https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=NotForgottenConservapedia - User contributions [en]2026-09-22T04:14:19ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=256955Talk:Deceit2007-08-01T00:40:55Z<p>NotForgotten: /* Pat Tillman example needs work */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-<br />
<br><br />
<br>a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
<br>b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
<br>c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br><br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.<br />
<br />
:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.<br />
<br />
:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia's credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to blame for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=256948Talk:Deceit2007-08-01T00:38:16Z<p>NotForgotten: Pat Tillman is an excellent current example</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Miller was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-<br />
<br><br />
<br>a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
<br>b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
<br>c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br><br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Exactly, Ed. I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman. So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.<br />
<br />
:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.<br />
<br />
:Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out? Was was the motive for the deceit? Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks Andy. One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia' credibility problem. Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely? As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment. However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article. As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example. And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to balme for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=256899Talk:Deceit2007-08-01T00:03:06Z<p>NotForgotten: I am afraid</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Goodman was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out three things:-<br />
<br />
a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Exactly, Ed. I wouold do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in. Perhaps someone else would tackle it? It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased. Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=256892Talk:Deceit2007-07-31T23:54:57Z<p>NotForgotten: It's deceit, however you wish to read it</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Archives:''' [[/Archive 1|1]]<br />
<br />
==10 Commandments==<br />
I don't think the reference about removing the 10 Commandments from schools really shows that you're going for. The decision was to remove any physical depiction of the 10 Commandments, which has nothing to do with whether morals are taught in schools. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:20, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: "Nothing to do with morals are taught in schools"? You can't be serious. That's like saying "2+2=4" has nothing with whether "2+3=5". If the Ten Commandments can't be on the wall, then they can't be taught for [[normative]] purposes in textbooks either.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes I am serious. To use your example you don't need a poster that says 2+2=4 to learn that or to know it. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 18:41, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a big part of the curriculum these days, and I've yet to see a school library without a bible in it. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== contradiction in the definition ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure why I am getting involved with this, but here goes:<br />
<br />
* " Deceit is the fraudulent representation of a material fact, made intentionally or recklessly or without reasonable basis and with the intent to induce reliance on the falsehood".<br />
* "Traditionally deceit was taught as being wrong and in violation of the Ten Commandments" -"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor".<br />
<br />
The logic implied therefore is that'''all deceit'' is prohibited by the 10 commandments.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, bearing "false witness against a neighbour" is not the same as "fraudulent misrepresentation of a material fact", and does not encompass all the things that the latter could possible include. For example, claiming that you have a PhD when you do not have one is clearly deceit, but I cannot find anything in the 10 commandments that tells me I should not do it. I am not stealing; I am not bearing false witness against a neighbour. Am I coveting? I don't think so. As far as the ten commandments is concerned, I can get away with it.<br />
<br />
Under these circumstances, the statement concerning the 10C needs to be amended to say:<br />
"Deceit has traditionally been viwed as being morally wrong and in many respects it is in violation of the Ten Commandments, especially those deceits which involve harm or malpractice to another person" --[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 16:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Sometimes deceit can also be stealing - if you are trying to get advantages by deceiving. For example that kind of telling you have a PhD can have this kind of wrong motive. --[[User:Aulis Eskola|Aulis Eskola]] 17:36, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Most crimes entail deceit, but the point here is when deceit is the primary wrongdoing.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:53, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:::You seem to be missing the point. I am not saying deceit is right, far from it. I am saying that the statement that "deceit is ... in violation of the Ten Commandments" is not correct, as some deceits are NOT in violation of any of the 10 commandments.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:23, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Sean, I thought I made the change you requested. Sure, some deceits are justified, just as self-defense can justify killing in rare circumstances. But the statement is correct, that deceit has traditionally been taught as being wrong under the Ten Commandments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Apologies, had missed that in the article, I was still responding to the stuff on the talk pages. Thank You. I shall now go back to what I know best.--[[User:SeanTheSheep|SeanTheSheep]] 18:37, 14 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
== Politicization ==<br />
<br />
So, regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deceit&diff=181455&oldid=181449 this] edit war, the two sentences seem to suggest two things:<br />
# They suggest that all Conservatives are not deceitful, and that all Liberals are deceitful. That is a perfect definition of [[stereotype]], and I'm sure we can agree that stereotypes suck.<br />
# Reference #2 suggests that ''only'' conservatives teach their children the ten commandments, therefore implying that A). Liberals cannot be Christians, and B). All Liberals are atheists.<br />
Am I the only one who notices this? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:36, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, you are not the only one. The universal statements are a little misleading, though I personally agree with what is said for the most part.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:40, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::So you agree that all liberals are atheist deceivers, and all conservatives are "true" Christians and always honest? --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 19:43, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::No that is not what I meant at all. Refering to groups, any groups, in terms of "all" is never a good thing to do, and should be somehow worked out. [[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 19:47, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
