any money made because of it considered to be <nowiki>'bilked'</nowiki>?" My answer is no. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 13:06, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Oh, so as the director, "he has every prerogative to film his movies in whatever way he wants" extends to outright lies, slander, smear, and fraud? And this is "art," one would suppose? Hmmph, yah right. I'm an artist, too. And as an artist, I have every prerogative to present the facts in whatever way I want. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:58, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::An artist can present information in whatever way he wants, because the work is from the artist's point of view! You can't say the impressionist movement is "false" because it's not a real photographic depiction of objects, because that's not what the artists were trying to do! It is the job of the audience of determine whether it is fact or not. You're almost saying that The Day After Tomorrow is bilking the public money by presenting lies and slander. It is a motion picture that emphasizes on drama, and only a fool would start hoarding gasoline and heating equipment after seeing that movie. Moore's film is no different - he had to structure his film in a way that maximizes profit while conveying his viewpoints across to the audience. Dramatization (or slander/lies, one could say) is just an instrument used in a movie. Moore was trying to raise questions using his films, and that's exactly what he has done. Many of the points he raised was questionable, but, like I stated so many times before, he can write whatever he wants about whatever he wants - it's all fair game in Hollywood.

:::::Even though most movies try to be factually accurate, certain creative liberties must exist - whether it is scenes (and facts) omitted, facts distorted, or anything else. (And mind you, YOU consider that "outright lies, slander, smear and fraud", but some do not - certainly not Moore.)

:::::And let's not talk about "art" - I tried to avoid it earlier. I don't have too much respect for it so... yes, I do not expect "facts" in art. Do you believe that Jesus and his disciples actually sat in the exact order as depicted in The Last Supper by Da Vinci?[[User:ATang|ATang]] 11:44, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::''"maximizes profit"''
::::::As Michael Moore's blood brother Gordon Gekko declared, "Greed is Good." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:06, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::You seem to have a habit of dismissing most of my points and picking on a particular phrase that I used. Is that normal practice in your debates? Or should I consider that you concede the points I raised about artistic liberties in Hollywood?
:::::::The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth. The theory goes on to state that actions to benefit oneself, in a free market, can often result in benefit in others (as seen in basic examples of trade). Whether you classify that as "greed" is your problem. Would you say Warren Buffett is "greedy" throughout his career? Or Bill Gates?
:::::::I'm sorry but if there's a further lack of rational objections (read: intellectual response), I'm going to replace the word "bilk" in the article. "Bilk" includes a negative connotation that is subjective to the author, and its inclusion creates a bias in the article (not that you guys worry about it here in Conservapedia). [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:57, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::::using "artistic" and "Hollywood" in the same sentence is kinda oxymoronic, isn't it?
:::::::::''The basis of modern economics is based on each person's desire to increase their own wealth.''
::::::::IOW, self interest, or greed. This was [[Cain]]'s problem, was it not, when he murdered [[Abel]]. So this idea is hardly "modern."
::::::::So you're argument is that commiting fraud & slander somehow benefits the free market and furthers economic progress. I may take a different view, of course, beleiving that to stop such things is why we have police, courts, and regulation. And of course morality cannot be legislated, so there is also a question of self-policing ethical standards. You seem to be arguing that slander & fraud somehow can be tolerated as artistic (or as Moore might argue journalistic) license. This is all debating what the meaning of is "is." That's fine with me, let's continue debating what the meaning of "bilked" is then, since there's a big gapping hole whether Moore's life's opus is "art" or "journalism." Right now, there seems to be a wide general concensus it is "schlock." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

<---
Haha "artistic" and Hollywood! Now I agree that many of the junk that is regurgitated by Hollywood could hardly be seen as "artistic", but it is a medium for conveyance of ideas, and it fits my broad definition of "art". (Not that I care for "art")

I didn't mention that fraud and slander "benefits the free market". I wanted to state that Moore's movies merely fits within the constraints of the free market - benefit is subjective. I don't think that increasing a person's own wealth is greed - I have a job right now, and I need the money to pay for tuition. My parents have jobs to put food on the table - is that greed? When Cain murdered Abel, he went outside the constraints of the free market - and that's wrong. That's why there are, as you stated, police, courts and regulations to punish those who don't play by the rules of the free market.

