https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=TheHeroExcelsior 2026-10-29T21:27:57Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Estate_tax&diff=744504 2010-01-13T17:27:18Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>This is Constitutional? How can the government charge a child for receiving their dead parent's property? Inheritance is practically sacred. This is horrible and immoral. Do the legislators have any idea how heartless this tax is? Also, the rate of 45%, that is a lot to take. Even lottery winnings are not that heavily taxed! [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 12:27, 13 January 2010 (EST)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Estate_tax&diff=744501 2010-01-13T17:25:53Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: Created page with 'This is Constitutional? How can the government charge a child for receiving their dead parent's property? Inheritance is practically sacred. This is horrible and immoral. Do ...'</p> <hr /> <div>This is Constitutional? How can the government charge a child for receiving their dead parent's property? Inheritance is practically sacred. This is horrible and immoral. Do the legislators have any idea how heartless this tax is? Also, the rate of 45%, that is a lot to take. Even lottery winnings are not that heavily taxed!</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=American_Civil_War&diff=710150 2009-10-14T20:26:18Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: /* Names */</p> <hr /> <div>{| border=&quot;1&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; cellpadding=&quot;2&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;250&quot; style=&quot;margin-left:5px&quot;<br /> |align=&quot;center&quot; colspan=&quot;2&quot;|[[Image:Cwlogo.png|200px]]<br /> |-<br /> !colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;&quot;|The Civil War<br /> 1861 - 1865<br /> |-<br /> |Begun<br /> |April 12, 1861<br /> |-<br /> |Ended<br /> |April 9, 1865<br /> |-<br /> |Casualties<br /> |970,000<br /> |-<br /> |Total dead<br /> |620,000<br /> |-<br /> !colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;color: white; height: 30px; background: navy no-repeat scroll top left;&quot;|United States of America<br /> |-<br /> |President<br /> |[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br /> |-<br /> |Secretary of War<br /> |[[Edwin M. Stanton]]<br /> |-<br /> |Secretary of the Navy<br /> |[[Gideon Welles]]<br /> |-<br /> |Secretary of State:<br /> |[[William Seward]]<br /> |-<br /> !colspan=&quot;2&quot; align=&quot;center&quot; style=&quot;color: white; height: 30px; background: gray no-repeat scroll top left;&quot;|Confederate States of America<br /> |-<br /> |President<br /> |[[Jefferson Davis]]<br /> |-<br /> |Secretaries of War<br /> |Leroy Pope Walker, Judah P. Benjamin, George W. Randolph, James Seddon, [[John C. Breckinridge]]<br /> |-<br /> |Secretary of the Navy<br /> |[[Stephan Mallory]]<br /> |-<br /> |Secretaries of State<br /> |Robert Toombs, Robert M.T. Hunter, Judah P. Benjamin<br /> |}<br /> The '''American Civil War''' was a conflict which took place from 1861 to 1865, involving the government of the [[United States of America]] and eleven southern states which seceded from the Union and formed their own government called the [[Confederate States of America]]. In proportion to the total population, the Civil War was the most costly war fought in American history. <br /> <br /> 650,000 soldiers died in the war, two-thirds from disease and one-third from battle wounds. Many more were wounded but recovered.<br /> <br /> for the social, political, economic and diplomatic history see [[American Civil War homefront]]<br /> ==Names==<br /> The American Civil War has been called by other titles: the '''War Between the States''' was popular in the South before the 1970s, as is the informal title '''The Lost Cause'''. Officially, the United States government has called it the '''War of the Rebellion'''. The term &quot;civil war&quot; is most accurate, as it not only involved state against state from a common country, but the splitting of families as well; fathers would take sides against sons, and brother would fight against brother in many battles. In one sad case, Private Wesley Culp of the 2nd Virginia Regiment would die for the Confederacy at the [[Battle of Gettysburg]], killed on his father's farm. &lt;ref&gt;(TL 15, pp. 154-155)&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Prelude to war==<br /> ===Description of the North prior to 1860===<br /> The chief characteristic of the North was its industrialization, which was rapid. Plants to manufacture metal goods sprang up almost as fast as they were invented, and after manufacture they spread quickly. One example was [[John Deere]], who in 1840 was manufacturing a new stainless-steel plow that he had invented barely three years before; by 1848 the plows were selling at the rate of a thousand a year. By 1857, Deere and his partner had expanded with the manufacture of so much farm equipment that the Middle West was made the country's greatest wheat-producing area. Farm equipment also included the first examples of steam-powered plows, and in 1859 there were contests as to who could build and deploy the best plow. One such plow at a contest at Freeport, [[Illinois]] caused an official committee to declare the machine could &quot;plow 25 acres a day at 62.5 cents an acre&quot; versus a normal manual charge of $2.50 an acre. (Nevins, pg 166-168)<br /> <br /> Inventions were not limited to farming. [[Locomotive]]s, [[sewing machine]]s, [[shoe pegger]]s, [[reaper]]s, [[auger machine|auger]]s, [[turbine]]s, [[hydraulics]], [[power loom]]s, [[rotary press]]es, and more seemingly raced out of factories. [[Standardization]] was also an American invention, meaning replacement parts could be made and ordered to replace something broken within the machine instead of replacing the machine itself, as Connecticut's [[Samuel Colt]] first demonstrated with his new [[revolver]]. And to keep up with the exporting demand, Northern shipyards produced so many ships that they threatened to eclipse their chief rival, Great Britain. (TL 1, pg 18) <br /> <br /> The North was also a melting pot of [[immigration]]. Northern cities were crowded and boisterous, and expanding rapidly. [[New York]]'s population had jumped from 515,000 to 814,000 in the 1850's; [[Chicago]]'s had gone from its 1837 incorporation with barely more than 4,000 people to over 112,000 by 1860. (TL 1, pg 16)<br /> <br /> ===Description of the South prior to 1860===<br /> The South was largely agrarian. A Southern boast, &quot;Cotton is king!&quot; became very true by the 1850's, as cotton was grown, harvested, and shipped to market in vast quantities. The number of bales in 1849 was 2 million; by 1859 it had jumped to 5.7 million, amounting to more than half of all American exports and seven-eighths of the total amount of cotton in the world. (TL 1, pg 10)<br /> <br /> Southern poltiics was controlled by owners of large [[slavery|slave]] plantations, the small minority of well-to-do planters. They practiced a cultivated chivalry, a code of honor among equals with high levels of dueling. Proud parents, when their son came of age, would present him a handsome set of dueling pistols. The code called for a gallantry towards white women, while it was common to have many children by their black slaves; these children became slaves too. <br /> <br /> Cotton was in high demand for textile factories in Europe and profits were high on plantations with 50 or more slaves. Most of the profits went toward purchase of new farmland (because cotton rapidly depletes the fertility of the soil) and more slaves, as well as cheap clothing for the slaves. Relatively little was spent on machinery or on luxury goods. More likely money went to gambling, and racehorses. High prestige occupations included plantation ownership, the law and medicine. Doctors were hired to keep the slaves healthy. There were very few colleges in the region, apart from a few small state schools and military academies. One [[Mississippi]] planter, Jefferson Davis, remarked that only in the South &quot;did a gentlemen go to a military academy who did not intend to follow the profession of arms.&quot; (TL 1, pg 12)<br /> <br /> But the South had several serious drawbacks. Its population at 1860 was roughly 9 million people, of whom more than 3 million were slaves. There were only 18,000 manufacturing plants of any kind in the South, as opposed to the North's more than 100,000. Of these, only two were capable of producing [[rolled iron]], one which produced [[gunpowder]], and none capable of producing [[firearms]]; there were twenty-seven gun manufacturers in [[Massachusetts]] alone. More than 70% of all [[railroad]] mileage was north of the Ohio River; the South had the remainder.<br /> <br /> ===[[Slavery]]===<br /> [[Image:Whippedslave.JPG|thumb|150px|right|Unknown slave prior to 1860, showing the scars of one, or more, brutal whippings.]]<br /> Before the Civil War, the individual states, particularly in the South, shared a belief that each state was sovereign. Sovereignty included jurisdiction over, and the handling of, each state's affairs, which invariably included their own public and private institutions.<br /> <br /> The peculiar institution cited more often than anything else in defending states' rights was slavery. Africans had been present as slaves in the American colonies since the early 17th century; over the years the South began to rationalize it less as an evil and more of an economic necessity; so ingrained into the fabric had slavery become that Vice President John C. Calhoun was to say in 1838: <br /> :''&quot;many in the South once believed that slavery was a moral and political evil. That folly and delusion are gone. We see it now in its true light, and regard it as the most safe and stable basis for free institutions in the world.&quot;'' (TL 1, pg 40)<br /> <br /> Slaves for the most part were treated brutally. Born in bondage, a slave usually began his first work in the fields at the age of twelve. They would work in the fields from the light of day until, in the words of a Louisiana slave, &quot;until it is too dark to see, and when the moon is full, they often labor until the middle of the night&quot; (TL, pg 48). They were fed and clothed poorly, usually in rags; shoes were uncommon. Disease was rampant; only four out of 100 lived past age 60. Absolute subservience to whites was enforced. Punishment for infractions was severe, involving stocks, pronged neck collars, and whippings where salt water was used to clear infection, with the resulting pain so excruciating a slave recollecting it wrote &quot;the flesh crawls upon my bones&quot; (TL 1, pp 49-58)<br /> <br /> [[Eli Whitney]] patented the cotton gin in 1793. Prior to that, slaves were harvesting cotton, pulling the seed from the boll, and packing it by hand for market at a rate of 100 bales a week. The gin did the hard work of separating the boll, enabling bales of cotton at a rate of over 1000 a week, often more. The result was the number of annual cotton harvests increased to three, which saw a concurrent rise in profits made by plantation owners; the number of slaves needed for the fields and other tasks increased as well, climbing from 300,000 in 1790 to over three million by 1860.<br /> <br /> ===Political machinations and compromises===<br /> The '''[[Missouri Compromise (1820)]]''' allowed for the entry of [[Maine]] into the Union as a free state, and [[Missouri]] as a slave state. It was further agreed that slavery was to be excluded from territory north of the 36°30′ parallel, or the remaining western territories. Before admission could be granted to Missouri a clause in the state's constitution provoked controversy: the exclusion of &quot;free Negroes and mulattoes&quot;. Under [[Whig]] Henry Clay's influence in the U.S. Senate, an act of admission was passed, upon condition that the controversial [[exclusionary clause]] should &quot;never be construed to authorize the passage of any law&quot; impairing the privileges and immunities of free citizens. The compromise seemed deliberately ambiguous in that it could be interpreted to indicate that free blacks and mulattoes did not qualify as United States citizens, which would be put to direct test years later with a slave named [[Dred Scott]]. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html]<br /> <br /> Another crisis arose from the request of the [[California]] Territory to be admitted to the Union as a [[free state]]; this was complicated by territory acquired in the southwest as a result of the [[Mexican War]] of 1848 and whether to extend slavery there. An omnibus bill drafted by [[Henry Clay]] called the '''[[Compromise of 1850]]''' tried to give satisfaction to the southern states in addition to California's admission: the settlement of the Texas-New Mexico border dispute; the slavery question open for voting via popular sovereignty in the Utah and New Mexico territories as they were organized; the end of slave trading in the District of Columbia; and tough requirements concerning [[runaway slave]]s. [http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850]<br /> <br /> All five measures were enacted in September, 1850 as a result of the efforts and support of Democratic senator [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and Whig senator [[Daniel Webster]], and were accepted by moderates throughout the country. These measures may have had the effect of postponing Southern [[secession]] for another decade, but the seeds of discord were planted; the precedent of [[popular sovereignty]], championed by Douglas as the way for the public to vote whether or not they wanted slavery in their territories, led to the Kansas territory agitating for a similar provision. And the [[Fugitive Slave Act]] that was a part of the Compromise was so bitterly condemned that many moderates who had ignored slavery in the past became determined opponents to any extension of the institution into the territories. Many would risk jail rather than turn over runaway slaves to their owners as required by the new laws. <br /> <br /> The '''[[Kansas–Nebraska Act]]''' (May 30, 1854), sponsored by Douglas, provided for the territorial organization of Kansas and Nebraska, using his principle the idea of popular sovereignty. Douglas had written the act in an effort to slow or halt the sectarianism over slavery's extension, but the Kansas-Nebraska Act merely increased the flames, and was attacked by [[free-soil]]ers and [[abolitionist]]s as a capitulation to those who supported slavery. The [[Whig Party]], ineffective in preventing it, largely disintegrated, and the Republican Party was born and soon became a viable political organization opposed to territorial expansion of slavery. <br /> <br /> On the heels of the act a large number of people left Missouri and sought to influence elections in the Kansas Territory. &quot;[[Border Ruffians]]&quot;, as they were called, entered Kansas and cast thousands of illegal votes resulting in a pro-slave government that Democratic president [[Franklin Pierce]] recognized, and continued doing so even after it was ruled illegitimate by a congressional investigative committee. The territory's actual residents set up their own legislature and created the [[Topeka Constitution]]; Pierce declared their endeavors an act of rebellion, and he went so far as to send in Federal troops to break it up.<br /> <br /> ===Bleeding Kansas===<br /> [[Image:Brooks1.jpg|thumb|150px|right|J.L. Magee's cartoon of Preston Brooks attacking Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, May 24, 1856.]]<br /> The Border Ruffians also stirred up violence between themselves and the Free-Staters, which became known as ''[[Bleeding Kansas]]'', beginning with the burning of a hotel and printing press in [[Lawrence, Kansas|Lawrence]] on May 21, 1856. Several days later an anti-slavery religious fanatic named [[John Brown]] and a few followers retaliated against five pro-slavery men, hacking them to death with [[broadsword]]s. By August thousands of men had formed into pro-slavery armies and marched into Kansas, expecting to force the territory to accept slavery. That same month a small, pitched battle occurred near the city of [[Osawatomie]]; 300 pro-slavery soldiers under the command of John W. Reid fought against Brown and 40 men. Brown lost the battle and Osawatomie was looted and burned. A fragile peace led by a new territorial governor would commence only when Brown and his men left the territory. [http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html]<br /> <br /> The day after the hotel in Lawrence was burned, a [[South Carolina]] congressman named [[Preston Brooks]], incensed over an anti-slavery speech given by Massachusetts Senator [[Charles Sumner]], walked onto the senate floor and beat him with a cane so severely that Sumner took three years to recover. &lt;ref&gt;(Bowman, pg 38){{User:WillamH}}&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> ===Dred Scott decision===<br /> [[Dred Scott]] was owned by an Army physician who was transferred to the state of [[Wisconsin]], a free state, for several years before a transfer to Missouri, a slave state. Scott sued on the grounds that his residence in a free state where slavery was illegal made him free. After a series of unsuccessful lawsuits, Scott appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where in 1856, Chief Justice [[Roger B. Taney]] delivered the majority opinion in ''Dred Scott vs. Sanford'':<br /> *Blacks were not entitled to citizenship according to the U.S. Constitution.<br /> *Blacks were not entitled to freedom under the Ordinance of 1797 while within the area of the Northwest Territory, of which Wisconsin was a part.<br /> *The Missouri Compromise of 1820 prohibiting slavery north of Missouri and in free states was voided.<br /> What the Dred Scott decision meant was any slave could be taken anywhere in the Union without fear that the owner of the slave would lose his property; a slave was private property, Taney stated, and according to the Fifth Amendment could not be taken from the owner without due process. [http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=60&amp;invol=393]<br /> <br /> The decision further deteriorated North/South relations, as a stunned North realized that free states had to support the institution of slavery.<br /> <br /> ===Emergence of Lincoln===<br /> [[Image:Abraham-lincoln-cooper-union.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Abraham Lincoln, February 27, 1860.]]<br /> [[Image:SDouglas.jpg|thumb|150px|right|[[Stephen A. Douglas]], around 1858.]]<br /> The Kansas-Nebraska Act attracted much opposition in the country and led to splitting of the Democrats along the [[Mason-Dixon line]] (Douglas in the ensuing years tried desperately to keep it together) as well as the collapse of the Whig Party as an effective political organization. Many former Whigs, whose beliefs included the abolishment of slavery, flocked to the newly-formed [[Republican Party]]; their number would include a lawyer from Illinois who used the act to jump back into politics after a five-year absence, [[Abraham Lincoln]]. <br /> <br /> Lincoln was nominated for the Senate seat held by Douglas at the Republican State Convention in [[Springfield]] on June 16, 1858. The acceptance speech he gave has been called the &quot;[[House Divided]]&quot; speech, after the opening lines:<br /> <br /> :''If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. &quot;A house divided against itself cannot stand.&quot; &lt;!-- What Bible verse is this? --&gt; I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South.'' [http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm]<br /> <br /> August through October, 1858 saw seven Illinois towns witnessing the [[Lincoln-Douglas debates]]; Douglas the national figure defending the choice of voters whether to accept slavery or not, and the little-known Lincoln taking a stand against slavery on political, social, and moral grounds. Douglas never wavered from defending popular sovereignty, and he also played on the voters' fears of [[black integration]]. Stating blacks were inferior to whites, he appealed to racists by declaring that the government was &quot;established upon the white basis. It was made by white men, for the benefit of white men.