So it's not deceit when the army lies about Tilman, it's not deceit in the case of Iran-Contra or Watergate or the "slam-dunk" or "sexing up" intelligence reports or plagiarizing someone's report when speaking to the UN. Maybe this article needs to flat out say what the people who run this website obviously want it to say and define deceit as "what happens when anyone whom it is politically convenient to call a liar lies" and at least be a little less deceitful about it. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: REPLY TO ABOVE: The statement does not say that all liberals are deceitful. I don't think all liberals are. And I don't think all conservatives are honest. But conservatives do teach that deceit is wrong, and liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong. That's a fact. Compare a public school classroom, where you won't hear that deceit is wrong, with a conservative classroom, where you will hear that. This is not a politicization. This is observable fact.<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring can suggest other examples of deceit comparable to the ones listed. But the examples he identified are not comparable, because in those cases deceit was not embraced for ideological gain as it was in the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:13, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: P.S. I just rolled back the Tillman example, because that was not deceit for any gain. It is common practice for the military, dating back to the death of Benny Goodman (?) by friendly fire during WWII, to glorify the victims of war and minimize embarrassment. JFK's heroism in his PT boat was actually the result of incompetence; Kerry's heroism was questionable also. There is nothing new about this and the military is not guilty of deceit in the same way as the listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:16, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: So the whole big push to punish plagiarising in public schools (two of my friends got failing grades for that), expelling people for cheating on tests, etc. (another friend got nabbed for that), and punishing kids for lieing to teachers are just coincidences, right?<br />
:: Once again, Andy, you are stereotyping the entire public school system. Perhaps instead of saying that "liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong", it can be phrased as "the public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong". Both statements are completely false, but at least it's a step towards the truth.<br />
:: And as for Tillman; it doesn't matter the tradition or context which it is in; it's still deceit. And I don't see Watergate on there, or the Lewinsky scandal. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:17, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::P.S. and really, not only Conservatives teach the ten commandments. Call me a heretic, but I'm pretty sure the 10C are standard throughout all kinds of Christianity. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Oh, come off it - how, exactly, does fudging the truth to justify a war not fall under the rubric of "deceit" for "ideological gain?" Or breaking into the opposing party's headquarters and then using the state apparatus to cover it up in order to win an election? By your own definition, weak as it is, those are textbook examples. And who says that there needs to be ideological gain for deceit to occur? [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 20:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Folks, you're in denial. I know what's taught in public schools. Hoji, if you're in public school, I challenge you to find anything in any of your textbooks, lecture notes, writing assignments, etc., that says deceit is wrong. It's not there, and that is because liberals run public schools. It is there in conservative classrooms. Sure, plagiarism and cheating are punished if someone is caught, but that can be explained by self-interest better than teaching it is "wrong".<br />
<br />
: Sevenstring, your complaint is that the list is not longer. Present something as airtight and long-lasting as the current examples and we'll include it. Delaying a few weeks before telling the truth about Tillman's death does not come close, not by a long shot. That TEMPORARY deceit could just as easily be justified as honoring Tillman rather than benefiting anyone, and the military has been doing that for decades without complaint in many celebrated cases. Shall we put JFK's PT boat incident in the list also???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:27, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As for JFK's PT boat incident, if it is relevant, then sure, put it on. And as for the schools, you seem to be equating "liberal" with "public schools", which is certainly wrong. I grew up in a liberal household, and was taught that deceit is wrong. I am sure that the ''vast'' majority of ''all'' American families teach their kids that deceit is wrong; it is not a good way to win arguments, friends, or respect. In the public schools, deceit isn't taught to be wrong because there isn't an obsession with teaching moral behavior, because schools rely on parents to choose the moral education they give their children. If anything, I would say that Conservatives are just as deceitful as liberals; everything on AiG, for instance, is intentionally spun to persuade, even if that means leaving out relevant facts. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 20:32, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Please excuse my vitriol, but Andy, I have been following this for a long time, and you have never cited ANYTHING to back up your bizarre assertions about liberals and deceit. I am liberal (mm..refreshing), I don't believe in deceit, neither do my children. In fact, neither do any of my friends, who are mostly liberal. You should be ashamed of yourself. Oh, that's right, im about to be banned for speaking my mind, and the truth. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 20:49, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
ASchlafly, did you even read my post? My complaint is not that " the list is not longer," but that by YOUR definition of, essentially, lying in the name of the advancement of political ideology, the discourse leading up to the invasion...errrrrrrrr liberation of Iraq was deceitful. As was Watergate. "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia," indeed. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 21:10, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Liberals don't teach that deceit is wrong. "OneLove", do you teach that deceit is wrong? Did you ever hear public school, which is run by liberals, teach that it is wrong? Please answer without making absurd remarks like I "should be ashamed of" myself. You're not helping your cause.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:21, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I'm going to attempt to draw a conclusion based on your logic, Andy;<br />
::*Catholicism is a branch of Christianity<br />
::*Catholics believe the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::*Therefore, all Christians believe that the Pope is divinely appointed by God.<br />
::Here, Catholicism represents the public school system, the Pope represents deceit, and Christianity represents liberals. You know that the above scenario is wrong, because it is based on faulty logic. Also, public schools certainly do not teach that deceit is ''right'', which you are seeming to imply. As an organ of the federal government, in accordance with the first amendment, schools do not teach about morality. So, using faulty logic, I draw that liberals are more patriotic! --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 21:24, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm sorry, Andy, I would be happy to answer more specifically. I used to be a public school teacher, in South San Francisco (NOT affiliated with San Fran in ANY way). I, of course, taught that deceit was wrong DAILY. Every single time a student would try to lie, or "pull one over" on me, I would explain to them why that was the wrong thing to do. I'm not sure why you would think any public school teacher would do otherwise. At least, none of my colleagues encouraged deceit. Given humans are fallible, I'm sure some teachers are as well. I quit teaching because of the general underfunding in schools in California. Also, to assert "the public schools are run by liberals" is patently ridiculous. Some school boards are quite liberal, some quite conservative, and they tend to swing back and forth--usually in reaction to a previous board being to extreme in their liberalism or conservatism. So, I'll add again, you should be ashamed. You prove that either you are deceitful or ignorant or both, but I won't generalize to all conservatives, because that would be incorrect stereotyping. [[User:OneLove|OneLove]] 21:51, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:OneLove, when did you teach: 1950? Anyone familiar with public schools today would find your claims to be so out-of-date as to be absurd. The word "wrong" in a moral sense has not been used in public school for at least a decade. Kids can be busted for drugs in the bathroom of the school and still the term morally wrong won't be used. I had my kids in public school, and I follow them closely.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:59, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::In all honesty, Andy, I am undoubtedly the most qualified in this debate to comment on the current status of public schools, seeing as how I actually attend one, and deal with these non-issues you talk about regularly. And I do not see why you decided to drag the public school system into this, as the gross stereotype still exists on the page; the idea that "liberals", as a group, do not teach about the wrongness of deceit, is simply absurd. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Hey, I'm a qualified attender also![[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 22:05, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