Alright, to sum up - you believe that Moore is using lies and misinformation in the production of movies; I believe that he stretches the truth and use convenient omissions to bring across his point. You believe that he did his movies to bilk the public (with the intention of monetary gains, I think?); I believe that it is his prerogative to create a movie about anything - truth or fiction - in Hollywood (and yes, he wants money, but also to bring across his point as a far-left liberal). We're obviously not going to resolve this, and if I change the word it'll just come down to an edit war. How about a compromise? Something along the lines of "Moore's films have grossed over x dollars worldwide. Some critics have ..." <insert criticism & citation here>.

See, even when I write that down it becomes obvious that there is no way the original statement can stay in an encyclopedia article. Cite it, or cut it. Even citations that says he "bilked" the money would be an opinion piece, which is not acceptable in Conservapedia. Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public the money, the world "bilk" has no place in the article.
[[User:ATang|ATang]] 12:38, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

:''Unless you find some sort of official enquiry that determined Moore cheated the public''
:Again, you've returned to the fiction that the entry states Michael Moore, a person, "bilked" the public. It explicit does not. It states an inanimate object "Michael Moore's films" have bilked the public. What could me more clear? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:19, 3 August 2007 (EDT)

::I fail to see the distinction, and I think you're just being a nitpicker by focusing on an insignificant detail. If a person created an inanimate object which "bilked" the public, the author is held responsible. Even if you insist, the sentence could be reworded with "Moore's films", and you've still not addressed my points. This further proves that you're unwilling, or unable, to answer my concerns. [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

*Per our rules, the CP Guidelines, Admin decisions on such matters are final, as they are the ones who set policy. Your objections, ATang, have been seriously considered and noted. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:53, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

:: May I ask what the serious consideration entails? Is the final decision that the article stays as it is? [[User:ATang|ATang]] 10:44, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia:American Government Fall 2007

2007-08-20T17:15:42Z

MrRandom: /* Enroll here: */

'''Current enrollment: 41 students, 3 teachers'''

"American Government 101" is a 14-week course that teaches the basics of government, both [[federal]] and state. It reviews the [[U.S. Constitution]], including concepts like the [[separation of powers]] among the branches of government.

Students seeking to earn college credit can take the [[CLEP]] or [[AP]] exams upon successful completion of this course.

This course begins in September and already 24 students have enrolled. Please add your user id. (use the signature button above) if you would like to participate in this course in any way, either as a student or as a teacher on this site, and your name will be transferred to a roster. As an enrolled participant, you will have special access to a protected area established for this course.

Teenagers are welcome as students, and advanced college students and adults are welcome as teachers. The primary instructor is [[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]], who has taught over 10 courses, including one as an adjunct professor at a major law school.

== Enroll here: ==
Add me -[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 15:39, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome! You're student #38, and participant #41 including teachers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:26, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Hello, I would also like to enroll in this class, and am not sure if this is how to do so. Please let me know! [[User:Janewayne]]

: Welcome! You are student #37. This will be fun and you'll learn immensely. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:36, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

What is this about, how can I enroll? [[User:Cyzward]]

: You just did. Welcome! We start in mid-September, and lectures will be posted here along with assignments, discussion, etc. You will learn American Government better than you thought possible. You are student #36, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I would like to enroll in the American Government 101 class. I am a sophomore in high school.--[[User:Mcpannier|Mcpannier]] 12:26, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Fantastic! Welcome to the class, which will start in September. You are student #25 and you will have special access to a restricted area (namespace) for this course. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:06, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

i would like to enroll also...as i always slept through AG classes when younger :) --[[User:Wally|Wally]] 22:35, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Great, welcome! You're student #26 ... or teacher #2 depending on how much you really slept! Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
--[[User:A303springfield|A303springfield]] 00:14, 7 August 2007 (EDT)