&quot; (TL 1, pg 106). Lincoln on the other hand knew Douglas was in a war of his own with President [[Franklin Buchanan]]'s administration over acceptance of the Kansas constitution which barred slavery from the state, further alienating Southern Democratic support; the fear was that Douglas would be more appealing to moderate Republicans in the east. Lincoln's strategy therefore was to point out and use the vast difference between the moral indifference to slavery as embodied by Douglas's popular sovereignty, and the moral wrong that slavery actually was as embodied by Republican opposition to it. Douglas was, Lincoln insisted, a man who did not care whether slavery was &quot;voted up or voted down.&quot;<br /> <br /> Douglas retained his Senate seat, but by a narrow margin. Lincoln, however, won the debates, which thrust him into the national spotlight and put him on the road to the White House.<br /> <br /> ===John Brown at Harpers Ferry===<br /> During the spring of 1858, John Brown held a meeting in Ontario between blacks and whites in which he stated his intentions to form a stronghold in the mountains between Virginia and Maryland for escaped slaves, even going so far as to adopt his own provisional constitution for the United States, which his group adopted. Several prominent Boston [[abolitionist]]s also gave him financial and moral support.<br /> <br /> By summer, 1859, Brown was in a rented farmhouse in Maryland, across the river from the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia; with him was an armed band of sixteen whites and five blacks. On the night of October 16, he raided the armory and took some sixty of the area's leading men as hostages, and hoped that slaves would get word of his forming an &quot;army of emancipation&quot;, escape, and fight with him to liberate their fellow slaves. For the next thirty hours he and his men held out against the local militia, but on the following morning a small force of United States Marines led by Army colonel [[Robert E. Lee]] quickly broke into the arsenal building, wounding Brown, and killing two of his sons and ten other followers. He was tried for murder, slave insurrection, &lt;!-- that's a particular crime? --&gt; and [[treason]], and at the end he was convicted and hanged. The day he was to die he spoke no last words, merely handing a note to a guard on which he had written a last, prophetic statement: ''&quot;I, John Brown, am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away but with blood.&quot;'' (TL 1, pp. 70-89)<br /> <br /> Ever fearful of a slave insurrection, the South became tougher on its slaves. In Washington, Senator Jefferson Davis assumed, like many others, that the North was behind a conspiracy involving John Brown and others like him, aimed at abolishing slavery. He said in a speech:<br /> :''The Government is no longer to intervene in favor of protection for our slaves. We may be robbed of our property, and the General Government will not intervene for our protection. When the Government gets into the hands of the Republican party, the arm of the General Government, we are told, will not be raised for the protection of our slave property. Then intervention in favor of slavery and [[slave States]] will no longer be tolerated. We may be invaded, and the Black Republican Government will stand and permit our soil to be violated and our people assailed and raise no arm in our defense. The sovereignty of the State is no longer to be a bar to encroachments upon our rights when the Government gets into Black Republican hands. Then John Brown, and a thousand John Browns, can invade us, and the Government will not protect us. ''[http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/brown/public_davis.cfm]<br /> <br /> Many in the North held a different view. Brown was a martyr for abolition. The great orator [[Frederick Douglas]], a freed [[slave]] himself who was never afraid to confront the evils of the South's &quot;peculiar institution&quot;, perhaps offered the best assessment of Brown:<br /> :''His zeal in the cause of freedom was infinitely superior to mine. Mine was as the taper light, his was as the burning sun. Mine was bounded by time. His stretched away to the silent shores of eternity. I could speak for the slave. John Brown could fight for the slave. I could live for the slave. John Brown could die for the slave.'' [http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mfd&amp;fileName=22/22002/22002page.db&amp;recNum=9&amp;tempFile=./temp/~ammem_rvc6&amp;filecode=mfd&amp;next_filecode=mfd&amp;prev_filecode=mfd&amp;itemnum=2&amp;ndocs=32]<br /> <br /> ===1860 Presidential campaign===<br /> [[Image:Electionlincoln.png|thumb|250px|right|Results of the 1860 Presidential Election. Due to the splitting of the country on the slavery issue, Lincoln won only 40% of the popular vote.]]<br /> '' See [[United States presidential election of 1860]]''<br /> <br /> In April, 1860, the Democratic Party held its convention in [[Charleston]], South Carolina, and the first platform placed for a vote is pro-slavery. When it is rejected in the course of voting, delegates from eight states in the South walk out; the remaining delegates are forced to adjourn when they cannot agree on a candidate to represent their party in the White House. (Bowman, pg. 40)<br /> <br /> The Republicans hold their convention in Chicago in May, 1860, and Lincoln is nominated on the third ballot; he had to stand as a moderate on the slavery issue in order to gain the nomination. The party's platform insists on leaving slavery alone in the states where it already existed and against the spread of it into the territories. (Bowman, pg 40)<br /> <br /> The Democrats reconvene their convention in Baltimore, Maryland, in June. Stephen Douglas is nominated for the presidency after the Southern delegates walk out again; they would hold their own convention later in Balitmore and nominate Vice-President John C. Breckenridge on a platform calling for the right to slavery. (Bowman, pg. 40)<br /> <br /> The election centered on [[sectionalism]] and slavery, with each candidate doing little more than fanning the fears of the voters; Douglas would be the only one to travel the country personally, including all Southern states, but the split within his party was too great to make a difference. Lincoln went on to win the election, with 180 electoral votes, and 40% of the popular votes, none of which included a Southern state. Breckenridge placed second, winning 72 electoral votes, and 24% of the popular vote. John C. Bell, a candidate for the Constitutional Union Party (made up of former Whigs and former members of a nativist American party derisively called &quot;[[Know Nothings]]&quot;), took the states of [[Virginia]], [[Kentucky]], and [[Tennessee]]. Last was Douglas, barely managing Missouri, and three out of seven electoral votes from New Jersey. Southern leaders speak openly about secession within days of Lincoln's victory. (Bowman, pg 40; Nat. Atlas)<br /> <br /> ==The Secession==<br /> [[Image:CMercury.GIF|thumb|150px|right|The Charleston ''Mercury'' newspaper printed this special broadside edition on December 20, 1860, just as news reached the editors that South Carolina had withdrawn from the Union.]]<br /> [[image:President-Jefferson-Davis.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.]]<br /> By December of 1860, both houses of Congress were working on proposals for compromises that would postpone the split they knew was coming. [[John J. Crittenden]] of the Senate committee introduced a proposal that would restore the Missouri Compromise by extending the northern boundary line across the continent to the Pacific, intending that it would last for all time. Crittenden's proposal, as well as the others, came down to a vote, but events would prove it was too late. Most of President Buchanan's cabinet, long angered at him (and his predecessor, Democrat Franklin Pierce) for not standing up to Southern demands which were tearing the country apart, walked out in protest; the latest outrage occurred when a delegation from South Carolina arrived at the White House and demanded the removal of Federal troops from the state (Buchanan rejects it). And President-elect Lincoln, although trying to be careful regarding the slavery issue, is insistent that slavery not be expanded into the territories. (Bowman, pg. 41)<br /> <br /> On December 20, 1860, the South Carolina government votes to secede from the Union. Within days they begin war preparations, and seize Federal property. By the end of the month Major Robert Anderson spiked the cannon and removed the force stationed at Fort Moultrie in Charleston Harbor; nearby Fort Sumter is considered more defensible, and he places the force there. Aware of Anderson's condition, President Buchanan orders reinforcements sent, and USS ''Brooklyn'' is readied for that purpose in Norfolk; she would be replaced days later by General [[Winfield Scott]]'s preference for a non-Naval supply ship, ''Star of the West''.<br /> <br /> On January 6, 1861, Florida troops take the Federal arsenal at [[Apalachicola]]. Fort Marion at St. Augustine is seized on the 7th. On the 9th, the ''Star of the West'' would be fired upon as she neared Charleston, causing her to turn around and head back to Norfolk. That same day public celebrations erupt in Mississippi as the state legislature votes 84-15 to secede.<br /> *January 10, Florida votes 67-2 to secede.<br /> *January 11, Alabama votes 69-31 to secede.<br /> *January 19, Georgia votes 208-89 to secede.<br /> *January 26, Louisiana votes 114-17 to secede.<br /> *February 1, Texas votes 166-7 to secede.<br /> <br /> On February 4th, a[[ peace convention]] meets in Washington, headed by former President [[John Tyler]]. The 131 members from 21 states (none from the South) work out a last, desperate compromise to save the Union. Speaking to the delegates, Tyler implores that &quot;the eyes of the whole country are turned to this assembly, in expectation and hope.&quot; The convention ends in failure. (Bowman, pg. 45)<br /> <br /> In Montgomery, Alabama, a provisional congress assembles and draws up a constitution by the end of the week; this document is essentially the United States Constitution, but mildly altered to include provisions for states' rights and protection for slavery:<br /> *''The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.'' <br /> *''The Privilege of the Writ of [[Habeas Corpus]] shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. No [[Bill of Attainder]] or ex post facto Law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in Negro slaves, shall be passed.'' (Article 1, section IX)[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm] <br /> <br /> On February 9, a surprised [[Jefferson Davis]] learns he has been elected provisional president of the newly-formed [[Confederate States of America]]; his vice-president is [[Alexander Stephens]] of Georgia. The two are considered moderate enough to please the legislatures of the remaining Southern states which have not yet seceded.<br /> <br /> ===Fort Sumter===<br /> [[Image:Ftsum.jpg|thumb|250px|right|Fort Sumter under the Confederate flag, April 1861.]]<br /> On the 4th of March, 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated as the nation's 16th president. In his address he reiterated his stance, and what he believed the stance of the nation should be, namely non-interference with slavery where it existed, and preventing slavery to spread in the territories, and above all was his stand to preserve the Union. The substance of what he said was conciliatory, but it also mentioned the obvious:<br /> <br /> :''&quot;In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of [[civil war]]. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to &quot;preserve, protect, and defend it.&quot;'' [http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html]<br /> <br /> After communications between [[Fort Sumter]] and Charleston broke down over quietly surrendering the fort, Confederate General [[P.G.T. Beauregard]] knew reinforcing the fort was certain, and he may have been aware of a supply ship already on its way from Norfolk. He ordered the fort shelled on April 12, 1861; the honor of firing the first gun went to an ardent secessionist from Virginia, 66-year-old Edmund Ruffin. The fort surrendered on April 14 after 36 hours of bombardment, the single fatality of the engagement was to a Union soldier, killed when a cannon exploded as they were readying a final salute. Major Anderson and his force were immediately paroled, and were allowed to leave on the supply ship a few hours later.<br /> <br /> The American Civil War had begun.<br /> <br /> ==Continuing articles==<br /> *[[American_Civil_War:_1861|Continue to the events of the Civil War in 1861]]<br /> *[[American_Civil_War:_1862|1862]]<br /> *[[American_Civil_War:_1863|1863]]<br /> *[[American_Civil_War:_1864|1864]]<br /> *[[American_Civil_War:_1865|1865]]<br /> *[[American_Civil_War:_Aftermath|Aftermath]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> For a guide to web sources see:<br /> * Alice E. Carter and Richard Jensen. ''The Civil War on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites'' (2nd ed. 2003) [http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Web-Sites-Completely-Revised/dp/084205135X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1201965355&amp;sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]<br /> <br /> For an older short survey that is online and won the Pulitzer prize, see:<br /> * Rhodes, James Ford. [http://www.bartleby.com/252/ ''History of the Civil War, 1861-1865 (1918)] <br /> For the best recent survey that is online and won the Pulitzer prize, see:<br /> * McPherson, James M. ''Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era'' (1988), 900 pages; [http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Cry-Freedom-Oxford-History/dp/019516895X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;s=books&amp;qid=1201965480&amp;sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]; also [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&amp;d=64327148 complete online edition]<br /> <br /> For other recent surveys (not online) see:<br /> * Fellman, Michael ''et al.'' ''This Terrible War: The Civil War and its Aftermath'' (2nd ed. 2007), 544 pages<br /> * Donald, David ''et al.'' ''The Civil War and Reconstruction'' (2001); 700 pages<br /> <br /> *Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 1 (''Brother Against Brother''), Time Inc, New York (1983), popular history<br /> *Time-Life Books ''The Civil War'', vol. 15 (''Gettysburg''), Time Inc, New York (1983), popular history<br /> *Nevins, Allan. ''Ordeal of the Union'' (1947-70), the most detailed history by a leading scholar<br /> *Bowman, John S. (editor), ''The Civil War Almanac'' World Almanac Publications, New York (1985)<br /> <br /> ==Links==<br /> ====The Official Records of the War of the Rebellion====<br /> *[http://cdl.library.cornell.edu/moa/moa_browse.html Official Records, from Cornell University]<br /> *[http://ehistory.osu.edu/osu/sources/records/default.cfm?CFID=2953054&amp;CFTOKEN=64723065&amp;jsessionid=de3014246f1a3c587075TR Official Records, from eHistory.com]<br /> ====General====<br /> *[http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/civil_war_maps Library of Congress Civil War map collection]<br /> *[http://www.civil-war.net The Civil War Homepage]<br /> *[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar The PBS/Ken Burns documentary]<br /> *[http://www.historyplace.com/civilwar The History Place]<br /> *[http://www.pueblo.gsa.gov/cic_text/misc/civilwar/civilwar.htm Civil War at a Glance; US Interior Department]<br /> *[http://www.civilwarhome.com Shotgun's home of the American Civil War]<br /> *[http://www.cwc.lsu.edu US Civil War Center, from Louisiana State University]<br /> *[http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/ndlpcoop/nhihtml/cwnyhshome.html Civil War Treasures, from New York Historical Society]<br /> *[http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/ Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln]<br /> <br /> ====Prelude to war====<br /> *[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=60&amp;invol=393 Full text of the Dred Scott v. Sandford]<br /> *[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Missouri.html Missouri Compromise]<br /> *[http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/kansas.html Kansas-Nebraska act]<br /> *[http://blueandgraytrail.com/event/Compromise_of_1850 Compromise of 1850]<br /> *[http://www.usconstitution.net/fslave.html Text of the Fugitive Slave Law]<br /> *[http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/brown/public_davis.cfm text of speech by Sen. Jefferson Davis, Dec. 8, 1859]<br /> *[http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/P?mfd:2:./temp/~ammem_rvc6:: ''Lecture on John Brown'' by Frederick Douglas]<br /> <br /> ====Emergence of Lincoln====<br /> *[http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm Lincoln's &quot;House Divided&quot; speech]<br /> <br /> ====1860 Presidential Campaign====<br /> *[http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1860 Federal Register, 1860 election results]<br /> <br /> ====Secession====<br /> *[http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/civil-war/1861/march/jefferson-davis-inauguration-speech.htm Jefferson Davis Inaugural speech, as reported in Harper's Weekly]<br /> *[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address1.html text of Licoln's first inaugural speech]<br /> *[http://www.pbs.org/civilwar/war/lincoln_address2.html Lincoln's second inaugural speech]<br /> *[http://www.civilwarhome.com/csconstitution.htm Constitution of the Confederate States]<br /> <br /> [[Category:United States History]]<br /> [[Category:Featured articles]]<br /> [[Category:Wars]]<br /> [[Category:Civil Wars]]<br /> [[Category:American Civil War]]<br /> [[Category:Black History]]<br /> [[Category:The South]]<br /> [[Category:Reconstruction]]</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_Limbaugh&diff=710135 2009-10-14T19:47:32Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Limbaugh.jpg|thumb|right|Rush Limbaugh]]<br /> '''Rush Limbaugh''' (born January 12, 1951) is a [[conservative]] [[American]] [[radio]] talk show host and author. Limbaugh has risen to the top of the ratings heap as a reliably [[conservative]] voice in a talk radio media environment dominated by conservatives. In his sharp criticisms of the [[Obama Administration]] Limbaugh maintains his position as one of the ''de facto'' leaders of the [[Republican]] opposition.<br /> <br /> == Radio ==<br /> <br /> Limbaugh hosts a radio show famed for its incisive criticism of the follies of [[liberalism]] and his cogent exposure of [[liberal]] [[propaganda]] and [[deceit]]. He is often at odds with [[liberal]] activist [[Al Franken]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-9993.html Forum thread] discussing a NYT Editorial&lt;/ref&gt;. He habitually refers to [[feminists]] who support [[abortion]] as ''feminazis'' and to his own self as having &quot;talent on loan from God&quot;. <br /> <br /> Limbaugh's style has been credited with &quot;reviving AM radio in the United States, and is considered by many to have been a catalyst for the [[Republican Party]]'s 1994 Congressional victories&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10813FA3B5D0C708EDDAB0894DE494D81&amp;n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fL%2fLimbaugh%2c%20Rush Radio Talk Show Host Fears For True Conservatism's Fate], New York Times&lt;/ref&gt;.<br /> Limbaugh's conservative talk show is nationally syndicated and averages over 16 million listeners weekly, making him the #1 Radio Talk Show Host in America.<br /> &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.talkers.com/main/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=17&amp;Itemid=34 The Top Talk Radio Audiences] Tallkers magazine online&lt;/ref&gt; In July 2008, Rush announced &quot;he has renewed his contract with Premiere Radio Networks and Clear Channel Radio, continuing syndication of his show 'many years into the future.'