First, OneLove, was NOT a sock of userP,,,s. Second, I have it on good authority that he taught public school in the early to mid nineties, not the 1950s. You are falling back on some shaky debating tactics. Oh, time to ban me for being a sock of OneLove, who was not a sock of p...s.[[User:Downinmyheart|Downinmyheart]] 22:07, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Do any of you above have cites showing the "improvement" of public education over the past 20 years? And if you produce them, do they take into account the lessening of academic standards and wholesale changes to the curriculum over the years to make it appear to be getting better? I have to tell you all the major and politically diseperate academic organizations don't see improvement. Is this really the argument you want to make, that public schools are "fine"? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 22:46, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, the public school issue was a distraction; the actual issue was the line "Conservatives teach that deceit is wrong. Liberals do not teach that deceit is wrong", which is completely absurd. Following this, Andy attempted to equate "Liberals" with "public school system". --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 22:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Public schools are a perfect example of liberals who teach. I'm open to other examples, such as liberal philosophers.<br />
<br />
:: A substantial percentage of liberals are atheists who doubt anything is morally right or wrong. For them to teach that "deceit is wrong" would be, well, deceitful in itself!<br />
<br />
:: Rereading OneLove's claim above that he "taught that deceit was wrong DAILY" makes me wonder if he is being deceitful here. Not even the clergy teaches that deceit is wrong DAILY. I've observed on this website that some liberals actually enjoy being deceitful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 28 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*''Since this is a self-admitted and proclaimed Conservative and Christian-friendly encyclopedia'', there is nothing distracting in Andy's comments. I would submit that moral relativism and equivalency, along with historically revisionist thinking, which are an inarguable part of todays public school curriculum, do foster the "if it feels good do it" 60's mentality. I have several currently teaching relations, in rural and urban areas. Most of them have confirmed for me tonight, that teaching "right and wrong" as it once was, has been ditched in favor of non-judgemental lessons, and a reliance on "gray areas". --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:01, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Still, the blanket statement is misleading; there certainly are conservatives who deceive (and teach that deceit is right), and there are certainly liberals who teach that deceit is wrong. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:09, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Michigan's Department of Education requires public schools to teach students a certain set of Core Democratic Values. One of those values is Truth. [[User:TigersRoar|TigersRoar]] 21:20, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Interesting, unless you're joking. Can you provide the link for that so I can confirm and see exactly how it is required? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 8 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Archiving ==<br />
<br />
Someone who won't get yelled at like I do, would you be so kind as to archive this page and leave the section "10 Commandments" as the beginning piece? Thanks oodles! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Done. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:11, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*You are so much more than kind, even if you won't share your box with everyone. :-( How do you get those neat accents on your sig? In my most Liberal whine, I feel so much less than without a cool sig! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 02:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Democratic Party==<br />
<br />
[[David Limbaugh]] accused Democratic leaders of "deceit" on Iraq. He says they don't really intend to "win" in Iraq, butm want us to withdraw so that we will "lose" (which, by the way, is what happened when we withdrew from Vietna: an even worse tyranny was created in the entire country than ever existed in South Vietnam: compare 20,000 "tiger cage" deaths South Vietnam to 500,000 post-ware executions in North Vietnam. I think we also have to count the 250,000 to 500,000 [[boat people]] who died escaping the Communists.)<br />
<br />
*Nothing better illustrates the Democrats' duplicity and emptiness concerning Iraq than the manifestly contradictory statements of two of their leaders in the last few days preceding the election. Rep. John Murtha, who probably represents the bulk of his party, reiterated his nauseating, America-denigrating contention that the United States cannot win militarily in Iraq. We must resolve this matter diplomatically, he said, meaning we must negotiate with terrorists, and we must redeploy, meaning withdraw – very, very soon.Then, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole said that Democrats are content with losing the war in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Schumer replied indignantly, "Democrats want to win the war by changing the war strategy."<br />
*Now, should we believe Murtha or Schumer? Does Schumer really expect us to believe he has experienced a miraculous, neoconservative conversion, or is he just lip-syncing? That's a no-brainer: Of course he isn't sincere in saying Democrats want to win in Iraq by changing the strategy in Iraq. That would put him at odds with 90 percent of the Michael-Mooreized Democratic base and with the pronouncements of his party's leadership over the last year.<br />
*Dress it up however you like, Democrats are advocating an almost immediate withdrawal from Iraq before the Iraqi security forces are capable of sustaining their nation's security and newly formed government. [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52813]<br />
<br />
Is this an "example of deceit", or just a partisan criticism of the [[Democratic Party]] by a conservative? The answer will determine where I place this quote. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 08:45, 10 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==American Public Schools==<br />
<br />
"The American public school system does not teach that deceit is wrong, at least not using the Ten Commandments." It is my belief that this statement is misleading, it provides the suggestion that the Ten Commandments are required to teach that deceit is wrong. Just as it is possible to teach that murder is wrong without referring to the 10 Commandments it is just as possible to teach that deceit is wrong without referring to them, and there is no source to support a claim that the American Public School system does not teach that deceit is wrong, albeit without the 10 Commandments (my original reason for the citation template). Really, this article does not need the statement, and it has already been extensively covered in the 10 Commandments article. [[User:EQ|EQ]] 23:59, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The American public schools teach moral relativism. How does one get a clear idea of "right" and "wrong" when one is taught all such things are relative? I unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 00:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Character education is a BIG part of the curriculum these days. Try googling it. Here's just one link. I'd be happy to discus this further with anyone who feels there's a moral vacuum among teachers these days. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:50, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
http://www.goodcharacter.com/<br />
<br />