:: Fantastic!! You're most welcome! You're student #28, and we have another teacher in addition to myself. We start in September but please feel free to edit here before then.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 7 August 2007 (EDT)
[[category:government]]
[[category:United States Government]]
[[category:homeschool curriculum]]

--[[User:Blu1001|Blu1001]] 19:16, 10 August 2007 (EDT) This sounds cool
*09:50, 11 August 2007 DanH (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Blu1001 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (sock of two blocked useres)
http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Blu1001

: He's our first expelled student!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:10, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
Great, I would like to enroll please. I am 42 and am teaching my 10 year old about government. username: CDRobbins

: Great, you count as a new teacher, and your child as a new student. Both of you are enrolled and I'll increment the totals above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:42, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

'''ADD YOUR NAME HERE:'''

I have sent an email to Mr Schlafly explaining my desire to enrol. Even though I am a UK high school student, I hope you will still accept me. --[[User:TJ|TJ]] 09:26, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome! It's great having a student from the UK. You are student #35 to enroll. You'll enjoy this and learn a great deal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:24, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

Name Sithlordsteven, or Steven, I wish to enroll! This course is one of the many courses I am looking forward to this semester. Is this how you enroll?

: Ah, great!!! You're participant number 43: 40 students and 3 teachers. Welcome!

I think I will try out the class. I hope I have the time for it, do you know exactly when it starts, ends and about what the time commitments each week will be?[[User:SPierce|SPierce]] 23:06, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

: Welcome! This is a weekly class, probably starting Thursday, September 13th and running weekly thereafter, with a few breaks that will enable students to catch up if they have to. There won't be a lot of work. This is about understanding a few concepts well. Quality, not quantity, is key. You're participant #44. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:00, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

I am in 8th grade at a catholic school so I figure since we`re studing american historry I may as well learn about the Government- Mr.Random-a different kind of random

== Homework and Contest ==

This course will have weekly homework that will use a point system. Here is the proposed point system and we welcome feedback by our teachers and students about it:

*'''Quality new entry: 10 points'''
**A "quality new entry" includes at least two full-length paragraphs, three relevant citations, and more in-depth content than just a stub. In the case of a dispute, the inclusion/lack of an image can be used as a deciding factor.
**One point of extra credit for having more than six relevant citations.
**A new article is eligible for all forms of credit that can attach to an article--thus, submitting a quality new page with categorization will merit eleven points--ten for the article and one for the cat tag.
*'''Quality edit of existing entry: 4 points'''
**A "quality edit" to an existing article includes at least two extra sentences, an additional reference, and the inclusion of an important or relevant fact.
**One point of extra credit will be given for enclosing the citations in ref tags and including the references tag to define a reference section.
*'''Any new entry: 6 points'''
**Two points of extra credit for submitting an article well-organized into sections.
*'''Small edit of existing entry: 2 points'''
**One point of extra credit for breaking an existing article into logical sections if it didn't already have any.
*'''Categorizing entry: 1 point'''
*'''Adding a link within an entry to remove it from the dead-end list: 1 point'''

Each week a student will be expected to score a minimum amount of points, such as 25 per week (feedback on that total is welcome).

During the course we will also have several weekly team contests, with recognition for teams scoring the most points.

== Syllabus ==

#Constitution
#Bill of Rights and Federalism
#Congress
#President and Bureaucracy
#Judiciary
#Public Opinion
#The Media
#Political Parties and Voting and Elections
#Interest Groups
#Civil Rights and Liberties
#Public and Economic Policy
#Foreign Policy
#Review

== CLEP ==

The [[CLEP]] exam on American Government tests these topics with these weightings:

#30-40%: legal aspects of government, including the [[U.S. Constitution]], [[federalism]], [[separation of powers]], [[checks and balances]], majority v. minority, theories of democracy, the courts, the [[Bill of Rights]], applying the [[Bill of Rights]] against the states, [[equal protection]] and [[due process]]
#30-35%: Three branches of government and how they relate with each other and with interest groups, the media, public opinion and political parties
#15-20%: Political parties and interest groups and elections
#10-15%: Political beliefs and behavior, including how opinions are formed and how opinion influences political leaders. BEWARE: THIS SECTION IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO [[liberal bias|LIBERAL BIAS]]