&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27326 Rush Renews Contract], ''[[Human Events]]'', July, 2, 2008&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ===Obama to Fail===<br /> Limbaugh made national headlines when he was asked to write 400 words for a newspaper column about Obama's plans. He said he didn't need 400 words, he needed just four: &quot;I hope he fails.&quot; He immediately came under attack as an unpatriotic obstructionist. What Limbaugh actually said, as opposed to the [[MSM]] shortened version flashed everywhere, according to the show's [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html transcript] was, if Obama is for socialist policies and against capitalist policies, of course he could not support those policies, and hoped he would fail. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html Limbaugh radio show transcript.]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Limbaugh addressed [[CPAC]] and further discussed his stance that generated so much attention. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/01/limbaugh-leader-obama-chief-staff-calls-talk-host-barrier-progress/ Limbaugh the Leader? Obama Chief of Staff] Fox News, March 01, 2009&lt;/ref&gt; {{cquote| ''&quot;Did the Democrats want the war in Iraq to fail? Well, they certainly did. And they not only wanted the war in Iraq to fail, they proclaimed it a failure. ... The last thing they wanted was to win. They hoped George Bush failed. So where is it -- what is so strange about being honest and saying, I want Barack Obama to fail if his mission is to restructure and reform this country so that capitalism and individual liberty are not its foundation? Why would I want that to succeed?&quot;'' }}<br /> <br /> == The Harry Reid Letter ==<br /> On October 2, 2007, [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Harry Reid]], [[Democrat|D]]-[[Nevada|NV]], wrote a letter to Mark P. Mays, President and CEO of Clear Channel Communications, who is Rush Limbaugh's chief patron. In it Senator Reid essentially demanded that Mr. Mays order Mr. Limbaugh to apologize for remarks he made concerning &quot;phony soldiers.&quot;&lt;ref name=ReidText&gt;Reid, Harry, ''et al.'' &quot;[http://reid.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284699 Letter to Mark P. Mays of Clear Channel Communications].&quot; [http://reid.senate.gov/ Electronic Office of US Senator Harry Reid], October 2, 2007. Retrieved October 19, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt; A ''phony soldier'' is someone who is not a soldier at all but is pretending to be one, especially in a public forum. Such activity is unlawful, and the [[Jesse MacBeth|person]] whose activity prompted Mr. Limbaugh's remarks has since been convicted and punished.&lt;ref name=PhonySoldier&gt;Limbaugh, Rush. &quot;[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092807/content/01125106.guest.html The Anatomy of a Smear: 'Phony Soldiers' Is a Phony Story].&quot; ''[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh Official Site]'', accessed December 25, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> This letter was co-signed by nearly all Democratic senators. In a speech in Philadelphia on October 11th, Limbaugh announced plans to sell the original letter on eBay in a charity auction. The proceeds went to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation. The letter sold for $2.1 million and Limbaugh matched the winning amount with a total of $.2 million being donated. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/420889/harry_reidrush_limbaugh_letter_nets.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Politics ==<br /> Limbaugh endorsed [[Mitt Romney]] for the [[2008 Presidential Election]]. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnsnews.com/ThisHour.asp#Limbaugh%20Endorses%20Romney Limbaugh Endorses Romney], [[Melanie Hunter]], ''[[CNSNews]]'', February 05, 2008&lt;/ref&gt; He was often critical of [[John McCain]] during the Republican primaries, but supported him in the general election.<br /> <br /> == Poking fun at Obama liberals==<br /> Newsweek editor Evan Thomas said on MSNBC's &quot;Hardball&quot; that Obama was &quot;sort of God.&quot;<br /> <br /> Asking rhetorically what [[God]] has in common with Obama, Limbaugh said, &quot;Neither has a birth certificate.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=100717 Rush Limbaugh pummels Obama on birth certificate] WND, June 10, 2009&lt;/ref&gt; He went on to say &quot;God does not think he's Obama,&quot; and &quot;Liberals love Obama.&quot; Limbaugh explained more differences, &quot;Another difference is that God only demands to be worshipped once a week,&quot; and &quot;God asks for only 10 percent of your money&quot;, and &quot;God gives you freedom to live your life as you choose.&quot;<br /> <br /> == Painkiller addiction ==<br /> <br /> On October 6, 2003 Limbaugh told his audience he was addicted to OxyContin and other painkillers citing a failed back surgery as the cause of his pain and subsequent dependence. &lt;ref&gt;The Rush Limbaugh Show, October 6, 2007.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/10/10/rush.limbaugh/ &quot;Limbaugh admits addiction to pain medication&quot;&lt;/ref&gt; Limbaugh underwent treatment for his addiction, and charges against him for alleged &quot;doctor shopping&quot; to procure prescription medications were dropped on the condition that he continue treatment for his addiction.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/28/national/main1561324.shtml&lt;/ref&gt; The [[MSM]] as well as Democratic politicians consistently use this information to crudely and unfairly attack Limbaugh.<br /> <br /> == Sports ==<br /> <br /> Limbaugh is an avid sports fan, particularly football. He briefly held a position as a commentator on ESPN's Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show. He resigned from the show on October 2, 2006 after comments made regarding Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb received widespread criticism.<br /> <br /> {{cquote|''' ''&quot;I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team.&quot;'' '''}}<br /> <br /> After McNabb's response, &quot;It's sad that you've got to go to skin color. I thought we were through with that whole deal,&quot; significant pressure was put upon Limbaugh to resign. &lt;ref&gt;http://espn.go.com/gen/news/2003/1001/1628537.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> == Other Media Work ==<br /> <br /> The Limbaugh Letter is a monthly publication that contains conservative articles and humor in Rush's style. <br /> <br /> Limbaugh is involved in the conservative satire show &quot;The 1/2 Hour News Hour&quot; show on the [[Fox News Channel]]. &lt;ref&gt;<br /> [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602098.html Fox News Channel's '1/2 Hour News Hour': Right Funny, in Spots] washingtonpost.com&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Rush occasionally writes op-ed pieces for the [[Wall Street Journal]].<br /> <br /> == Quotes ==<br /> * &quot;You know why there's a Second Amendment? In case the government fails to follow the first one.&quot; - Rush Limbaugh, 17 Aug 1993<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[Previous Breaking News/Rush Limbaugh|Articles about '''Rush Limbaugh''' from previous &quot;Breaking News&quot;]]<br /> *[[Conservative Links]]<br /> *[[Rush Derangement Syndrome]]<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Official Rush Limbaugh website]<br /> *[http://www.cspan.org/Watch/watch.aspx?MediaId=HP-A-15919 Rush's 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Speech], ''C-SPAN'', February 28, 2009<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT: Limbaugh, Rush}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Broadcasters]]<br /> [[Category:Republican Party]]<br /> [[Category:Conservative Commentators]]</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TheHeroExcelsior&diff=699022 2009-09-09T14:17:09Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Everyone should read Coulter's Godless: The Church of Liberalism and Glenn Beck's An Inconvenient Book. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:17, 9 September 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ann_Coulter&diff=699019 2009-09-09T14:12:56Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>{{unprotect|Ed Poor}}<br /> <br /> [[/1|Archive 1]]<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Protests== <br /> <br /> Shouldn't something be added about the many protests staged by students and others when she's speaking, not to mention the infamous pie incident from The University of Arizona? [[User:SirJim|SirJim]] 18:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> : just to get the whole picture a sentence or two should mention protests [[User:Eljawa|Eljawa]] 08:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Specific mention of certain protests probably isn't important, as certain student activists/extremists will protest just about anything. However, the pie incident actually does deserve to be included in my opinion. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::See what the others think. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:29, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::I think it gives a victory to what was intended as a political act but in reality is a criminal assualt. Personally, I'd be opposed, unless someone can give a good reason for inclusion. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:36, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::It shows the depravity and incivility of those who did it. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 18:38, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::This was a take off of quite a common European leftist technique to grab headlines, and embarass high profile people. It is quite commonly used in the Netherlands, I believe. It wouldn't have happened here if people didn't hear about it through news sources and such, so I think we have ample evidence that reporting it only encourages this sort of criminal assualt on political opponents. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:04, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Sounds good. I'm not surprised it happens in the Netherlands. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 19:21, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> this article needs a &quot;criticisms&quot; subsection in order to be fair. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 22:00, 18 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> :The only criticism I can think of is, why can not I find articles on Google articles Anne Coulter wrote three years ago, that I know are there? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:20, 23 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::Are the files/articles still on the site where they were originally? The google cache doesn't keep everything until the end of time. If they are still there, is there a robots.txt that prevents google from spidering it? Have you checked other search engines too? If you know the name of the article you might be able to find a reference to it and then use the wayback machine to find an archived copy of it (again, given that the wayback machine wasn't prevented from spidering it either). --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 16:07, 23 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::I am only going by memory; I got vivid recall in detail of [[meme]]s, yet using them as search terms yields zilch. Hence, I would be reluctant to allow any sort of &quot;criticism&quot;, there seems to be a pretty active effort to silence and defame her, and I see no cause whatsoever why CP should be party to it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:57, 23 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::: There are many ways for site administrators to block spiders from indexing the site. Additionaly, newspapers and caches only have so much storage and tend not to store every single article for eternity - especially opinion pieces. With person who is in the public spotlight, a significant amount of material is and it can be difficult to find older articles that have dropped back in search relevance. Additionaly, if you are a person in the media and you want your material to be found later, make sure you archive a copy on your own web space and don't prevent spiders from searching for it. Are any of these articles you mention on her own website? It has a column archive which would presumably have what you are looking for. There is also an archive of columns that she wrote for http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp . Are the articles you are looking for in either of those lists? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:11, 23 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's interesting that you say you can't find any criticism of Ann Coulter. It tells me that bias has blinded you to reality. Ann makes many interesting, relevant, and valid points. Her personal (ad-hominem) attacks also border on the insane. You'd rather just deal with the former, and ignore the latter, because why?<br /> <br /> If you want the intellectual and moral high ground, if you want to claim &quot;truth&quot;, move past these kind of attacks, and at very least talk about what they are. I think Coulter's personal attacks are geared to make the feebleminded snicker. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 16:58, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Odd, and here I have always thought her remarks were intended for the more intellectual, given her frequent use of words most citizens do not understand or forgotten the meaning of. --&lt;font color=&quot;#0002AC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;OOFFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 17:12, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> do you mean statements like this? &quot;Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly&quot; -ann coulter [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 14:04, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Cite an instance where that's not true. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:33, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> :: Are you serious? You believe that Martin Luther King Jr. was driven by Satan and lied constantly? Or that Bobby Kennedy was? Or Susan B. Anthony? Or Rev. V. Gene Robinson? Or Cecil Williams? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:54, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::Here's the point about [[deceit]]: the biggest victim of deceit is when the deceitful person begins beleiving his/her/it/transgender's own lies. Thus, a person driven by Satan can lie to themself that they are not, when in fact they actually are. Now, if you are a rational person, you surely can understand this perfectly logical point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> Jesus? His message was love. He was anti-violence. Pretty liberal, eh? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:32, 12 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Love is the liberal message? All I hear is spewing hate. You might have love confused with unnatural acts of copulation, which is pretty much all the Democratic party &amp; liberalism has stood for now for the past 10 or 15 years. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:58, 13 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> *Mtur, in today's world, where Katie Curic is attacked by Liberal whackos at moveon.org for reporting fairly about Iraq, I don't think Bobby Kennedy, who was the one who personally approved the wiretapping of MLK, would last a year in public life. --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:10, 13 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;spewing hate&quot; pretty much sums up my criticism of ann coulter. I'm not here to fight the big conservo vs. lib battle, to debate the bible vs other ideas - just to help write conservapedia. Ann coulter says hateful things. She's certainly an intellectual, and makes people think, but - to sum it up- i think the entry loses perspective and validity by not examining her methods in detail. If we all thought like ann spoke, where would we be as a society? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 09:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Please refrain from spewing hate against Ann Coulter; Coulter in reality is parody of liberals we've all been forced to accept as rational spokespeople for liberal ideals for more than half a century. Libs can dish it out, but when a Limbaugh, Coulter, or Savage pantomimes liberal's ideas of rational discourse and civility on public affairs, suddenly it becomes hate speech. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:56, 14 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I don't think she's doing parody, or pantomiming, but more like trying to expose liberal viewpoints as stupid and rediculous by taking over the top counter-arguments. things like saying Darfur is not a real genocide. there is a political message there, but if you want to talk reality, look at how hateful that statement is. mabye you (and many others) think it's okay to say they wished that mcveigh had bombed everyone at the NYT, or &quot;i think women should be armed but not vote&quot;. but your reasons must be hateful ones. ann coulter is a self described &quot;mean-spirited, bigoted conservative&quot;. i dare you to respond without a single reference to &quot;liberals&quot;. [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 12:11, 17 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> :The Darfur genocide comment is exactly a parody of respected liberal spokespeople and arguments; very much in the same vein as &quot;General Betray-Us.&quot; <br /> <br /> :To deny these types of vicious, liberal snarks and smears is not considered acceptable, and respected, borders on trolling. Why just yesterday I read an AP report that said &quot;in other bad economic news&quot; [http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/09/16/jobless_claims_soar_by_71000/]; this sort of trite trash really gets old very quickly. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:44, 17 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ok, she's doing parody about genocide? people getting butchered? i don't get it- what's the point? is it funny that people are calling for action in the Sudan? I agree with you re: &quot;bad economic news today&quot; but (im assuming you're percieving it as a knock against W) those kinds of headlines occur regardless of who is in office. reporters want to make a story out of something. plus, right now genuinely are a few bad economic things happening. more knocks against conservatives? yeah, mabye. and mabye more reporters just happen to be liberal. <br /> <br /> you say coulter's genocide comments are parody just like movon.org's general betray-us is. then you use it as an example of &quot;vicious, liberal snarks and smears&quot;. thus, coulter's genocide comment is also vicious, snark and smear. just like I said. if you want to talk about moveon.org. let me say that i don't think they're helping anything in this country, much less liberalism. <br /> <br /> all in all, i tend to think ann coulter is a conservative middle finger to the liberal left. and conservatives like it. end of story.<br /> <br /> [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 08:45, 18 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> BTW, your link above is to a 2005 article.