*Character education, taught from a secular-progressive POV, is nothing. Since they cannot bring themselves to actually say "anything" is "wrong", it is meaningless. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 01:49, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:We constantly say things are wrong: stealing, hurting, lying, etc. Some of our students are of religions other than Christianity...would it be right to instruct a Buddhist student using Christian scripture? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:34, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:*Yes, of course it would, in the United States! We are a Judeo-Christian country. We have achieved what we have here by virtue of being a "melting pot", not a balkanized hodge-podge of competing cultures. While the secular-progressives might wish it to be multi-cultural, with each and every ethnic and religious group clinging to their "Mother Culture", that is exactly the cause of the slaughter's in Africa and East Europe. Teaching a Buddhist Christian scripture in no way "demeans" their own. But it does teach them valuable lessons, and offers them understanding and insight into their new country and its attendant culture. You say you are constantly telling them things are wrong; Do you tell them why? And if so, what are those "non-religious" reasons? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:28, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:No American [[public schools]] teach that anything is "wrong". Maestro, post here the quote and citation of any textbook used in public school that says something is morally "wrong". As one would expect, eliminating God from public schools has also eliminated morality in terms of right and wrong. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: it took me 30 seconds: ''Lying is wrong''[http://www.goodcharacter.com/pp/trustworthiness.html] [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 10:47, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Some website? How is that related to ''[[public schools]]'' or their textbooks? I hope your editing here maintains a higher caliber than your research on this topic! --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|--Talk 2 Me]]</sub> 10:51, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Right, TK. Dkips, what does that website have to do with public schools? Public school curricula are available online, I think. But you didn't cite to one. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I wouldn't be surprised if you can't find a textbook that says lying is wrong. That sort of thing is taught in kindergarten, which doesn't use textbooks (it's also taught by parents at an even younger age, and it's they who have the real responsibility for moral instruction of their children, much moreso than government schools). Please do find me a textbook on moral relativism that is used in public schools. And, if we want to take the Bible literally, the ten commandments don't exactly teach deceit is wrong. They teach that bearing false witness against your neighbor is wrong, but bearing false witness is only a specific kind of deceit (there are countless lies oen can tell that do not involve bearing false witness against anyone). And if we want to be super-technical, it can be said that if someone lives far enough away from you that they wouldn't be considered a "neighbor" then it's perfectly fine to bear false witness against them. This morality is seeming slightly relative. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 11:57, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Public schools don't teach that deceit is wrong because that's something that's taught ''long'' before a child enrolls into the public school system. It's not that schools teach some sort of secular code of conduct or moral relativism - it's that they don't teach it '''at all''' because it's best taught by parents. Besides, there are many of us that view man as a creature endowed with a predisposition to perform goodness! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:09, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Clinton==<br />
<br />
Should we mention Bill Clinton's [[deceit]]ful testimony in the [[Paula Jones]] case? It got him [[impeach]]ed (but not removed from offices). There's the misleading bit about "I didn't have sex" (playing on whether [[oral sex]] counts as [[sexual intercourse]]).<br />
<br />
Is it [[adultery]] and/or grounds for divorce on account of un[[faithfulness]] if an ordinary man does what Clinton did with his intern? Is it [[sexual harassment]], given the power imbalance between employer and employee?<br />
<br />
== Pat Tillman example needs work ==<br />
<br />
"On 31 July 2007, the US Army censured three-star General Kensinger for "deception" in the friendly-fire death of Army Ranger [[Pat Tillman]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]"<br />
<br />
I know this issue is loved by Bush-haters, but covering up friendly fire is common in many Administrations. Glenn Goodman was killed by friendly fire and [[FDR]] covered it up. I don't see why this issue concerning Pat Tillman is given so much attention at the expense of other examples. We're not a vehicle for misplaced Bush-hating here. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:34, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:How about a general article on [[friendly fire]] first? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 19:39, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I see you removed the information I'd added. I would point out two things:-<br />
<br />
a) I'm not a "Bush-hater".<br />
b) The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"! It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]<br />
c) Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman too? Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.<br />
<br />
It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops. Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]]. Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]]. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pat_tillman&diff=256839Pat tillman2007-07-31T23:03:27Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>Army Ranger '''Pat Tillman''' was a US soldier and well-known former American football player who was killed in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan. Controversially, the Army engaged in [[deceit]] and covered up the details of his death for a number of years. On July 31 2007, the Army censured [[General Kensinger]], a three-star general for the [[deception]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pat_tillman&diff=256837Pat tillman2007-07-31T23:02:10Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: Army Ranger '''Pat Tillman''' was a US soldier and well-known American football player who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. Controversially, the Army engaged in deceit and...</p>
<hr />
<div>Army Ranger '''Pat Tillman''' was a US soldier and well-known American football player who was killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan. Controversially, the Army engaged in [[deceit]] and covered up the details of his death for a number of years. On July 31 2007, the Army censured [[General Kensinger]], a three-star general for the [[deception]] [http://www.onelocalnews.com/akronfarmreport/stories/index.php?action=fullnews&id=139590]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:NotForgotten&diff=256825User talk:NotForgotten2007-07-31T22:54:33Z<p>NotForgotten: /* Football */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Welcome}} --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 22:42, 30 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== E-mail ==<br />
<br />
I think you should enable your e-mail before you get stuck in. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 13:58, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Football ==<br />
<br />
Hello, please be aware that while we can put references to both soccer and football on the pages you are creating for English teams, that we still have to be careful of how we categorize. UK soccer is the preferred method. There is a link to football sports from there. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oh sure, that's not a problem. But a suggestion - I wonder if "UK Football" might not only be less divisive, but also more accurate? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 18:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Soccer&diff=256614Talk:Soccer2007-07-31T20:01:53Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>Soccer is the term used in [[North America]] to refer to what is more commonly known as "football". The name derived in [[England]] as slang for "Association Football" (a similar construction can be seen in referring to [[rugby]] as "rugger"), it is the most popular sport in the world although it has failed to gain popularity in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]].<br />
<br />
----<br />
*most popular sport in the world<br />