== AP ==

The [[AP]] exam on American Government tests these topics with these weightings:<ref>http://www.collegeboard.com/student/testing/ap/usgov/topics.html?usgovpol</ref>

#Institutions of National Government: The Congress, the Presidency, the Bureaucracy, and the Federal Courts (35-45%)
#Constitutional Underpinnings of United States Government (5-15%)
#Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (5-15%)
#Political Beliefs and Behaviors (10-20%)
#Political Parties, Interest Groups, and Mass Media (10-20%)
#Public Policy (5-15%)

Note that roughly the bottom half of the above topics are highly susceptible to [[liberal bias]].

== Interesting Issues in Government ==

#a liberal proposed that the next Democratic President add Justices to the Supreme Court. Lawful?
#should Congress limit judicial review, as in ending judicial review of the Pledge of Allegiance?
#the rule against interstate sales tax -- interference with state power?
#free 50 guilty defendants rather than convict one innocent one?
#Electoral college – scrap it?
#postal monopoly – end exclusivity for regular mail?
#line-item veto – constitutional?
#conditional declarations of war by Congress – constitutional?
#immigration - build a wall?
#excluding homeschoolers from public school activities – constitutional? Fair?
#are limits on campaign contributions constitutional?
#should we allow free trade with China? With countries that suppress religion?
#full free speech for corporations? In advertising? In denying wrongdoing?
#should corporations be able to donate directly to political campaigns?
#random drug testing of students in school activities – constitutional?
#equal protection clause – should it protect non-citizens? apply to gender?
#state discounts for residents – violate Privileges and Immunities Clause?
#non-delegation doctrine – can Congress delegate lawmaking to agencies?
#substantive due process – distinguish between economic and social rights?
#English-only laws for basic public school courses – constitutional?
#Title IX: athletes’ gender must be proportional to enrollment – constitutional?
#should the Bill of Rights be applied against the States?
#heat-seeking sensors to detect marijuana plants growing within homes - legal?

== References ==

<references/>

The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection

2007-08-20T03:57:59Z

MrRandom: /* CHAPTER 4. NATURAL SELECTION */

[[Image:Originb.jpg|right|thumb|The first edition of ''On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection'' published in London on November 24, 1859.|250px]]
'''On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection''' is a book by [[Charles Darwin]] published in 1859. It introduced the world to [[evolution]] through a process of [[natural selection]]. The main thesis was that different animal species were not independently created, and that similar species can result from natural variation followed by different survivability rates. Animals that are more adapted to their environments are more likely to survive. Alfred Russel Wallace wrote a similar theory independently, and had sent a manuscript to Darwin. Darwin also used Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest", but then fitness has to be defined as that which survives.

Human evolution is conspicuously absent from Origin - knowing of the opposition such a suggestion would face, Darwin confined his initial speculation to nonhuman animals. He covered the topic of human evolution in a later work, [[The Descent of Man]].

==Summary==

===CHAPTER 1. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION===

In this chapter, Darwin motivates the case for variation and selection by illustrating the variety among the natural and domesticated plant and animal worlds. Without knowing the details of [[inheritance]] (which would be demonstrated later by [[Gregor Mendel]], [[James Watson]], and [[Francis Crick]] among others) he shows its implications: like breeds like. Inheritance is what breeders use to direct the variation of species to some useful means. This is done by selection; the breeders' are keenly aware of the minor differences in the offspring populations of animals and exploit them to create new varieties. The variation of species is not simply due to crossings of existing varieties. He argues this by showing examples where it is unlikely or impossible, pigeons, dogs, and talks about recent domestication. Pigeon varieties completely different in appearance from the the wild rock pigeon show traits of the wild rock pigeon when crossed. He shows, through the works of breeders, that in fact even animals within the same breed show variation of which expert breeders are aware (consciously or subconsciously) and exploit to direct the traits of the offspring. This he shows convincingly, as breeders cannot control traits directly, but can exploit variation to make new breeds because they know the traits are inherited. During Darwin's time, species was not a well-defined category: animals may be regarded as species or varieties even among prominent naturalists of the time.