<br /> <br /> == silly Coulter ==<br /> Silly Coulter, Adams apples are for men! [[user:thegovernator|thegovernator]]<br /> <br /> == Coulter &amp; Sarcasm ==<br /> <br /> I think some consideration should be given to the view that almost all of Coulter's positions are too peurile to be seriously held, and that her entire body of work must be satirical and intended to make a mockery of anyone who finds her points to be at all insightful if taken at face value. <br /> <br /> <br /> Coulter using sarcasm is mean spirited. Hillary or Gore using it, is merely highlighting a point. Moveon.org stating in a full page advertisement a respected and dedicated General a traitor is &quot;excess&quot;. Giuliani responding in the same venue, calling them out for that abomination is &quot;elevating mud throwing and personal attacks very early in the election process&quot;. Can you not see how this goes? Do you really feel MSM is fair? --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 17:00, 17 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> i definately see what you're saying, and mabye it exposes the bias that reporters have. however, coulter takes her sarcasm to the next level, let's be honest. 08:48, 18 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :No, sometimes when Coulter uses sarcasm it is mean-spirited, but if you ever actually have read an entire book chapter (or several columns) all the way through, you'll see that she uses sarcasm primarily as an attention-getting device. She doesn't actually hate her ideological opponents: she is heaping more ridicule on their faulty thinking than on them as people. <br /> <br /> :In that spirit, let me emphasize that ''only an idiot would think I was literally impugning your intelligence''! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:14, 18 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I think it's possible for two reasonable people to come to two different conclusions about Coulter's writing style. I think you're a reasonable person, Ed, and I think you believe what you just said about her. I believe that I am a reasonable person as well, and I think (having read a dozen or so of her columns and 1.5 of her books) that she's fairly mean-spirited and full of anger and condescension if not actual hatred. If it's an act, it's so good as to render the question moot. Or so says I, at least. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:50, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''&lt;-doesn't like lib gasbags either....''<br /> :::This might be expected of her, having to live in New York City and all. The atmosphere sure is intolerant and suffocating of dissent and free thinkers like Coulter. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:25, 20 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::*shrug* You're welcome to let people off the hook like that if you prefer. I don't. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:47, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''&lt;-o/~Dif'rent Strokes to rule the world, yes it does... o/~''<br /> ::::On balance, she probably should be applauded and encouraged for standing up to the intolerance and intimidation of minority thought in place like New York City, and cowering before bullies and fascists only encourages them. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:04, 21 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> :::::Ok, applaud away. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 00:22, 21 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: well, i for one am glad that the majority is outright against hate-mongering vitriol, regardless of those subtle messages encoded within for the more intellectual among us. It actually bodes well for our country. However, perhaps i'm just a liberal driven by Satan and am simply lying to myself about it. What was it you were saying about facism and stifiling minority dissent with bullying? [[User:Jsusman|Jsusman]] 10:54, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &lt;--<br /> When the political consulting team of [[James Carville]], [[Larry Flynt]], and [[Paul Begala]] cease their antics, Larry Flynt retires, wills his entire estate to an orphanage in Trust, and stops trying set-up and blackmail people like [[Jim Jeffords]] and [[Larry Craig]], is the day Ann Coulter will be reined in. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:24, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I'm all for criticizing ALL of the above people for their poor words and bad actions. Deal? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:11, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I guess we need Flynt &amp; Begala entries then. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:45, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Go right ahead, what with this being a wiki and all you should have no problem. You work on those, and leave the people interested in the Coulter criticisms to take care of those. Everyone ends up happy, and CP remains fair. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 22:20, 27 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::::This Coulterism [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22909&amp;email] isn't just being sarcastic, its the basis for badly needed new article. [[institutional racial hoaxism]]. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:33, 17 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Legal career ==<br /> <br /> Can we have an entry on Ms. Coulter's legal career. Assuming, of course, that she has one? [[User:Jsmog|Jsmog]] 13:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==M. Stanton Evans==<br /> Good quote from Coulter on [[M. Stanton Evans]] new book, &quot;the greatest book since the Bible, M. Stanton Evans' ''Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America's Enemies''.&quot; [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23824] We just need a place to put it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:04, 7 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Hatred ==<br /> <br /> Im sorry but this woman preaches hatred and gives conservative a bad name entirely, she called Jews imperfect christians for gods sake, that is a hateful comment, she is a bigot, she is too far to the right, and when you go to far to the right you become the opposite of a communist... a Nazi. She would quite happily send us back 70 years. The article doesn`t reflect the fact that even moderate conservatives find her offensive, and conservatives should not condon her actions. --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 10:58, 21 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :And the hate from the liberals that she preaches against on TV, radio, and her books doesn't count? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:20, 21 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : The article quotes those comments; what more do you want? The reader can decide whether they are hateful or not. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:18, 24 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> And if you can't decide, it's not a problem; the article tells you right from the start:<br /> <br /> ''Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by establishment critics and liberals in general, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that liberals can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. [2] [3]''<br /> <br /> *Liberals = intolerant attacks<br /> *Ann Coulter = exposure of hypocrisy, occasional twitting<br /> <br /> Nice to have things made simple! [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 12:03, 24 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> is that ment to be a joke, --[[User:Realist2|Realist2]] 14:09, 30 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> : That's &quot;meant&quot;, not &quot;ment&quot;. More importantly, please open your mind a bit for your sake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:15, 30 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Open minds are great, and Ann Coulter probably does make a lot of very good points. But you can be simultaneously valid and offensive, and the article should not attempt to dismiss this by putting such a spin on her &quot;controversy&quot; in the very second paragraph. As mentionned before, the quotes speak for themselves, so let the readers decide. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 15:50, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::I hate people who won't fix things themselves =&gt; shorthand for '''I hate it when people ...''' --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:56, 31 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::Um... Thanks for unlocking the article...? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::: My Mind is open about this, and I still see a hate monger, Mr. Schlafay. Evidence to the point: [http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter.shtml Christian Crusading], [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/10/11/national/main3358373.shtml?source=mostpop_story Anti-Semitic statements], and [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter092801.asp Anti-Islamic sentiments]. My evidence towards the theory that Ann Coulter is a Hate Monger and a Religious Facist is on the table. You may now post a counter argument. [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 18:57 11 Feb 2008 (CST)<br /> <br /> :::::: The article has quotes from her. The reader can form his own opinions. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 22:07, 11 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Isn't Coulter pro-choice? ==<br /> <br /> I thought Ann Coulter was pro-choice. Someone should look into this... -[[User:RedBlade7|danq]] 12:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == First &quot;Reference&quot; ==<br /> <br /> The first reference, &quot;U.S. Federal Judge Richard Posner called her one of America's top public intellectuals,&quot; has no source. Unless there's a source or a specific objection, I think this reference should be deleted. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 08:23, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br /> :I added the refs [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/publicintellect.htm] [http://home.uchicago.edu/~rposner/TABLE%20II.pdf] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:07, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br /> ::Perhaps I misunderstood the references---but where does he state that she's one of America's top public intellectuals? --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:10, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br /> :::Having read the reference again, I think a couple improvements could be made. First, the reference should have something to do with the corresponding passage. The passage talks about her books, but the reference makes a claim about being called a top intellectual. That claim can be included in the main article someplace, but doesn't have relevance as a reference to her writings. Second, the reference, when placed in the article, should point to his book on the subject, rather than the appendix to the book. The reference doesn't make the fact any clearer. Finally, having read a summation of the book from Publisher's Weekly, it seems Posner was writing that the intellectuals of today have diminished from the intellectuals of the past. He then uses web hits as a qualification for intellectualism. That seems a weak criteria. <br /> :::Overall, I think this reference should just be removed, as it doesn't enhance but instead detracts from the article. --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:17, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br /> ::::Valid points. The statement and references now stand alone and are not linked to her books. The statement now ''adds'' to the article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br /> :::::Thanks for the update. I still question whether he considers her one of America's top public intellectuals, or whether she's just another example of an American public intellectual, but w/o reading the book it's hard to know. But thank you for the updated writing! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 12:45, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Opinion ==<br /> <br /> The following paragraph needs some work:<br /> :&lt;nowiki&gt;Coulter is the frequent target of attacks by critics and liberals, who are outraged by her incessant and trenchant exposure of their hypocrisy. These attacks prove Coulter's contention that [[liberal]]s can't tolerate dissent. From time to time, she has fought back by twitting them in the same vein. &lt;ref&gt;She called Democratic women &quot;no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons&quot;. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, &quot;I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'&quot; [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] &lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> I love Coulter's writing, but this paragraph includes a lot of unsubstantiated opinion. I wanted to rewrite it, but I wasn't really sure how without taking out most of the assertions. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:17, 27 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :&lt;nowiki&gt;As an unabashedly conservative pundit, Coulter's social commentaries often draw the ire of [[liberal]]s. Her comments are frequently controversial and sometimes considered &quot;offensive&quot; &lt;ref&gt;She called Democratic women &quot;no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant [[hippie]] chick pie wagons&quot;. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/05/AR2007030501610_2.html (Washington Post)] &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;At a CPAC conference, Coulter joked, &quot;I was going to have a few comments about John Edwards but you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'&quot; [http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Coulter_Faggot_not_offensive_to_gay_0306.html] &lt;/ref&gt;&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> :How's that, HelpJazz? Any better? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 17:25, 12 February 2008 (EST==<br /> <br /> ::Wow, I forgot about this post, heh. Yes, Feebas, I think that's much better, and I think it still gets the same message across without the editorializing. Thanks! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:37, 12 February 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Feigning offence==<br /> What is feign offence Andy? you mean that people are not actually offended?<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:58, 10 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Karajou, this is pathetic. Her critics are critics because they are actually offended. What makes you think they feign it? I am going to revert if you cant give a reason<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> :And I will throw you off this website if you even dare to. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Indeed, I was under the impression I was dealing with an adult.<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:44, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> :The child is yourself, and we've had enough of your tantrums and your bad remarks directed against the sysops and Aschlafly here. If you want to contribute, fine; but your bad attitude is over with. If not, leave. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:47, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Well, I am not the one saying &quot;I dare you! Then I'll show you!&quot; Secondly, I dont give a sweet damn what Coutler says however she does offend and noone &quot;feigns it&quot; and you should back this up if this is actually meant to be &quot;trustworthy&quot;<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:50, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :With respect, he has raised an important point. I believe that at least some of Coulter's critics have been offended by her comments, particular those who they are directed at. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:16, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's easy to see why Coulter's critics would feign offense, in their attempt to score political points. It's not so easy to see why they would be genuinely offended. Are they equally offended by similar jokes/comments by [[liberals]]??--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:38, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Hm. AdenJ is currently... &quot;away&quot;, but I just saw this in the Recent Changes. I can understand why liberals would be genuinely offended by her remarks:<br /> :::*&quot;Liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots...&quot;<br /> :::**Right. This of course does not offend liberals in the slightest...<br /> :::*&quot;Liberals are driven by Satan and lie constantly.&quot;<br /> :::**See above; I guess no liberal will be offended by that. No sir...<br /> :::*&quot;I think [women] should be armed but should not vote. No, they all have to give up their vote, not just, you know, the lady clapping and me. The problem with women voting -- and your Communists will back me up on this -- is that, you know, women have no capacity to understand how money is earned.&quot;<br /> :::**Of course, women will only ''feign'' being offended by this. They know that they are incapable of understanding how money is earned! Sure!<br /> :::And how about some of her book titles?<br /> :::*Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right (2003)<br /> :::*Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (2004)<br /> :::*How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) (2005)<br /> :::*If Democrats Had Any Brains They'd Be Republicans (2007)<br /> :::Are you seriously claiming that not one of these lines is going to genuinely offend anybody? If anybody said that conservatives are lying traitors who are driven by Satan and should not be allowed to vote because they're all anti-American idiots, I'm very sure that conservatives would be offended. Maybe not you, but others will be. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:21, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are &quot;liberals&quot;, further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:39, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Huh. I... see. Thanks for clarifying this quite... unique view of liberals. [frowns] --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:42, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: ??? Your statement is incoherent. Are pretending that [[liberals]] don't deny they are [[liberals]]? Check out the comments of [[Hillary Clinton]] and scores of posters here, perhaps including yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:45, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::??? Are you saying that I'm a liberal? What do you base this on? Your [[political identification bias]], maybe? I certainly didn't give you any hint of my political affiliation other than disagreeing with you. Classic case, I would say.<br /> :::::::It's typical conservative style to label any posting as &quot;incoherent&quot;, and if there was such an article here, I would add it as the new number 1 entry. ;)<br /> :::::::If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words and simply cite a webcomic: &quot;Dude, see this huge sweat-drop? It means I'm totally grossed out.&quot; - Oh, and don't pretend to be offended by this post. I know you'd just be feigning it to score points in this discussion, just like you know that no liberal is genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks.<br /> :::::::But hey, your site, your wikiality. If you want to claim that no liberal is offended by being called a lying traitor, then you can obviously do so. [shrug] I at first assumed that this was some odd misunderstanding, but your post clarified the position to the degree that I know that my best move is to disengage. Which I tried to do, before you called my post &quot;incoherent&quot;. Let's hope that this second attempt will be more fruitful. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 10:58, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> * [[Conservapedia:Avoid personal remarks]]: Comments like ''If your reading comprehension is so low that you were unable to understand that your extreme view completely freaked me out, then let me use smaller words'' are out of place here. Kindly confine your comments to discussion of how to improve the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 11:06, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::So my comparably tame remark is a personal remark, but nobody will be genuinely offended by Coulter's remarks? What if I claimed that you and Aschlafly are only feigning it to silence me? How would you prove me wrong?