*not as popular in US & Canada as which other sports?<br />
*derivation of name: ''soc'' in "Association"?<br />
::Done and referenced. [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*called "football" everywhere but North America?<br />
:: Futebal, fussball, le foot, futbol, de voetbal, calcio. Is that enough evidence? [[User:Airdish|Airdish]] 05:22, 10 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
::: Evidence of what? That it's called "football" everywhere? Because I think that's pretty conclusive. All of those mean "football", except for "calcio", which means "kicking." In Chinese, it is "foot+ball", zuqiu, 足球. Basically, football is football, and soccer is an ugly name that doesn't express what the game is. And "football" is by far the most common name - about 400,000,000 Europeans use terms that are identical in meaning or even sound, 1,300,000,000 Chinese use a term that means "football", and the inventors of the sport use the term "football". If the site as a whole prefers the use of "soccer", then fine, but it's not an accurate article in a sense. [[User:Blackjuice|Blackjuice]] 10:59, 29 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
It's called soccer in Australia, though the name football is gaining popularity (they are trying to compare Australian soccer to <i>World Football</i>). It is still commonly refered to as soccer by the public at large. [[User:Hannibal ad portas|Hannibal ad portas]] 21:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Shouldn't it be categorised under Sports? I saw that categorisation was just removed. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 16:01, 31 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&diff=256608West Ham United F.C.2007-07-31T20:00:23Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''West Ham United Football Club'''[http://www.whufc.com/] ('The Hammers', colloquially), are a [[London]], [[England]] [[football]] team playing in the [[English Premier League]], managed by [[Alan Curbishly]], and with their home ground in [[Upton Park]].<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=West_Ham_United_F.C.&diff=256606West Ham United F.C.2007-07-31T19:59:50Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: ''"West Ham United Football Club'''[http://www.whufc.com/] ('The Hammers', colloquially), are a London, England football team, managed by Alan Curbishly, and with their hom...</p>
<hr />
<div>''"West Ham United Football Club'''[http://www.whufc.com/] ('The Hammers', colloquially), are a [[London]], [[England]] [[football]] team, managed by [[Alan Curbishly]], and with their home ground in [[Upton Park]].<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Madonna_Ciccone&diff=256585Madonna Ciccone2007-07-31T19:55:52Z<p>NotForgotten: link</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Madonna Louise Ciccone''', '''"Madonna"''' is an [[American]] singer known for her immodest style of dress, songs, music videos and books. She has also been associated with extremely [[sacrilegious]] material such as videos featuring her simulating immoral acts with statues.<br />
<br />
She has starred in a number of films including ''Desparately Seeking Susan'', ''[[Evita]]'', ''Dick Tracy'' and ''Shanghai Surprise'', in the last with her then husband [[Sean Penn]]. She is now married to British film director Guy Ritchie and has six houses in [[London]][http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=464166&in_page_id=1773] and a stately country home at [[Ashcombe]]. <br><br><br><br><br />
<br />
[[Category: Actresses]]<br />
[[Category: Singers]]<br />
{{uncited2}}</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Madonna_Ciccone&diff=256572Madonna Ciccone2007-07-31T19:54:04Z<p>NotForgotten: She has 6 homes in London and one in the country</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Madonna Louise Ciccone''', '''"Madonna"''' is an [[American]] singer known for her immodest style of dress, songs, music videos and books. She has also been associated with extremely [[sacrilegious]] material such as videos featuring her simulating immoral acts with statues.<br />
<br />
She has starred in a number of films including ''Desparately Seeking Susan'', ''[[Evita]]'', ''Dick Tracy'' and ''Shanghai Surprise'', in the last with her then husband [[Sean Penn]]. She is now married to British film director Guy Ritchie and has six houses in [[London]] and a stately country home at [[Ashcombe]]. <br><br><br><br><br />
<br />
[[Category: Actresses]]<br />
[[Category: Singers]]<br />
{{uncited2}}</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.&diff=256564Tottenham Hotspur F.C.2007-07-31T19:52:01Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tottenham Hotspur''' ('Spurs' to their supporters) are a North London, England [[soccer]] team (called [[football]] in England), [[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]]'s long-standing rival. They are based at White Hart Lane Stadium.<br />
<br />
{{Nb sl english premier}}<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Aston_Villa_F.C.&diff=256543Aston Villa F.C.2007-07-31T19:45:58Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Aston Villa''' are a [[football]] club based in Aston, Birmingham, in the [[English]] [[Midlands]]. Currently coached by [[Martin O'Neill]], a former player for [[Northern Ireland]], [[Nottingham Forest F.C.]], [[Norwich F.C.]] and [[Manchester Citeh F.C.]]. They finished the 2006/7 season in 11th position in the [[English Premier League]].<br />
<br />
{{Nb sl english premier}}<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Aston_Villa_F.C.&diff=256542Aston Villa F.C.2007-07-31T19:45:37Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Aston Villa''' are a [[football]] club based in Aston, Birmingham, in the [[English]] [[Midlands]]. Currently coached by [[Martin O'Neill]], a former player for [[Northern Ireland]], [[Nottingham Forest F.C.]], [[Norwich F.C.]] and [[Manchester Citeh F.C.]]. They finished the 2006/7 season in 11th position in the [[English Premier League]].<br />
<br />
{{Nb sl english premier}}</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Aston_Villa_F.C.&diff=256540Aston Villa F.C.2007-07-31T19:44:32Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: '''Aston Villa''' are a football club based in Aston, Birmingham, in the English Midlands. Currently coached by Martin O'Neill, a former player for Northern Ireland, ...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Aston Villa''' are a [[football]] club based in Aston, Birmingham, in the [[English]] [[Midlands]]. Currently coached by [[Martin O'Neill]], a former player for [[Northern Ireland]], [[Nottingham Forest F.C.]], [[Norwich F.C.]] and [[Manchester Citeh F.C.]]. They finished the 2006/7 season in 11th position in the [[English Premier League]].</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Football_sports&diff=256488Football sports2007-07-31T19:22:17Z<p>NotForgotten: Debate rages over the naming of these sports, obviously</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Football''' is the name generally given to the worldwide sport played professionally as ''"Association Football"''. It is played on a field where possession of a ball is competed for by two teams of eleven people. The aim of the game is to score goals by placing the ball in the goal of the opposing team. There are eleven players on each team. The governing body of the professional rules is FIFA, the International Federation of Football Asociations. The game is know also known as [[Soccer]], a francophone derivation from "Association" Football. This version of the game was the first to be profesionalised and is the most widely played across the world. The ultimate competition being the [[World Cup]] held every four years.<br />
<br />
'''[[Rugby]]''' Football was derived from Football at the public school in Rugby, UK, when legend has it, a boy, during a game of football picked up the ball and ran to the other end of the field with it. This version uses a more elliptical ball and is divided into Rugby League and Rugby Union. Each use different numbers of players and slightly different rules but the major differnce between these and Football is that point can be scored by placing the ball at each end of the pitch or '''over''' the crossbar. <br />
<br />
'''[[American football]]''' was created in the nineteenth century and was derived from Rugby. Originally played at the college level, professional teams were created in 1920. This version uses a smaller ball and is rarely played outside the USA. Despite the fact that apart from place kicking, the foot is almost never used in the sport, Americans use the term [[football]], and insist on the use of the term [[soccer]] to refer to what the rest of the world calls '[[football]]'. This causes tremendous conflict, as [[football]] is played almost exclusively with only the foot. [http://cultureofsoccer.com/2007/03/06/soccer-by-any-other-name-2/]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[History of Rugby]]<br />