===CHAPTER 2. VARIATION UNDER NATURE===

===CHAPTER 3. STRUGGLE FOR EXISTENCE===

===CHAPTER 4. NATURAL SELECTION===
the cycle of natural section states that a predator will gain a advantage over prey then the prey gains a advantage over the predator and so on and so forth.

===CHAPTER 5. LAWS OF VARIATION===

===CHAPTER 6. DIFFICULTIES ON THEORY===

===CHAPTER 7. INSTINCT===

===CHAPTER 8. HYBRIDISM===

===CHAPTER 9. ON THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD===

===CHAPTER 10. ON THE GEOLOGICAL SUCCESSION OF ORGANIC BEINGS===

===CHAPTER 11. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION===

===CHAPTER 12. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION--continued===

===CHAPTER 13. MUTUAL AFFINITIES OF ORGANIC BEINGS: MORPHOLOGY: EMBRYOLOGY: RUDIMENTARY ORGANS===

===CHAPTER 14. RECAPITULATION AND CONCLUSION===

==External Links==

*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1228 Origin of Species, 1st Edition]
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/2009 Origin of Species, 6th Edition]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Origin of Species, The}}

[[Category:Book]]
[[Category:Origins debate]]
[[Category:Biology]]

All Things Considered

2007-07-21T16:25:27Z

MrRandom:

'''All Things Considered''', is one of the Nation's most popular radio talk shows begun in 1971 it was one of the new station NPR`s original shows; it airs every weekday for two hours on [[National Public Radio]]. All Things Considered covers a variety of topics from [[Science]] to [[Politics]]. The show is hosted by Michele Norris, Robert Siegal, and Melissa Block.

[[Category: Media]]

All Things Considered

2007-07-21T16:24:54Z

MrRandom:

'''All Things Considered''', is one of the Nation's most popular radio talk shows begun in 1971 it was one of the new station`s NPR original shows; it airs every weekday for two hours on [[National Public Radio]]. All Things Considered covers a variety of topics from [[Science]] to [[Politics]]. The show is hosted by Michele Norris, Robert Siegal, and Melissa Block.

[[Category: Media]]

Talk:Democratic Party

2007-07-21T16:22:44Z

MrRandom: /* ic */

== Criticism ==

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

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

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

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

== Some of these? ==

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

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

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

== ic ==

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

ICK, no kidding, I like how the article is slanted to make it seem like all democrats are sinners and I bet that a equal number of republicans were slave owners

== Pro-Terrorism ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Use of AD ==

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

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

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

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

== By Jefferson? ==

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

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

== Sources ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==History==

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

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

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

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

== Reversions ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Religion section ==

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

Talk:All Things Considered

2007-07-21T16:19:37Z

MrRandom: /* Does it really? */

== Does it really? ==
Does it really live up to its name? Does it consider the Biblical worldview and the Biblical account of creation? Not what I've heard of it (and yes, I have on occasions heard the program even here in Oz.) [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:56, 19 July 2007 (EDT)

haow many times have you listened to it then? and you can`t just base this off of word of mouth.

User:MrRandom

2007-07-19T15:37:59Z

MrRandom:

I am a liberal Democrat and am here to bring my opinion to the table, after all you can`t have a truly balanced opinion with out both sides view

mrRandom
a different kind of democrat, a different kind of random

{{User Evo}}
{{User bigbang}}
{{User evolutionScience}}
{{User Liberal}}
{{User antigun}}

All Things Considered

2007-07-18T18:45:39Z

MrRandom: New page: Allt Things Considered is one of the Nations most popular radio talk shows it airs every weekday for two hours. All Things Considered comes true to its name and covers every thing from Sci...

Allt Things Considered is one of the Nations most popular radio talk shows it airs every weekday for two hours. All Things Considered comes true to its name and covers every thing from Science to Politics, the shoe is hosted by Michele Norris, Robert Siegal, and Melissa Block.