<br /> ::Also, please note that I only made that remark after Aschlafly labeled my post &quot;incoherent&quot;, which I found quite insulting. Or how about Aschlafly implicitly labeling me as a liberal, based on nothing other than him disagreeing with me? I accept your warning (and I already said that I was retreating and disengaging, once implicitly and once explicitly), but I must protest against the fact that ''only I'' receive one. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 11:13, 11 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I had written an earlier version which I though was fairly neutral (see a section above, HelpJazz condoned it). But in light of the view that... &quot;''No, I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks. Moreover, [[liberals]] typically don't even admit they are &quot;liberals&quot;, further diminishing the chance of genuine offense.''&quot; ...I think I'll just step away. I... don't understand how it can be claimed that one would not be offended by such comments as JBrown listed, I certainly would be (perhaps, I have a slightly different interpretation of &quot;offense&quot;?). [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:45, 14 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Some liberals claim they are offended by a prayer that simply thanks God. Does you think that really offends them? I don't. Claiming offense is an effective way to demand censorship, or try to ostracize someone and drive her off television. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:57, 14 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well, no, I don't think so either. A prayer thanking God does not insult, criticize or even address the &quot;offended&quot; party, so I think you're quite right when you say liberals are feigning offense in such a case. However, the comments listed above directly attack liberals, so I would not be surprised if there was in fact some genuine offense taken. Wouldn't you be at all offended if someone said such things about you? ''&quot;traitors or idiots&quot;, &quot;lie constantly&quot;, &quot;motivated by Stalin&quot;...'' If not, I'll assume that I am understanding &quot;offense&quot; differently.<br /> <br /> ::Now I'm not saying she's wrong, or that she should have to censor herself at all, but is it really that unbelievable that someone could be offended by such comments? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think this question has credibility. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 18:34, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I doubt that people who claim they are offended by Ann Coulter really are offended by her. Rather, I think they want to censor her, and feign offense as tool of censorship. We see similar tactics used against pro-lifers, people who pray, and people who criticize homosexual lifestyles.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:39, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;I don't think anyone is genuinely offended by such general remarks.&quot; OK, so if someone, say Ward Churchill, said that all conservatives were rascist fear-mongers (and maybe he has), would that be equally inoffensive, because it was just a general remark?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 22:59, 7 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Conservatives do not feign offense as liberals do. Conservatives believe in honesty. Try it and you'll set yourself free.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:47, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::It would be nice if that were true, but I received a one-week block in September for posting something truthful about Sarah Palin on her article's Talk Page. My edit there was accused of being a false liberal smear, and I responded by researching the topicc, finding the evidence and posting the ''truth'' as a response. The truth in this case was not flattering to Palin, and while no one could deny it was the truth, it was considered ''inapropriate'' - I was then blocked for a week and the comments &amp; supporting evidence were removed from the Talk page. My comments were about policy changes that took place in Wasilla as a result of her becoming mayor, so they were entirely relevant and appropriate once I had established that they were truthful. If you really mean what you say about Conservatives believing in honesty, will you allow me to post my findings and supporting evidence on the Palin page since even my blocker conceded their truthful nature? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:01, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Part of the below post comes from something I wrote in a different section, but it applies here I believe:<br /> <br /> As suggested by the above theses pertaining to feigning offence, I think most people--liberals and various republicans included--do fake being upset by Coulter. However, Coulter herself may well be acting or hyperbolizing when she says the things that &quot;anger&quot; others and as such, neither we nor she should be that surprised when people &quot;act&quot; in response. It's all about taliation. Coulter is regularly questioned and criticized by members of the very party she supposedly represents. There are many well founded hypotheses out there which suggest that Coulter is a proverbial &quot;wolf in sheep's clothing&quot; (Read: a liberal in disguise). Her actions and words in the name of Conservatism are often so outlandish that she has effectively turned members of her own party against Conservatism, as a whole. I base this not off of my own ideologies, but from people with whom I've spoken and interviewed. <br /> <br /> All in all, I wouldn't be that against making the argument that Coulter is proving to be a liability for her party much like, say, Howard Dean was for the dems. [[User:Acwellman]]<br /> <br /> :: To summarize, you're saying that those targeted by Coulter's comments feign offense as a form of censorship (which is valid, but seems like it would be hard to prove), but then you argue that there are people who are offended and are not acting in retaliation - fellow conservatives, who actually turn away from the ideology itself. I'm confused. [[User:Limbo]]<br /> <br /> The point I'm trying to make is that Coulter is often overstated and hyperbolic in her attacks, thus it would seem logical that those on the receiving ends of those attacks would feign their offence. Honestly, I think Coulter has put herself in a position where a lot of people won't and don't take her very seriously, so they feign offence as a sort of sarcastic &quot;tip of the hat&quot; to her. I agree that many people on this website might proactively agree with her, but then again (judging by comments made above) many also don't. The Conservapedia readership represents such a small demographic of the population and doesn't accurately represent overall views held of Ms. Coulter. As for turning Republicans against their own party, look at how much more liberal a guy like...say...Tucker Carlson has gotten in the last few years. At any rate, all just observations... [[User:AcWellman]]<br /> <br /> :: My point is this: either people feign offense (and are NOT offended) or they aren't. If people are turning away from the party in part due to her, then they're offended. If people are pretending to be offended, and turning away from their own party is a &quot;sarcastic 'tip of the hat,'&quot; then they are feigning offense. I think I see what you're saying, but I can't really say I agree. I don't think that people really feel she's in any way credible or relevant. She's the opposite of Bill Maher. --[[User:Limbo|Limbo]] 19:43, 13 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Fair enough, Limbo. But, how then do you explain the act of throwing pies in her face? Do you actually throw a pie at someone who has genuinely offended you? I would say that the act of throwing a pie at someone's face is more on par with a comedy act than it is an act of animosity designed to retaliate against someone who has genuinely offended you. I think that trying to set this whole &quot;feigning offence&quot; thing up as a binary arrangement (people are either genuinely offended or they fake their offence) is a bit anachronistic. As is the case with most things in life there is, indeed, a middle ground here...I am sure that she has truly offended some people but others just find her outlandish nature, dirty and hateful that it may be, to be so overstated that it's just plain funny. I am one of the latter; I laugh at her like I laugh at Family Guy...if that makes sense.<br /> <br /> == Not a big fan (remark) ==<br /> <br /> ''Frankly, I don't see why Ann Coulter's contempt for the First Amendment is being reverted''<br /> <br /> &quot;Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.&quot; University of Florida speech; October 20, 2005 http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php<br /> <br /> Why is this being reverted? She said it, it's factual, informative, and goes to the heart of who she is. The Bill of Rights is an amazing pillar of American Freedom. Conservapedia, and a million other sources of information might not even exist without it. If she has such contempt for the Constitution of the United States, why not say so? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 11:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : The links did not work; no way to see the information is accurate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I don't know about the links, I'm no HTML expert, but this URL will get you there. http://www.alligator.org/pt2/051021coulter.php [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 11:25, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> :: Thanks, I was able to figure out how to make the link work. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 12:00, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : The article does not say that she has contempt for the 1A, or explain the context for the quote. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:45, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Fair enough. She said she is not a big fan of the First Amendment. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 12:48, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::You'd hang someone for saying she is 'not a big fan of ' something? She may be a medium fan, or no fan at all. The quote is so vague that it does not merit inclusion. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:01, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Yes, I would, especially because: 1. We are not talking about being &quot;a big fan&quot; of some silly movie here, we are talking about the Bill of Rights. 2. The Bill of Rights is a cornerstone of American Freedom and should never be taken lightly especially by those who profess to be protecting American Freedom. 3. Any prominent liberal who said this would be burned alive in this forum. 4. My attempts to include the context for Obama's not wearing a flag pin were reverted. 5. Truth is truth and fairness is fairness, and including or excluding certain facts in order to bias an article is deceit whether commited by a conservative or a liberal. John 8:32 [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 13:18, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Coulter's point is obvious: she's not a &quot;big fan&quot; of how the First Amendment has been misinterpreted by the courts. Coulter is not attacking the Bill of Rights as originally understood in any way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:22, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::{{quotebox|She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment. &quot;They're always accusing us of repressing their speech,&quot; she said. &quot;I say let's do it. Let's repress them.&quot; She later added, &quot;Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.&quot; }}<br /> <br /> ::::Where does she talk about the courts? [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:29, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Where does she talk about the courts? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 13:42, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Here is the (partial) context of the remark:<br /> <br /> :She also criticized the media for being liberal and Democrats for whining about their rights under the First Amendment.<br /> <br /> :&quot;They're always accusing us of repressing their speech,&quot; she said. &quot;I say let's do it. Let's repress them.&quot;<br /> <br /> :She later added, &quot;Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment.&quot; <br /> <br /> The question, obviously, is what she meant by this. She '''might''' have meant that she wants to suppress the speech of everyone who contradicts her; but based on my reading of 3 of her books I find that impossible to believe. <br /> <br /> It's more likely that she was making a satirical point. We could email her for a clarification, if necessary, but what she probably means is that she opposes the abuse of the First Amendment.<br /> <br /> Writers, be careful not to make ideological edits; i.e., do not add anything to an article which promotes your ideology in an illegitimate way, such as [[out of context]] quotation or [[quote mining]]. Don't copy the strategy of ''[[Bushisms]]'', the anti-George Bush book which collects as many &quot;damaging quotes&quot; as possible with the aim of making him look stupid. <br /> <br /> You may, of course, report truthfully that '''a certain published author''' or other prominent person made an argument about Ann Coulter, based on a 10-word quotation from a lengthy speech. That's not an ideological edit; that's reporting someone's viewpoint.<br /> <br /> In general, avoid unattributed views, implications, and insinuations. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:23, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Is she Christian?==<br /> <br /> I mean, does she consider herself Christian? Because as one, it seems to me that none of her actions ever revolve around philosophies like, &quot;judge lest not ye be judged&quot;, or &quot;turn the other cheek&quot;, which are fundamental teachings of Christ (as in, '''Christ'''ian). I can't believe that she says any of this except to get a rise out of people, but then why is she so...egrandized in this article? Why would we compare her to Condoleeza Rice, when this is someone who just talks, and talks of horrible things? She doesn't actually do anything! She just takes Nazi quotes and replaces &quot;Juden&quot; with &quot;liberal&quot; and presto, idiocy. Why isn't this someone who we're trying to amputate from the conservative movement, why is this someone we regard highly and compare to the '''mother''' of this site's founder? IS THIS WHAT THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT? [[User:OtherSide|OtherSide]] 17:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Some Responses:<br /> The only comparison being made between Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schlafly is that they are both high profile conservatives--that's as far as the parallel goes. There's a whole lot of bipartisan speculation as to Coulter's religious beliefs and, believe it or not, her political allegiance. As suggested by the above (and Otherside, this is assuming you are a Republican) Coulter is regularly questioned and criticized by members of the very party she supposedly represents. There are many well founded hypotheses out there which suggest that Coulter is a proverbial &quot;wolf in sheep's clothing&quot; (Read: a liberal in disguise). Her actions and words in the name of Conservatism are often so outlandish that she has effectively turned members of her own party against Conservatism, as a whole. I base this not off of my own ideologies, but from people with whom I've spoken and interviewed.<br /> <br /> From a religious standpoint, Coulter has definitely been engaged more than once (I believe 3 times, but don't quote me on that) yet still identifies herself as a Christian. Given that Holy Matrimony is one of the most sacred aspects of Christianity, it would seem that breaking a marital engagement would be tantamount to betraying what something like marriage stands for. I agree with OtherSide--Coulter can freely dish out criticism but she really has a tough time receiving it...<br /> <br /> All in all, I wouldn't be that against making the argument that Coulter is proving to be a liability for her party much like, say, Howard Dean was for the dems. [[User:Acwellman]]<br /> <br /> Ann Coulter, by her own behavior and well-documented statements, is about as Christian as Attila the Hun. A person of her level of outrageous offensiveness does more to hurt the conservative cause than any liberal could ever do. That Andy Schlafly abuses his power to shield her from criticism is a sad indicator of his political blindness deeming it acceptable to demonize people with whom you politically disagree in as vicious terms as possible, and to distort facts to suit your own agenda. Why do people like the runners of this website not see that this is not the effective way to promote conservatism?? By demonizing everyone else, and even accusing fellow conservatives who disagree with you on specific issues of being secret liberals?<br /> This website is run like a Nazi dictatorship, with Andy and his ass-kissing moderators deciding what truth and reality are.<br /> <br /> [[User:RMusgrave]]<br /> <br /> :I just finished reading ''Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terror''; I vote it should be made the 28th Book in the New Testament (Ye shall know the truth and truth shall set you free). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:33, 5 July 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'm glad to see someone else enjoyed her books. I think Godless: The Church of Liberalism should be taught in schools. Maybe to counter some of the liberal indoctrination that goes on there. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:12, 9 September 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Godless:_The_Church_of_Liberalism&diff=699017 2009-09-09T14:03:20Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Hey, that sounds good. Must get that.--[[User:Bill M|bill m]] 12:07, 29 March 2007 (EDT) 12:41, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> :Wow...just...wow...so that's who Ann Coulter is...she seems...kind of...I can't think of a nice word for it so I'm just not going to say it...a good entry though about the book.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]] 12:50, 29 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Wait. Adult men don't actually believe what she says... do they?-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:00, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Many adults are perfectly willing to pretend that they do. She's succeeded in making outright lies, borderline physical threats, and deliberate obtuseness respectable, and I'm afraid there are many people grateful to her for that. <br /> --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:12, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Are you inviting debate? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:13, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I'm curious as to who or what takes her seriously.-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 13:21, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It did not occur to me that what Coulter has said is debatable, but if you want to debate the issue, I'm up for it. <br /> <br /> Did she or did she not say that &quot;“We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise, they will turn out to be outright traitors.”