*[[History of American football]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Football]]<br />
[[Category:Soccer]]<br />
[[Category:Sports]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Soccer&diff=256470Soccer2007-07-31T19:10:40Z<p>NotForgotten: revert vandalism</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:800px-Soccer goalkeeper.jpg|right|thumb|300px]]<br />
<br />
The most popular sport in the world, '''soccer'''<br />
is a game played between two teams of 11 players (10 outfield players and one goalkeeper each) over two 45 [[minute]] halves separated by a 15 minute break known as half-time. In knockout cup games, if a game is tied after 90 minutes, there is often an additional period of play consisting of 2 X 15-minute halves. If the scores are still level, the result is decided with a penalty shootout. The set of rules used in soccer are called the [[Laws of the Game]]. It was described by the legendary Brazilian player, [[Pele]], as "The Beautiful Game"<br />
<br />
The game is played on a grass (or artificial grass) pitch with dimensions 90-120 m (100-130 yards) in length and 45-90 m (50-100) in width.<ref>[http://www.fifa.com/documents/fifa/laws/LOTG2006_e.pdf FIFA Laws of the Game 2006] ''Official FIFA website''</ref><br />
A goal is scored when the ([[sphere|spherical]]) ball is propelled into the opposition net. The distinctive feature of the game is that, with the exception of the goalkeepers, players may not touch the ball with their hands or arms.<br />
<br />
The aim of soccer is to score more goals than your opponent.<br />
<br />
==A note on terms==<br />
"Soccer" is the term used in North America to refer to what is known abroad as "football". The word ''soccer'' derived in England as slang for "As'''soc'''iation Football" <ref>[http://london.usembassy.gov/rss/transcripts/worldcup2006a.html] ''US Embassy, London''</ref> (a similar construction can be seen in referring to '''rug'''by as "rugger")<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==References== <br />
<references/> <br />
<br />
[[Category:Soccer]]<br />
[[Category:Sports]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Herbie_Hancock&diff=256380Herbie Hancock2007-07-31T17:33:00Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Herbie Hancock''' is a [[jazz]] musician. He said, "A great teacher is one who realizes that he himself is also a student and whose goal is not to dictate the answers, but to stimulate his students' [[creativity]] enough so that they go out and find the answers themselves." <ref>http://www.spiritsound.com/sing/musicians1.html</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[category:music]]<br />
[[category:jazz]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Herbie_Hancock&diff=256378Herbie Hancock2007-07-31T17:32:17Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Herbie Hancock''' said, "A great teacher is one who realizes that he himself is also a student and whose goal is not to dictate the answers, but to stimulate his students' [[creativity]] enough so that they go out and find the answers themselves." <ref>http://www.spiritsound.com/sing/musicians1.html</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[category:music]]<br />
[[category:jazz]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Death_Squads&diff=256376Death Squads2007-07-31T17:24:12Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>The term '''Death Squad''' refers to groups of paramilitary henchmen in the employ of political groups and leaders, governments, rebels and terrorists who are used as covert execution squads, and whose existence is generally denied by their supporters. Their purpose is to terrify and/or eliminate opponents of the sponsors. Death Squads have been associated at various times with:<br />
<br />
* Government-sponsored executions in 1980's and 90's Iraq under the rule of Sadaam Hussein<br />
* Government-sponsored executions in 1970's Argentina under General Pinochet<br />
* Government-sponsored executions in El Salvador in the 1980's<br />
* Rebel-sponsored (FARC) executions in Colombia in 90's and 00's<br />
* Rebel-sponsored (Sendero Luminoso) executions in Peru in the 80's<br />
<br />
The use of Death Squads has been seen in countries such as Guatamala, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, China, Honduras, Palestine, East Timor, Indonesia, Ireland, France, Algeria, India, Myanmar, and countless others.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
[http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1121626992.shtml]<br />
[http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=FUL20051110&articleId=1230]<br />
[http://www.serendipity.li/cia/death_squads.htm]<br />
[http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/deathsquads_ElSal.html]<br />
[http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/zionism/mossad/mossad_death_squads.htm]<br />
[http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/10/05/death_squads_and_diplomacy.php]<br />
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article410491.ece]<br />
[http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15615.htm]<br />
[http://www.ciponline.org/dethsqud.txt]<br />
[http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/10/29/iraq14473.htm]<br />
[http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Iran_Training_Iraqi_Death_Squads_999.html]<br />
[http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/death-squads.html]<br />
<br />
[[category:politics]]<br />
[[category:terrorism]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Emigration&diff=256371Emigration2007-07-31T17:00:30Z<p>NotForgotten: cat</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Emigration''' is moving from one's native country to settle in another country.<br />
<br />
[[category:society]]<br />
[[category:politics]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Election&diff=256370Election2007-07-31T16:59:46Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>An '''election''' is a vote which determines which candidate is placed in office. <br />
<br />
Most elections in the United States and many other countries are based on a popular vote in which whoever gets the most votes in the election is declared the winner. This is sometimes known as "first past the post" voting.<br />
<br />
An alternative method is to require a candidate to get a majority; if no one gets a majority, the two top vote-getters will have a run-off election, and whoever gets more votes in the run-off is the winner.<br />
<br />
Another alternative, used for most elections in [[Australia]], is [[preferential voting]], in which voters put a number against each candidate on their ballot paper, in their order of preference.<br />
If the candidate with the most votes doesn't have a clear majority (i.e. more than 50% of the votes), then the candidate with the ''least'' votes is eliminated and the second preference of all the voters who voted for that candidate are counted. This continues until one candidate has more than 50% of the votes. In the U.S. this is referred to as "instant run-off voting", but is not used widely.<br />
<br />
Another sort of election is the Electoral College, used to select the U.S. president every 4 years. Each state gets a certain number of electors. All of a state's electors are assigned to which ever presidential candidate gets the most votes in that state. In all but a few instances, the candidate who gets the most electoral votes has also gotten the most popular votes. <br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electcollege.htm The Electoral College System]<br />
<br />
[[category:politics]]<br />
[[category:psephology]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Criterion_Collection&diff=256369Criterion Collection2007-07-31T16:58:59Z<p>NotForgotten: cat</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Criterion logo.gif |right|thumb|180px|The Criterion logo]]<br />
'''The Criterion Collection''' is a privately held company that distributes authoritative versions of "important classic and contemporary films" on DVD. It was established in 1984 as a joint venture between [[Janus Films]] and the [[Voyager Company]].<br />
<br />
==Contributions to the Industry==<br />
Criterion is credited with establishing the practice of [[letterboxing]] their films. Letterboxing, or [[widescreen]], is the presentation of films in their original aspect ratio from the large screen. Though some consumers dislike the "bars" that appear at the top and bottom of the typical letterboxed film, enthusiasts point out that the practice allows the director's entire shot to be seen.<br />
<br />