User:MrRandom

2007-07-18T17:40:10Z

MrRandom:

User:MrRandom

2007-07-18T17:39:33Z

MrRandom: New page: I am a liberal Democrat and am here to bring my opinion to the table, after all you can`t have a truly balanced opinion with out both sides view mrRandom a different kind of democrat, a ...

Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

2007-07-18T17:30:46Z

MrRandom: /* Yes */

{{debate-project}}

==NO==

Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Right on. If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itself[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Neither Conservapedia nor Wikipedia has any right to twist the truth, to say that black is white. If abortion does '''not''' cause breast cancer, then we '''must not''' say so. But if it does, we certainly have a right to do so, and perhaps even a moral obligation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It is completely unacceptble for any source to twist facts horribly as is done here and then present them to impressionable school children as fact. This is one of the most morally unsound programs I have ever encountered and I intend to continue posting this opinion on debate topics in an attempt to expose how evil this site truly is.
Helios-Fear no God, fear only that which can be seen or heard, for no God will lay hands upon one who denies them. Here in lies the weakness of faith.

Hmmm. well it does say "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" impliying that its articles are truthful and unbiased but it also says right on the front page "A CONSERVETIVE encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." theres an intresting contrast between these two.- RG :]

==Yes==

If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Its called Conservapedia as in Conservative. I think that gives it the ok to lean a little to the right and try to preserve the ideas of our founding fathers.

like invading the publics personal and private lives and violating privacy with no good reason- [[User:mrRandom|mrRandom]]

==It's a meaningless question==

Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bias and Credibility ==
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Debate:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?

2007-07-18T17:29:45Z

MrRandom: /* Yes */

{{debate-project}}

==NO==

Wikipedia is accused of having a left tilt, and the remedy is not a competing site with a right tilt, but a competing site with the hard truth, properly documented. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 12:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Right on. If you see a bias on Conservapedia it is only you liberal nature exerting itself[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Neither Conservapedia nor Wikipedia has any right to twist the truth, to say that black is white. If abortion does '''not''' cause breast cancer, then we '''must not''' say so. But if it does, we certainly have a right to do so, and perhaps even a moral obligation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:16, 11 April 2007 (EDT)

It is completely unacceptble for any source to twist facts horribly as is done here and then present them to impressionable school children as fact. This is one of the most morally unsound programs I have ever encountered and I intend to continue posting this opinion on debate topics in an attempt to expose how evil this site truly is.
Helios-Fear no God, fear only that which can be seen or heard, for no God will lay hands upon one who denies them. Here in lies the weakness of faith.

Hmmm. well it does say "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" impliying that its articles are truthful and unbiased but it also says right on the front page "A CONSERVETIVE encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." theres an intresting contrast between these two.- RG :]

==Yes==

If it's a bias in favor of good things like Christianity and the American Dream (see Martin Luther King's [[I Have a Dream]] speech), then I see nothing wrong with bias. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

What is this "The American Dream" accoridng to Ed Poor? Martin Luther King was '''NOT'''a conservative and I resent your citing his work on my beloved Conservapedia.[[User:Rebiu|Rebiu]] 15:14, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Its called Conservapedia as in Conservative. I think that gives it the ok to lean a little to the right and try to preserve the ideas of our founding fathers.

like invading the publics personal and private lives and violating privacy with no good reason- mrRamdom

==It's a meaningless question==

Whether or not it's okay, there *will* be biased articles. This is inevitable, particularly given the set up here and the nature of the sysops; and even without them, it's not possible. One person's ''hard truth, properly documented'' is someone else's conjecture and lies (see any of the the evolution/creation pages on here as evidence) [[User:Chrysogonus|Chrysogonus]] 12:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Bias and Credibility ==
One of the good things that Conservapedia has done is to make Wikipedia look at some of its own practices and articles. However, this ability to critique Wikipedia and affect changes is completely dependent upon Conservapedia being regarded as a creditable site. As Conservapedia becomes more biased and more fringe (further from the open ideals of being able to edit articles on a wiki and with more extreme conservative rhetoric), its impact upon Wikipedia becomes lost and it becomes more of a target of mockery. It may not be possible to completely remove the conservative bias from the articles, but one would hope that this bias is not written into the article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 15:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)