<br /> <br /> Did she or did she not say of some of the 9/11 widows: &quot;“These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzies. I have never seen people enjoying their husbands’ death so much.” Did she or did she not also say of them,&quot;How do we know that their husbands, the husbands of the people who died on 9/11, weren't planning to divorce these harpies,&quot;<br /> <br /> Did she or did she not say that her only regret about Tim McVeigh was that he didn't go to the NY Times Building?<br /> --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:23, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I've told you a thousand times, stop exaggerating! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If what PF Fox says is correct, it doesn't sound like this author is family-friendly at all. I suggest deletion, with a protection in place to prevent re-creation. --[[User:Huey dun gotcha|Huey dun gotcha]] 18:27, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :-) Didn't she say these things? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 18:41, 31 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: She did say those things, she truly is an awful woman. Should we delete her articles?-'''&lt;font color=&quot;#007FFF&quot;&gt;Ames&lt;/font&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;#FF0000&quot;&gt;G&lt;/font&gt;'''&lt;sub&gt;[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]&lt;/sub&gt; 11:07, 1 April 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Jersey widows==<br /> <br /> Among the more controversial sections of the book was Ann Coulter’s attack on several women who had lost their husbands in 9/11 and had voiced criticism of President Bush’s approach to terrorism:<br /> <br /> “These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis.... I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much ... how do we know their husbands weren't planning to divorce these harpies? Now that their shelf life is dwindling, they'd better hurry up and appear in Playboy.”<br /> ----<br /> This was not &quot;controversial&quot;, let alone &quot;more controversial&quot;. Rather, this was a section which liberals '''objected to'''. An objection does not make a controversy. There is only a controversy when there are two sides, and a debate goes on and on about an issue.<br /> <br /> The Jersey Girls flap was merely a PR attack on Coulter and does not deserve mention in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 11:54, 16 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::What, Ed, would you define as a &quot;controversy&quot; if not a passage in a book that arouses a high level of heated debate? And yes, it does deserve mention in the article. You'd just like it removed because that passage is embarrassing to Ann Coulter and well nigh impossible to defend. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:53, 17 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> From Ed Poor &quot;Rather than answering any of her criticisms of liberal ideology substantively, critics made ad hominem attacks. &quot;Ad hominem&quot; means &quot;against the man&quot;, rather than against what the man is saying (or in Coulter's case, against the woman).<br /> <br /> ::This is your lucky day Ed! I'd be DELIGHTED to answer her criticism of the Jersey girls, and I have no doubt you'll be just as DELIGHTED to defend those remarks of her's! Let's have at it! My criticism is as follows:<br /> <br /> ::Ann Coulter is in absolutely no position, and has absolutely no business announcing in a book that some of the women widowed by 9/11 are &quot;enjoying&quot; their husbands deaths. She has even less business referring to them as &quot;harpies&quot; and saying that they had better hurry up and pose for PLAYBOY and speculating that their husbands may have wanted to divorce them anyway. There is absolutely no context in which such remarks would be appropriate.<br /> <br /> ::Plainly you disagree with this criticism of mine. Let's hear your arguments. Be sure to include any information you might have about how these women truly felt about their husbands being incinerated/buried/crushed in the World Trade Center catastrophe, how their physiques measure up to possibly posing in PLAYBOY (and how much they probably desire to do this)and what the state of their marriages were before their husband's deaths. (If your premise is that the very fact that these women disagree with George Bush on the War on Terror means they are inhuman &quot;harpies&quot; who have no human feelings worth seriously considering, be sure to mention it.)<br /> <br /> ::Looking forward to seeing your defense of that passage. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 17 May 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I fail to see what your personal attack on Coulter has to do with her arguments about liberalism being &quot;like a religion&quot;. Perhaps you should bring this matter up at [[talk:Ann Coulter]], where you can protest her tendency to &quot;be mean&quot; to various people. While you're at it, will you also be criticizing Howard Stern for being mean? Or are you applying a [[double standard]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:17, 12 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Yes, Ed, for the record, I HAVE criticized Howard Stern. And no, I'm not the one waving a &quot;double-standard&quot; here.&quot; --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 09:57, 28 June 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Contradiction==<br /> &quot;... liberalism holds every single characteristic of a religion: an atheistic one.&quot; vs. &quot;Liberalism has its own cosmology, its own explanation for why we are here, its own gods ...&quot; An atheistic religion with gods? [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 19:15, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I haven't read the book, but it seems from that sentence alone that she's trying to say liberalism have their own targets of religious worship, even if it is not really a &quot;god&quot;. Maybe she's referring to environmentalism and the earth? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:29, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::But if it has a god, or multiple gods, it's by definition not atheistic. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 19:31, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::It could still be a &quot;god&quot; in a metaphorical sense like the one I presented above. Maybe someone who has read her book can clarify this? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 19:34, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Yes, that would be most helpful-- As would a note in the article to the same extent. [[User:EBrown|EBrown]] 19:35, 23 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::What Coulter has said in her book, which I own, is that liberals have created false gods out of their predecessors. People like the old Marxist communists and musicians like John Lennon. They treat these men like martyrs and saints, beyond reproach and utterly infallible. They idolize and glorify them, like the posters of Che Guevera. These are the altars to which they pray. Das Kapitalis is their bible. Abortion is their sacrament. Mother Nature is their most Supreme Being. They live and die for Her. It is indeed atheistic because their &quot;gods&quot; are not spiritual gods, but men and '''things''' that have come before them. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:03, 9 September 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:ObamaCare&diff=692238 2009-08-13T13:38:07Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: Created page with 'The caption is humorous, but somewhat frivolous for an encyclopedia. Good message, nontheless. ~~~~'</p> <hr /> <div>The caption is humorous, but somewhat frivolous for an encyclopedia. Good message, nontheless. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:38, 13 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TheHeroExcelsior&diff=691463 2009-08-11T16:25:00Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: /* Hello */</p> <hr /> <div>&quot;Doubters do not achieve, skeptics do not contribute, cynics do not create.&quot;<br /> -[[Calvin Coolidge]]<br /> <br /> ==Hello==<br /> I am a 21 year old (there goes my credibility) conservative (got some back) living in Chicago (gone again) I have been a conservative since as long as I can remember. I was a boy scout and a private school student. I wasn't very reverent until High School. I really began to understand God's importance at Holy Cross High School in River Grove, IL. My theology teacher was instrumental in showing me that the Bible isn't always literal, but uses metaphor to teach moral lessons. He guided me to understand that God exists and works in many, sometimes unnoticed ways.<br /> <br /> I believe strongly in free speech. No voice, however small, should ever be silenced. The media sickens me with it's left-wing bias. I support gun owners and gun rights. I own several firearms myself. I am a recent NRA member. My faith in gun rights has increased in recent years as police find themselves outgunned in Chicago. If the civilian population could help them fight back, my city would be safer. Mr. Daley still disagrees, then under-staffs his own force.<br /> <br /> I oppose the liberal bias in public education. I have had a social science teacher with a Ward Churchill attitude try to feed me her &quot;blame America&quot; attitude. My response was, &quot;Yes, white settlers killed Native Americans, but the Mayan and Aztec had been sacrificing each other and warring for centuries before white men arrived.&quot; She had no retort to me, but never would have taught that dirty little secret to the class. I called her out on historic revisionism. She told me to shut it. Ever since then, I have opposed bleeding-heart liberals.<br /> <br /> When I was told to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the Pledge, I spoke that portion the loudest. I was never afraid to defy &quot;authority.&quot; When asked why I would stand against them, I borrowed from Patric Henry, &quot;if this be treason, let us make the most of it!&quot;<br /> <br /> I have never supported abortion. I was, in an odd way, an abortion survivor. My unborn brother died in an abortion, and 2 years later, I was conceived. I lived because he died. I have always taken such a strong stance against abortion because I know that someone had to die for me to live. Some people tell me it's survivor's guilt. I call it knowing right from wrong.</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Benp&diff=691457 2009-08-11T16:17:02Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.<br /> <br /> ==Wow==<br /> I thought I remembered you from somewhere. Were you the guy who did the Dawkins biography? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 12:17, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Sympathies on the front page==<br /> Could we do this? It upsets me to see people trying to score political points from such a tragedy. [[User:PamAyers|PamAyers]] 18:31, 28 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == PZ Myers ==<br /> <br /> Hey, thanks. I added a bunch of stuff. I had long intended to do so. I guess I just needed a little kick in the pants. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:38, 15 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> You're welcome. Good call on including the &quot;Don't send these people email&quot; silliness. Posting peoples' email addresses and then claiming that he didn't mean for them to be harassed or emailed is just baldfaced dishonesty on his part; I wonder who he thinks he's fooling? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:50, 15 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Someone beat me to it ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for the head's up anyway. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 28 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Hi==<br /> Hi Ben, thought I would make an account to say I enjoy reading your debates. Guten abend, Deiter.<br /> <br /> <br /> :Thanks. I disagree with a lot of people here about a lot of things, but I try to be fair about it. Ich bin rechthaberisch, aber aufrichtig. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 28 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == We may be arguing the same point to one another. ==<br /> <br /> I replied on my talk page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 13:30, 28 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Jcane blocked ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for the head's up. Hope you like the block message, too. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:47, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> You know, there are a lot of complaints about how unfair the [[liberal deceit]] article is. I wonder if folks like JCane think that this kind of behavior is the way to prove their honesty? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:52, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Invitation to join Wikiproject:News==<br /> Benp, since you have contributed news items in the past, you are invited to [[Wikiproject:News#Members|sign up]] as a member of [[Wikiproject:News]]. &lt;nowiki&gt;[[Wikiproject:News/Guidelines|Review]]&lt;/nowiki&gt; the Guidelines. Make your suggestions &lt;nowiki&gt;[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions|here]]&lt;/nowiki&gt;. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:28, 12 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==&lt;nowiki&gt;[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives]]&lt;/nowiki&gt;==<br /> Benp, Thanks for contributing news items. When your suggested news items have been completed, they will be archived under &lt;nowiki&gt;[[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions/Archives#Benp|your name]]&lt;/nowiki&gt; so we can keep the suggestions page clear for new items. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks for posting the news about Bill Melendez's death ==<br /> <br /> It's saddening, but appreciated. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:23, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == NewsProject - Wanted pages ==<br /> <br /> Since you are a member of the news project, I need your help with wanted pages. We now have over 100 wanted pages and I need you to pick a few to work on this coming week. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:19, 14 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == I updated my message to you on my talk page. I gave you some sources ==<br /> <br /> I updated my message to you on my talk page. I gave you some sources. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:46, 27 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Conservative Logic ==<br /> Great job on the replacement. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:19, 22 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Thanks. If there's going to be an article, it might as well be a good one. :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:20, 22 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == request ==<br /> <br /> I see you have some interest in the [[Richard Dawkins]] article at Conservapedia. Accordingly, I have a small request. Could you please draft a short version of a biography of Dawkins. Please make it shorter than what is found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Biography I can post your brief biography in the Richard Dawkins article. Please feel free to ask others to participate in the endeavor I am proposing. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:10, 24 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Will do. I may not be able to get to it until a little later this week, as I have work and family-related commitments, but I'll get to it as quickly as possible. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:07, 24 May 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Benp&diff=691443 2009-08-11T15:59:28Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.<br /> <br /> As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT) <br /> <br /> How is that the fault of the card game?<br /> Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?<br /> What does Vegas have to do with anything?<br /> -TheHeroExcelsior<br /> <br /> :You mentioned poker and blackjack as other &quot;harmless&quot; card games. I was pointing out exactly what kind of morality is exhibited by a town DEDICATED to such &quot;harmless&quot; games. It seems entirely relevant to me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's not the card games that cause the depravity. It's the gambling, drugs, booze, and prostitution that do. Stop blaming the games for the actions of the players. They do not play Magic:TG in Vegas. There is no connection. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:47, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Wait...it's not the card games, it's the gambling? The card games '''are''' the gambling! I'm sorry, but your arguments seem a little confused. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I learned to play poker from my grandmother, is she evil too? The player bet on the hands. You don't have to gamble to play cards. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:02, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --Benp 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> My counter is this: The article is about Liberal indoctrination, not &quot;things that might cause liberal thinking in select instances.&quot; So stick to things that are certain to cause liberal thinking, and please remove conjecture. &quot;Maybe&quot; is not good enough. Where's the stuff on historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, outlawing prayer? These are the things that indoctrinate children into the liberal mindset. And you want to blame a pen and paper game? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I take wine at Communion. Is my priest evil for giving it to me? No? And yet you were willing to claim that alcohol causes depravity. Of course, the exact same arguments apply to alcohol as to this game: many people enjoy it responsibly without behaving immorally as a result. Nobody forces people to drink.<br /> <br /> :Yet, you're willing to point the finger at alcohol and not at these games (which you personally play and enjoy.) I see a bit of a double standard there.<br /> <br /> :I prefer a balanced approach. I would not claim that alcohol causes depravity, but I WOULD acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful, and I would NOT seek to remove that information from an article. Likewise, I have not claimed that D&amp;D is some universal cause of evil and immoral behavior, but I DO acknowledge that it has the potential to be harmful. Note that I didn't put the material in this article in the first place; I'm simply objecting to your removing it with no justification.<br /> <br /> :Where IS the stuff about historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, and outlawing prayer? That's an excellent question. Why not try to contribute to the article by adding these things, rather than deleting material? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:19, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The Blood of Christ is not alcohol, but I accept your comparison. I agree that some children may not see the difference between game and reality, but I have never met anyone under 14 who played. That is why I concede that my experience cannot be the Final Word on that. Maybe some little kids have played it and gone awry. I will conclude that D&amp;D is only a positive or negative force if used as such. Players have free will in the game, people have free will out here. Our choices dictate our path. I am just worried that we will have to stamp a warning label on everything that might cause liberal thinking. This is my first day as a member of Conservapedia, and it was interesting. Benp, thank you for being a good adversary. You've honed my debate edge. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:59, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691439 2009-08-11T15:49:47Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So...the Paladin doesn't kill people? He doesn't take their goods? Where does he get these &quot;earnings&quot; that he tithes? They have to choose a &quot;patron saint&quot; to devote themselves to? Truly? That's odd, because I could have sworn that, out of all the many religions the D&amp;D game offers characters, the Christian religion wasn't one. Can you please provide a reference for this &quot;patron saint&quot; claim? <br /> <br /> ::People are, of course, responsible for their own actions. However, it's glaringly obvious that that is not an excuse to say &quot;anything goes&quot; when it comes to exposing children to questionable influences. People have used the same defense for extremely violent video games, despite the fact that psychological research has shown a clear correlation between exposure to such games and increased aggressive behavior in young children. Naturally, fans of these games claim that they're harmless and that the correlation is &quot;a coincidence&quot; and &quot;not the fault of the games.&quot; <br /> <br /> :::Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil, or committing evil acts. The goods he takes are spoils of war or his own hard work. Why would Christianity exist in a fantasy world? My reference would be the D&amp;D Players Handbook. The Paladin Alohandra has the mark of her patron branded on her arm. Your references are all to traditional religion sites. I have played it, it is not bad. Don't try to make me sound like a whiner. Call it &quot;original research&quot; if you will but no one that I have played it with has denied Christ, turned Satanic, or eaten puppies.<br /> This is not a video game. There are no graphic images. It's all imaginary. Nothing in the game says, &quot;go forth and kill your family.&quot; Furthermore, games do not cause aggression. Aggressive kids seek aggressive games. You are blaming the weapon, not the wielder.[[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:34, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::...and the article doesn't claim that every single person who plays will do so. Nor do the sources I cited. Rather, they point out the ''potential'' for such games to teach the wrong lessons--particularly to young, impressionable children. <br /> <br /> :::So Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil. Again, you can provide a reference for that? I don't recall ever seeing that rule in the books when I read them. (I'm not arguing totally from ignorance here, you see; I DO try to examine things before I object to them.) For example, you mention that the Paladin Alohandra has &quot;the mark of her patron&quot; branded on her arm. I also notice that you are no longer using the term &quot;patron saint.&quot; Could this be because this Paladin's patron is NOT a saint (which you claimed was a requirement for Paladins?) Who is this &quot;patron,&quot; exactly? <br /> <br /> :::Furthermore, I note that your claim that Paladins &quot;must be lawful good&quot; seems to be false. According to some quick research, that used to be true, but now Paladins can be good, evil, or anything in between. They also no longer suffer any punishment for evil acts. Odd that the one example you offered of a requirement to act in a good and moral fashion has been removed from the game.<br /> <br /> :::What we're dealing with here is a situation where you want to claim that your personal experience is universal, and that these games cannot possibly have ANY potential for teaching the wrong lessons to children because you yourself haven't experienced it. Therefore, you want to make the article an absolute, removing any mention of even the possibility. As it is, the article is balanced--it doesn't claim that these games are inherently liberal or evil or immoral, but it DOES acknowledge the possibility that such games can be used to instill such beliefs in children. Why would you want to censor legitimate concerns? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::You seem like you would censor the sun for causing skin cancer. Which rulebook did you read? The one I mentioned is AD&amp;D 3rd Edition. Her patron saint is a Lawful Good entity. Are you familiar with alignment in D&amp;D? It determines your characters approach to life and law. LG is the highest standard a player can be held to. There are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic in respect to law. There is Good, Neutral, and Evil for morality. You combine one from each group to make an alignment. For example, the Pope would be Lawful Good, a mafia capo would be Lawful Evil, Richard Dawkins would be Neutral Evil, Peter Pan would be Chaotic Good, and Bill Ayers would be Chaotic Evil. This is a big deal for a player as it determines their moral compass. By the way, anything could corrupt someone. This article is about Liberal Indoctrination, not &quot;things that could lead to liberal thinking in a few isolated instances.&quot; Make a distinction. My social science teacher committing Historical Revisionism to make white settlers look evil was liberal indoctrination. My principal telling me to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the pledge was liberal indoctrination. D&amp;D is not. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::No. What I would NOT do is say &quot;I've been in the sun, it's never caused ME any skin cancer, therefore I'm going to remove that claim from an article!&quot; It seems odd that you would accuse others of censorship when you are the one seeking to remove material from the article. <br /> <br /> :::::A &quot;lawful good entity?&quot; Not a saint? You seem to be shying away from the words D&amp;D uses: &quot;deity&quot; and &quot;god.&quot; The character worships a god--perhaps fictional, perhaps pagan, but not the God of the Bible. Am I right? If so, why did you initially claim that Paladins dedicated themselves to &quot;saints?&quot; And why did you so carefully tiptoe around acknowledging the truth?<br /> <br /> :::::As I noted above, you're citing an outdated rulebook. My research indicates that, according to the current rules, Paladins can be as evil as they want. Is that true? If so, again, why are you citing out-of-date rules to defend the game?<br /> <br /> :::::I have to be very honest: I'm becoming more and more skeptical of your claims of conservatism. Your principal told you to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the Pledge? Really? I suspect that if a principal had done something so blatantly illegal, not only would that principal have been fired in short order, it would have been huge news--even the MSM wouldn't be able to cover up something like that. Yet, I don't recall hearing anything about such a case. Why is that? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::As for video games not causing aggression in children, I suggest you take that up with Mr. Schlafly; he has done extensive research on the subject, and can set you straight on the matter. In any case, unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::If it is true that Paladins can now be as evil as they want, I withdraw my objection. Let your contribution stand. Patron Saint was how they put it in 3rd Edition. It used to be a requirement for Paladins. My data is out-dated. I concede defeat. My principal was a liberal who everyone agreed with. Keep in mind that in elementary school, kids really don't speak against authority figures. He said it was so that no one would get offended, everyone bought it. It would have been huge news, if someone had spoken up, but this is Chicago. No one opposes the teacher's union here. YHWY does not appear in D&amp;D because it's a fantasy game. Please get over that. You have just destroyed a part of my childhood. You get that much. But never accuse me of being a liberal. I'm a red island in a blue state. Take your skeptism to Wikipedia. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:24, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I think you're being just a bit melodramatic. The analogy I offered on my userpage is, I think, apt: D&amp;D is like alcohol. Most mature adults are capable of partaking in moderation. However, it can be harmful to certain idividuals prone to addiction. Likewise, young children lack the maturity to easily differentiate between what the game teaches and what is appropriate and moral in the real world. Letting children play a game where the central idea is &quot;Take stuff from others by force&quot; could very well make them more receptive to liberal ideas. <br /> <br /> :::::::You brought up some very valid areas that should be in the article; why not contribute by expanding and making it better and more comprehensive? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:31, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It's not melodrama. It's passion. Liberals don't have the guts to take things by force. They would sue you in court. They need other people to enforce their will. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691432 2009-08-11T15:24:56Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So...the Paladin doesn't kill people? He doesn't take their goods? Where does he get these &quot;earnings&quot; that he tithes? They have to choose a &quot;patron saint&quot; to devote themselves to? Truly? That's odd, because I could have sworn that, out of all the many religions the D&amp;D game offers characters, the Christian religion wasn't one. Can you please provide a reference for this &quot;patron saint&quot; claim? <br /> <br /> ::People are, of course, responsible for their own actions. However, it's glaringly obvious that that is not an excuse to say &quot;anything goes&quot; when it comes to exposing children to questionable influences. People have used the same defense for extremely violent video games, despite the fact that psychological research has shown a clear correlation between exposure to such games and increased aggressive behavior in young children. Naturally, fans of these games claim that they're harmless and that the correlation is &quot;a coincidence&quot; and &quot;not the fault of the games.&quot; <br /> <br /> :::Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil, or committing evil acts. The goods he takes are spoils of war or his own hard work. Why would Christianity exist in a fantasy world? My reference would be the D&amp;D Players Handbook. The Paladin Alohandra has the mark of her patron branded on her arm. Your references are all to traditional religion sites. I have played it, it is not bad. Don't try to make me sound like a whiner. Call it &quot;original research&quot; if you will but no one that I have played it with has denied Christ, turned Satanic, or eaten puppies.<br /> This is not a video game. There are no graphic images. It's all imaginary. Nothing in the game says, &quot;go forth and kill your family.&quot; Furthermore, games do not cause aggression. Aggressive kids seek aggressive games. You are blaming the weapon, not the wielder.[[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:34, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::...and the article doesn't claim that every single person who plays will do so. Nor do the sources I cited. Rather, they point out the ''potential'' for such games to teach the wrong lessons--particularly to young, impressionable children. <br /> <br /> :::So Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil. Again, you can provide a reference for that? I don't recall ever seeing that rule in the books when I read them. (I'm not arguing totally from ignorance here, you see; I DO try to examine things before I object to them.) For example, you mention that the Paladin Alohandra has &quot;the mark of her patron&quot; branded on her arm. I also notice that you are no longer using the term &quot;patron saint.&quot; Could this be because this Paladin's patron is NOT a saint (which you claimed was a requirement for Paladins?) Who is this &quot;patron,&quot; exactly? <br /> <br /> :::Furthermore, I note that your claim that Paladins &quot;must be lawful good&quot; seems to be false. According to some quick research, that used to be true, but now Paladins can be good, evil, or anything in between. They also no longer suffer any punishment for evil acts. Odd that the one example you offered of a requirement to act in a good and moral fashion has been removed from the game.<br /> <br /> :::What we're dealing with here is a situation where you want to claim that your personal experience is universal, and that these games cannot possibly have ANY potential for teaching the wrong lessons to children because you yourself haven't experienced it. Therefore, you want to make the article an absolute, removing any mention of even the possibility. As it is, the article is balanced--it doesn't claim that these games are inherently liberal or evil or immoral, but it DOES acknowledge the possibility that such games can be used to instill such beliefs in children. Why would you want to censor legitimate concerns? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::You seem like you would censor the sun for causing skin cancer. Which rulebook did you read? The one I mentioned is AD&amp;D 3rd Edition. Her patron saint is a Lawful Good entity. Are you familiar with alignment in D&amp;D? It determines your characters approach to life and law. LG is the highest standard a player can be held to. There are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic in respect to law. There is Good, Neutral, and Evil for morality. You combine one from each group to make an alignment. For example, the Pope would be Lawful Good, a mafia capo would be Lawful Evil, Richard Dawkins would be Neutral Evil, Peter Pan would be Chaotic Good, and Bill Ayers would be Chaotic Evil. This is a big deal for a player as it determines their moral compass. By the way, anything could corrupt someone. This article is about Liberal Indoctrination, not &quot;things that could lead to liberal thinking in a few isolated instances.&quot; Make a distinction. My social science teacher committing Historical Revisionism to make white settlers look evil was liberal indoctrination. My principal telling me to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the pledge was liberal indoctrination. D&amp;D is not. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::No. What I would NOT do is say &quot;I've been in the sun, it's never caused ME any skin cancer, therefore I'm going to remove that claim from an article!&quot; It seems odd that you would accuse others of censorship when you are the one seeking to remove material from the article. <br /> <br /> :::::A &quot;lawful good entity?&quot; Not a saint? You seem to be shying away from the words D&amp;D uses: &quot;deity&quot; and &quot;god.&quot; The character worships a god--perhaps fictional, perhaps pagan, but not the God of the Bible. Am I right? If so, why did you initially claim that Paladins dedicated themselves to &quot;saints?&quot; And why did you so carefully tiptoe around acknowledging the truth?<br /> <br /> :::::As I noted above, you're citing an outdated rulebook. My research indicates that, according to the current rules, Paladins can be as evil as they want. Is that true? If so, again, why are you citing out-of-date rules to defend the game?<br /> <br /> :::::I have to be very honest: I'm becoming more and more skeptical of your claims of conservatism. Your principal told you to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the Pledge? Really? I suspect that if a principal had done something so blatantly illegal, not only would that principal have been fired in short order, it would have been huge news--even the MSM wouldn't be able to cover up something like that. Yet, I don't recall hearing anything about such a case. Why is that? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:13, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::As for video games not causing aggression in children, I suggest you take that up with Mr. Schlafly; he has done extensive research on the subject, and can set you straight on the matter. In any case, unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::If it is true that Paladins can now be as evil as they want, I withdraw my objection. Let your contribution stand. Patron Saint was how they put it in 3rd Edition. It used to be a requirement for Paladins. My data is out-dated. I concede defeat. My principal was a liberal who everyone agreed with. Keep in mind that in elementary school, kids really don't speak against authority figures. He said it was so that no one would get offended, everyone bought it. It would have been huge news, if someone had spoken up, but this is Chicago. No one opposes the teacher's union here. YHWY does not appear in D&amp;D because it's a fantasy game. Please get over that. You have just destroyed a part of my childhood. You get that much. But never accuse me of being a liberal. I'm a red island in a blue state. Take your skeptism to Wikipedia. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:24, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691425 2009-08-11T15:13:31Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: /* School */</p> <hr /> <div>{{uncited}}<br /> <br /> '''Liberal indoctrination''' is the process by which [[liberals]] influence children to their way of thinking before they are aware enough to make choices for themselves. It can be considered a form of [[brainwashing]], as children are unwittingly led into [[liberal]] ideologies while systematically being denied [[conservative]] values.<br /> <br /> = Forms =<br /> There are many ways that liberals introduce [[liberalism]] to children:<br /> <br /> == School ==<br /> Liberal thought is often promoted in public schools, either by teachers or [[liberal friendship|peer pressure]] from older students. Examples include the removal of school prayer and the teaching of [[evolution]] as though there were no evidence against it. Some textbooks will use evidence that has since been discredited as though it never was. See [[Ernst Haekle]], [[Piltdown Man]], the Peppered Moth. Some [[public school]] teachers ignore the Pledge of Allegiance.<br /> <br /> == Books and movies ==<br /> Picture books like [http://www.amazon.com/Heather-Has-Two-Mommies-Anniversary/dp/1555835430 Heather Has Two Mommies] and [http://littledemocrats.net/index.html Why Mommy is a Democrat] explicitly promote the [[homosexual agenda]] and characterize [[Republicans]] as unequivocally bad.<br /> <br /> == Games ==<br /> Children are introduced to the liberal agenda through games, which they claim are &quot;not political&quot; and &quot;just for fun&quot;. However, games like [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=70811 &quot;Climate Cops&quot;] that promote police-state [[environmentalism]] are hardly &quot;not political&quot;! Older children can be seduced by games like [[Magic: the gathering]] and [[Dungeons and Dragons]], which, while not explicitly promoting liberal ideas, open the door for moral relativism and interest in the occult. &lt;ref&gt;http://www.chick.com/articles/dnd.asp&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.chick.com/articles/frpg.asp&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;http://logosresourcepages.org/Occult/magic-g.htm&lt;/ref&gt; &lt;ref&gt;http://www.answers.org/cultsandreligions/magic_game.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691423 2009-08-11T15:09:44Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So...the Paladin doesn't kill people? He doesn't take their goods? Where does he get these &quot;earnings&quot; that he tithes? They have to choose a &quot;patron saint&quot; to devote themselves to? Truly? That's odd, because I could have sworn that, out of all the many religions the D&amp;D game offers characters, the Christian religion wasn't one. Can you please provide a reference for this &quot;patron saint&quot; claim? <br /> <br /> ::People are, of course, responsible for their own actions. However, it's glaringly obvious that that is not an excuse to say &quot;anything goes&quot; when it comes to exposing children to questionable influences. People have used the same defense for extremely violent video games, despite the fact that psychological research has shown a clear correlation between exposure to such games and increased aggressive behavior in young children. Naturally, fans of these games claim that they're harmless and that the correlation is &quot;a coincidence&quot; and &quot;not the fault of the games.