Criterion is also notable for their [[special editions]] of particular films they release. Beginning with the releases of [[King Kong]] and [[Blade Runner]], Criterion included what many today know as [[bonus features]]. These include commentaries by actors, directors and others involved with the project, and original material not presented in the film. <br />
<br />
Another critical feature of the Criterion Collection is their intent to restore older films using original prints. Examples of this restoration can be seen on several of the discs including [[The Passion of Joan of Arc]] and [[Gimme Shelter]]. <br />
<br />
==Notable Films Released==<br />
Many films released in the Criterion Collection are available nowhere else and have been lost to history. Some of the more salient include:<br />
* [[Häxan]] Christensen, Benjamin Sweden 1922<br />
* [[The King of Kings]] [[DeMille, Cecil B.]] USA 1927<br />
* [[Nanook of the North]]Flaherty, Robert UK 1922<br />
* [[Alexander Nevsky]] Eisenstein, Sergei Soviet Union 1938<br />
* [[Young Mr. Lincoln]] [[Ford, John]] USA 1939<br />
* [[Ikiru]] [[Kurosawa, Akira]] Japan 1952<br />
* [[Salò]] [[Pasolini, Pier Paolo]] Italy 1975<br />
<br />
==Link==<br />
The Criterion Collection [http://www.criterion.com/asp/]<br />
<br />
[[category:entertainment]]<br />
[[category:movies]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Partisan&diff=255970Partisan2007-07-31T03:50:44Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Partisan''' is a term used to refer to political activism based purely on political party allegiance. In the US, it is most often practised by the [[Democratic Party]] - witness the summer 2007 attempt to unseat the [[Attorney General]], and [[partisanship]] is a typical tactic of [[deceit]] by [[liberals]] in general.<br />
<br />
[[category:politics]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Partisan&diff=255969Partisan2007-07-31T03:50:31Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: '''Partisan''' is a term used to refer to political activism based purely on political party allegiance. In the US, it is most often practised by the Democratic Party - witness the s...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Partisan''' is a term used to refer to political activism based purely on political party allegiance. In the US, it is most often practised by the [[Democratic Party]] - witness the summer 2007 attempt to unseat the [[Attorney General]], and [[partisanship]] is a typical tactic of [[deceit]] by [[liberals]] in general.</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kyoto&diff=255962Kyoto2007-07-31T03:47:42Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Kyoto Treaty''' is a famous international treaty drawn up in the city of Kyoto, [[Japan]]. [[President George W. Bush]]'s refusal to sign the treaty is frequently pointed to by [[liberals]] to wrongly accuse the [[United States]] of attempting to derail international efforts to curb [[global warming]]. In fact, the opposite is true, and the US is the country in the world doing the most to curb global warming, with vast resources of solar and wind power deployed throughout the nation.<br />
<br />
[[category:treaties]]<br />
[[category:environment]]<br />
[[category:global warming]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Kyoto&diff=255958Kyoto2007-07-31T03:47:02Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: The '''Kyoto Treay''' is a famous international treaty drawn up in the city of Kyoto, Japan. President George W. Bush's refusal to sign the treaty is frequently pointed to by [[l...</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Kyoto Treay''' is a famous international treaty drawn up in the city of Kyoto, [[Japan]]. [[President George W. Bush]]'s refusal to sign the treaty is frequently pointed to by [[liberals]] to wrongly accuse the [[United States]] of attempting to derail international efforts to curb [[global warming]]. In fact, the opposite is true, and the US is the country in the world doing the most to curb global warming, with vast resources of solar and wind power deployed throughout the nation.</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.&diff=255947Tottenham Hotspur F.C.2007-07-31T03:41:51Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tottenham Hotspur''' ('Spuds' to their supporters) are a North London, England [[football]] team, [[Arsenal]]'s long-standing rival. They are based at [[Highbury Stadium]], and feature international stars of the sport such as [[Irish]] national team player, [[Aaron Lennon]], [[Dimitar Berbatov]], and others.<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.&diff=255945Tottenham Hotspur F.C.2007-07-31T03:41:11Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tottenham Hotspur''' ('Spuds' to their supporters) are a North London, England [[football]] team, [[Arsenal]]'s long-standing rival. TheY PLAY AT [[Highbury Stadium]], and feature internatioanl stars of the sport such as [[Irish]] national team player, [[Aaron Lennon]], [[Dimitar Berbatov]], and others.<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tottenham_Hotspur_F.C.&diff=255944Tottenham Hotspur F.C.2007-07-31T03:40:56Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: '''Tottenham Hotspur''' ('Spuds' to their supporters) are a North London, England football team, Arsenal's long-standing rival. TheY PLAY AT Highbury Stadium, and feature int...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Tottenham Hotspur''' ('Spuds' to their supporters) are a North London, England [[football]] team, [[Arsenal]]'s long-standing rival. TheY PLAY AT [[Highbury Stadium]], and feature internatioanl stars of the sport such as [[Irish]] national team player, [[Aaron Lennon]], [[Dimitar Berbatov]], and others.</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chelsea_F.C.&diff=255932Chelsea F.C.2007-07-31T03:36:32Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Chelsea Football Club''' is a London, England [[football]] club which plays out of its stadium at Elland Road. It is managed by [[Jose Mourinho]], former manager of [[Manchester United]], and features international stars of the sport such as [[Peter Cech]], [[Cashley Hole]], [[Michael Ballack]], and [[Abou Diaby]]. In the 2006/7 [[Premier League]] season, Chelse finished in second place.<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chelsea_F.C.&diff=255928Chelsea F.C.2007-07-31T03:36:03Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: '''Chelsea Football Club''' is a London, England football club which plays out of its stadium at Elland Road. It is managed by Jose Mourinho, former manager of [[Manchester Unite...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Chelsea Football Club''' is a London, England [[football]] club which plays out of its stadium at Elland Road. It is managed by [[Jose Mourinho]], former manager of [[Manchester United]], and features international stars of the sport such as [[Peter Cech]], [[Cashley Hole]], [[Michael Ballack]], and [[Abou Diaby]]. In the 2006/7 [[Premier League]] season, Chelse finished in second place.</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Manchester_City_F.C.&diff=255916Manchester City F.C.2007-07-31T03:31:15Z<p>NotForgotten: cat</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Manchester City Football Club''' [http://www.mcfc.co.uk/] is the smaller of two [[Premier League]] football teams in the city of [[Manchester]], [[England]]. Usually lying lower in the Premier League than their derby rivals, [[Manchester United]], 'Citeh' are managed by former Swedish manager of the English national squad, [[Sven Goran-Eriksson]].<br />
<br />
Currently, the club is under a takeover attempt by the former President of [[Thailand]], [[Thaksin Shinawatra]].<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Arsenal_F.C.&diff=255911Arsenal F.C.2007-07-31T03:29:33Z<p>NotForgotten: Arsenal Football Club is the offical name, not Arsenal 'Soccer' Club</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Arsenal Football Club''' is a [[football]] team based in London, UK. Lying fourth in the [[Premier League]] in the 2006/7 season, the team features major international stars of [[football]]. Former star [[Thierry Henry]] has recently left the team after eight years of huge success, departing to [[Real Madrid]] in the summer of 2007. The team is managed by [[Arsene Wenger]].<br />
<br />
In 2006 the team moved from its hundred and fifty year old stadium at Stamford Bridge to their new stadium named after Dubai airlines and sponsor, [[Emirates]].<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Brigham_Young_University&diff=255813Talk:Brigham Young University2007-07-31T02:15:02Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>Crocoite, isn't it correct to say it's a Christian church? I noticed you removed that reference? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 22:07, 30 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:The general consensus on CP is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church. See [[Template talk:Christianity|this talk page]] for the debate. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 22:12, 30 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oh, sorry, I didn't know that. I always thought that Mormons were Christians. I'll have a look at the article. [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 22:15, 30 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crash_test_dummy&diff=255806Crash test dummy2007-07-31T02:13:58Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''crash test dummy''' is a simulated human being, similar to a mannequin, that is designed to participate in accident tests on automobiles or aircraft. The first crash test dummy was "Sierra Sam" in 1949. [http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcrashtestdummies.htm] A Canadian alternative rock band that came to fame in the 1990s also went by the name Crash Test Dummies.<br />
<br />
[[category:industry]]<br />
[[category:safety]]<br />
[[category:automobile]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crash_test_dummy&diff=255805Crash test dummy2007-07-31T02:13:21Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''crash test dummy''' is a simulated human being, similar to a mannequin, that is designed to participate in accident tests on automobiles or aircraft. The first crash test dummy was "Sierra Sam" in 1949. [http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcrashtestdummies.htm] A Canadian alternative rock band that came to fame in the 1990s also went by the name Crash Test Dummies.<br />
<br />
[[category:industry,safety]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Crash_test_dummy&diff=255804Crash test dummy2007-07-31T02:13:08Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>A '''crash test dummy''' is a simulated human being, similar to a mannequin, that is designed to participate in accident tests on automobiles or aircraft. The first crash test dummy was "Sierra Sam" in 1949. [http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcrashtestdummies.htm] A Canadian alternative rock band that came to fame in the 1990s also went by the name Crash Test Dummies.<br />
<br />
[[category:industry]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Arsenal_F.C.&diff=255802Arsenal F.C.2007-07-31T02:12:15Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Arsenal Football Club''' is generally seen as the best team playing [[The Beautiful Game]] in the world today. Lying fourth in the [[Premier League]] in the 2006/7 season, the team features major international stars of [[football]] such as [[Alexander Hleb]], [[Phillippe Senderos]] and [[Ronaldo Tevez]]. Former star [[Thierry Henry]] has recently left the team after eight years of huge success, departing to [[Real Madrid]] in the summer of 2007. The team is managed by [[Arsene Wenger]], a legend among football managers.<br />
<br />
In 2006 the team moved from its hundred and fifty year old stadium at [[Stamford Bridge]] to their new stadium named after Duabi airline and sponsor, [[Emirates]].<br />
<br />
[[category:football]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Brigham_Young_University&diff=255799Brigham Young University2007-07-31T02:11:26Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Brigham Young University''', commonly known as ''BYU'' is a [[university]] of the [[Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]] located in [[Provo]], [[Utah]].<br />
<br />
[[category:universities]]</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Brigham_Young_University&diff=255790Talk:Brigham Young University2007-07-31T02:07:58Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: Crocoite, isn't it correct to say it's a Christian church? I noticed you removed that reference? ~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Crocoite, isn't it correct to say it's a Christian church? I noticed you removed that reference? [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 22:07, 30 July 2007 (EDT)</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Madonna&diff=255782Madonna2007-07-31T02:03:39Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Madonna Louise Ciccone''' is an [[American]] singer known for her pornographic style of dress, songs, music videos and books (she published a book titled simply 'Sex', which featured simulated [[lesbianism]], [[fellatio]], [[sodomy]], [[homosexuality]] and [[cunnilingus]]. She has also been associated with extremely [[sacriligeous]] material such as videos featuring her simulating copulation with statues of Christ.</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Madonna&diff=255780Madonna2007-07-31T02:03:13Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: '''Madonna Louise Ciccone'' is an American singer known for her pornographic style of dress, songs, music videos and books (she published a book titled simply 'Sex', which featured sim...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Madonna Louise Ciccone'' is an [[American]] singer known for her pornographic style of dress, songs, music videos and books (she published a book titled simply 'Sex', which featured simulated [[lesbianism]], [[fellatio]], [[sodomy]], [[homosexuality]] and [[cunnilingus]]. She has also been associated with extremely sacriligeous material such as videos featuring her simulating copulation with statues of Christ.</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Arsenal_F.C.&diff=255773Arsenal F.C.2007-07-31T01:56:48Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: '''Arsenal Football Club''' is generally seen as the best team playing The Beautiful Game in the world today. Lying fourth in the Premier League in the 2006/7 season, the team fe...</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Arsenal Football Club''' is generally seen as the best team playing [[The Beautiful Game]] in the world today. Lying fourth in the [[Premier League]] in the 2006/7 season, the team features major international stars of [[football]] such as [[Alexander Hleb]], [[Phillippe Senderos]] and [[Ronaldo Tevez]]. Former star [[Thierry Henry]] has recently left the team after eight years of huge success, departing to [[Real Madrid]] in the summer of 2007. The team is managed by [[Arsene Wenger]], a legend among football managers.<br />
<br />
In 2006 the team moved from its hundred and fifty year old stadium at [[Stamford Bridge]] to their new stadium named after Duabi airline and sponsor, [[Emirates]].</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Brigham_Young_University&diff=255760Brigham Young University2007-07-31T01:49:42Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Brigham Young University''' is the University of the [[Mormon Church]], or the [[Church of Latter Day Saints]], a [[Christian]] church based in [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]].</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Brigham_Young_University&diff=255759Brigham Young University2007-07-31T01:49:28Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: '''Brigham Young University''' is the University of the Mormon Church, or the Church of Latter-Day Saints, a Christian church based in Salt Lake City, Utah.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Brigham Young University''' is the University of the [[Mormon Church]], or the [[Church of Latter-Day Saints]], a [[Christian]] church based in [[Salt Lake City]], [[Utah]].</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secretary_of_Defense&diff=255756Secretary of Defense2007-07-31T01:46:50Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Secretary of Defense''' is the head of the [[Department of Defense]] in the [[United States]]. Currently the post is held by [[Robert Gates]].</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Secretary_of_Defense&diff=255754Secretary of Defense2007-07-31T01:46:24Z<p>NotForgotten: New page: The '''Secretary of Defense''' is the head of the Department of Defense in the United States. Currently the post is held by Robert Gates.</p>
<hr />
<div>The '''Secretary of Defense''' is the head of the Department of Defense in the United States. Currently the post is held by [[Robert Gates]].</div>NotForgottenhttps://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Manchester_City_F.C.&diff=255743Manchester City F.C.2007-07-31T01:40:26Z<p>NotForgotten: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Manchester City Football Club''' [http://www.mcfc.co.uk/] is the smaller of two [[Premier League]] football teams in the city of [[Manchester]], [[England]]. Usually lying lower in the Premier League than their derby rivals, [[Manchester United]], 'Citeh' are managed by former Swedish manager of the English national squad, [[Sven Goran-Eriksson]].<br />
<br />
Currently, the club is under a takeover attempt by the former President of [[Thailand]], [[Thaksin Shinawatra]].</div>NotForgotten