&quot; <br /> <br /> :::Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil, or committing evil acts. The goods he takes are spoils of war or his own hard work. Why would Christianity exist in a fantasy world? My reference would be the D&amp;D Players Handbook. The Paladin Alohandra has the mark of her patron branded on her arm. Your references are all to traditional religion sites. I have played it, it is not bad. Don't try to make me sound like a whiner. Call it &quot;original research&quot; if you will but no one that I have played it with has denied Christ, turned Satanic, or eaten puppies.<br /> This is not a video game. There are no graphic images. It's all imaginary. Nothing in the game says, &quot;go forth and kill your family.&quot; Furthermore, games do not cause aggression. Aggressive kids seek aggressive games. You are blaming the weapon, not the wielder.[[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:34, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::...and the article doesn't claim that every single person who plays will do so. Nor do the sources I cited. Rather, they point out the ''potential'' for such games to teach the wrong lessons--particularly to young, impressionable children. <br /> <br /> :::So Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil. Again, you can provide a reference for that? I don't recall ever seeing that rule in the books when I read them. (I'm not arguing totally from ignorance here, you see; I DO try to examine things before I object to them.) For example, you mention that the Paladin Alohandra has &quot;the mark of her patron&quot; branded on her arm. I also notice that you are no longer using the term &quot;patron saint.&quot; Could this be because this Paladin's patron is NOT a saint (which you claimed was a requirement for Paladins?) Who is this &quot;patron,&quot; exactly? <br /> <br /> :::Furthermore, I note that your claim that Paladins &quot;must be lawful good&quot; seems to be false. According to some quick research, that used to be true, but now Paladins can be good, evil, or anything in between. They also no longer suffer any punishment for evil acts. Odd that the one example you offered of a requirement to act in a good and moral fashion has been removed from the game.<br /> <br /> :::What we're dealing with here is a situation where you want to claim that your personal experience is universal, and that these games cannot possibly have ANY potential for teaching the wrong lessons to children because you yourself haven't experienced it. Therefore, you want to make the article an absolute, removing any mention of even the possibility. As it is, the article is balanced--it doesn't claim that these games are inherently liberal or evil or immoral, but it DOES acknowledge the possibility that such games can be used to instill such beliefs in children. Why would you want to censor legitimate concerns? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::As for video games not causing aggression in children, I suggest you take that up with Mr. Schlafly; he has done extensive research on the subject, and can set you straight on the matter. In any case, unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::You seem like you would censor the sun for causing skin cancer. Which rulebook did you read? The one I mentioned is AD&amp;D 3rd Edition. Her patron saint is a Lawful Good entity. Are you familiar with alignment in D&amp;D? It determines your characters approach to life and law. LG is the highest standard a player can be held to. There are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic in respect to law. There is Good, Neutral, and Evil for morality. You combine one from each group to make an alignment. For example, the Pope would be Lawful Good, a mafia capo would be Lawful Evil, Richard Dawkins would be Neutral Evil, Peter Pan would be Chaotic Good, and Bill Ayers would be Chaotic Evil. This is a big deal for a player as it determines their moral compass. By the way, anything could corrupt someone. This article is about Liberal Indoctrination, not &quot;things that could lead to liberal thinking in a few isolated instances.&quot; Make a distinction. My social science teacher committing Historical Revisionism to make white settlers look evil was liberal indoctrination. My principal telling me to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the pledge was liberal indoctrination. D&amp;D is not. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Benp&diff=691422 2009-08-11T15:07:58Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.<br /> <br /> As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT) <br /> <br /> How is that the fault of the card game?<br /> Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?<br /> What does Vegas have to do with anything?<br /> -TheHeroExcelsior<br /> <br /> :You mentioned poker and blackjack as other &quot;harmless&quot; card games. I was pointing out exactly what kind of morality is exhibited by a town DEDICATED to such &quot;harmless&quot; games. It seems entirely relevant to me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's not the card games that cause the depravity. It's the gambling, drugs, booze, and prostitution that do. Stop blaming the games for the actions of the players. They do not play Magic:TG in Vegas. There is no connection. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:47, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Wait...it's not the card games, it's the gambling? The card games '''are''' the gambling! I'm sorry, but your arguments seem a little confused. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I learned to play poker from my grandmother, is she evil too? The player bet on the hands. You don't have to gamble to play cards. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:02, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &quot;unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --Benp 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> My counter is this: The article is about Liberal indoctrination, not &quot;things that might cause liberal thinking in select instances.&quot; So stick to things that are certain to cause liberal thinking, and please remove conjecture. &quot;Maybe&quot; is not good enough. Where's the stuff on historic revisionism, censoring the pledge, forced sex ed, outlawing prayer? These are the things that indoctrinate children into the liberal mindset. And you want to blame a pen and paper game? [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Benp&diff=691420 2009-08-11T15:02:58Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.<br /> <br /> As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT) <br /> <br /> How is that the fault of the card game?<br /> Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?<br /> What does Vegas have to do with anything?<br /> -TheHeroExcelsior<br /> <br /> :You mentioned poker and blackjack as other &quot;harmless&quot; card games. I was pointing out exactly what kind of morality is exhibited by a town DEDICATED to such &quot;harmless&quot; games. It seems entirely relevant to me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's not the card games that cause the depravity. It's the gambling, drugs, booze, and prostitution that do. Stop blaming the games for the actions of the players. They do not play Magic:TG in Vegas. There is no connection. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:47, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :Wait...it's not the card games, it's the gambling? The card games '''are''' the gambling! I'm sorry, but your arguments seem a little confused. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:52, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I learned to play poker from my grandmother, is she evil too? The player bet on the hands. You don't have to gamble to play cards. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:02, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691419 2009-08-11T15:00:20Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So...the Paladin doesn't kill people? He doesn't take their goods? Where does he get these &quot;earnings&quot; that he tithes? They have to choose a &quot;patron saint&quot; to devote themselves to? Truly? That's odd, because I could have sworn that, out of all the many religions the D&amp;D game offers characters, the Christian religion wasn't one. Can you please provide a reference for this &quot;patron saint&quot; claim? <br /> <br /> ::People are, of course, responsible for their own actions. However, it's glaringly obvious that that is not an excuse to say &quot;anything goes&quot; when it comes to exposing children to questionable influences. People have used the same defense for extremely violent video games, despite the fact that psychological research has shown a clear correlation between exposure to such games and increased aggressive behavior in young children. Naturally, fans of these games claim that they're harmless and that the correlation is &quot;a coincidence&quot; and &quot;not the fault of the games.&quot; <br /> <br /> :::Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil, or committing evil acts. The goods he takes are spoils of war or his own hard work. Why would Christianity exist in a fantasy world? My reference would be the D&amp;D Players Handbook. The Paladin Alohandra has the mark of her patron branded on her arm. Your references are all to traditional religion sites. I have played it, it is not bad. Don't try to make me sound like a whiner. Call it &quot;original research&quot; if you will but no one that I have played it with has denied Christ, turned Satanic, or eaten puppies.<br /> This is not a video game. There are no graphic images. It's all imaginary. Nothing in the game says, &quot;go forth and kill your family.&quot; Furthermore, games do not cause aggression. Aggressive kids seek aggressive games. You are blaming the weapon, not the wielder.[[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:34, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :::...and the article doesn't claim that every single person who plays will do so. Nor do the sources I cited. Rather, they point out the ''potential'' for such games to teach the wrong lessons--particularly to young, impressionable children. <br /> <br /> :::So Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil. Again, you can provide a reference for that? I don't recall ever seeing that rule in the books when I read them. (I'm not arguing totally from ignorance here, you see; I DO try to examine things before I object to them.) For example, you mention that the Paladin Alohandra has &quot;the mark of her patron&quot; branded on her arm. I also notice that you are no longer using the term &quot;patron saint.&quot; Could this be because this Paladin's patron is NOT a saint (which you claimed was a requirement for Paladins?) Who is this &quot;patron,&quot; exactly? <br /> <br /> :::What we're dealing with here is a situation where you want to claim that your personal experience is universal, and that these games cannot possibly have ANY potential for teaching the wrong lessons to children because you yourself haven't experienced it. Therefore, you want to make the article an absolute, removing any mention of even the possibility. As it is, the article is balanced--it doesn't claim that these games are inherently liberal or evil or immoral, but it DOES acknowledge the possibility that such games can be used to instill such beliefs in children. Why would you want to censor legitimate concerns? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:46, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::You seem like you would censor the sun for causing skin cancer. Which rulebook did you read? The one I mentioned is AD&amp;D 3rd Edition. Her patron saint is a Lawful Good entity. Are you familiar with alignment in D&amp;D? It determines your characters approach to life and law. LG is the highest standard a player can be held to. There are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic in respect to law. There is Good, Neutral, and Evil for morality. You combine one from each group to make an alignment. For example, the Pope would be Lawful Good, a mafia capo would be Lawful Evil, Richard Dawkins would be Neutral Evil, Peter Pan would be Chaotic Good, and Bill Ayers would be Chaotic Evil. This is a big deal for a player as it determines their moral compass. By the way, anything could corrupt someone. This article is about Liberal Indoctrination, not &quot;things that could lead to liberal thinking in a few isolated instances.&quot; Make a distinction. My social science teacher committing Historical Revisionism to make white settlers look evil was liberal indoctrination. My principal telling me to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the pledge was liberal indoctrination. D&amp;D is not. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 11:00, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::As for video games not causing aggression in children, I suggest you take that up with Mr. Schlafly; he has done extensive research on the subject, and can set you straight on the matter. In any case, unless you can offer some substantiative justification for removal of this material beyond the fact that you personally play and like the game (and are thus biased,) I stand by my position that it should remain. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:49, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Benp&diff=691414 2009-08-11T14:47:12Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.<br /> <br /> As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT) <br /> <br /> How is that the fault of the card game?<br /> Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?<br /> What does Vegas have to do with anything?<br /> -TheHeroExcelsior<br /> <br /> :You mentioned poker and blackjack as other &quot;harmless&quot; card games. I was pointing out exactly what kind of morality is exhibited by a town DEDICATED to such &quot;harmless&quot; games. It seems entirely relevant to me. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:25, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It's not the card games that cause the depravity. It's the gambling, drugs, booze, and prostitution that do. Stop blaming the games for the actions of the players. They do not play Magic:TG in Vegas. There is no connection. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:47, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691410 2009-08-11T14:39:04Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So...the Paladin doesn't kill people? He doesn't take their goods? Where does he get these &quot;earnings&quot; that he tithes? They have to choose a &quot;patron saint&quot; to devote themselves to? Truly? That's odd, because I could have sworn that, out of all the many religions the D&amp;D game offers characters, the Christian religion wasn't one. Can you please provide a reference for this &quot;patron saint&quot; claim? <br /> <br /> ::People are, of course, responsible for their own actions. However, it's glaringly obvious that that is not an excuse to say &quot;anything goes&quot; when it comes to exposing children to questionable influences. People have used the same defense for extremely violent video games, despite the fact that psychological research has shown a clear correlation between exposure to such games and increased aggressive behavior in young children. Naturally, fans of these games claim that they're harmless and that the correlation is &quot;a coincidence&quot; and &quot;not the fault of the games.&quot; <br /> <br /> :::Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil, or committing evil acts. The goods he takes are spoils of war or his own hard work. Why would Christianity exist in a fantasy world? My reference would be the D&amp;D Players Handbook. The Paladin Alohandra has the mark of her patron branded on her arm. Your references are all to traditional religion sites. I have played it, it is not bad. Don't try to make me sound like a whiner. Call it &quot;original research&quot; if you will but no one that I have played it with has denied Christ, turned Satanic, or eaten puppies.<br /> This is not a video game. There are no graphic images. It's all imaginary. Nothing in the game says, &quot;go forth and kill your family.&quot; Furthermore, games do not cause aggression. Aggressive kids seek aggressive games. You are blaming the weapon, not the wielder.[[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:34, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691409 2009-08-11T14:34:36Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: /* Dungeons and Dragons */</p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So...the Paladin doesn't kill people? He doesn't take their goods? Where does he get these &quot;earnings&quot; that he tithes? They have to choose a &quot;patron saint&quot; to devote themselves to? Truly? That's odd, because I could have sworn that, out of all the many religions the D&amp;D game offers characters, the Christian religion wasn't one. Can you please provide a reference for this &quot;patron saint&quot; claim? <br /> <br /> ::People are, of course, responsible for their own actions. However, it's glaringly obvious that that is not an excuse to say &quot;anything goes&quot; when it comes to exposing children to questionable influences. People have used the same defense for extremely violent video games, despite the fact that psychological research has shown a clear correlation between exposure to such games and increased aggressive behavior in young children. Naturally, fans of these games claim that they're harmless and that the correlation is &quot;a coincidence&quot; and &quot;not the fault of the games.&quot; <br /> <br /> :::Paladins are not permitted to kill anyone who is not evil, or committing evil acts. The goods he takes are spoils of war or his own hard work. Why would Christianity exist in a fantasy world? My reference would be the D&amp;D Players Handbook. The Paladin Alohandra has the mark of her patron branded on her arm. Your references are all to traditional religion sites. I have played it, it is not bad. Don't try to make me sound like a whiner. Call it &quot;original research&quot; if you will but no one that I have played it with has denied Christ, turned Satanic, or eaten puppies. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:34, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Benp&diff=691400 2009-08-11T14:22:07Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Might as well stop procrastinating and get started on this.<br /> <br /> As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --Benp 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT) <br /> <br /> How is that the fault of the card game?<br /> Since when do they play Magic:TG in Vegas?<br /> What does Vegas have to do with anything?<br /> -TheHeroExcelsior</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691397 2009-08-11T14:18:35Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to. The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691394 2009-08-11T14:15:57Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: /* Dungeons and Dragons */</p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Have you heard of the Paladin Class of character? They can only be played from the Lawful Good perspective. They are obligated to defend the weak. They must tithe all of their earnings. They must choose a patron saint to devote themselves to.<br /> The card games themselves are not responsible for the player's actions. Those belong to the player alone. Anyone who attacks a kid over cards is sick in the head. But he could have just as easily stolen something else. This is NOT the card's fault. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 10:15, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691393 2009-08-11T14:12:28Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. The statement that they open the path to amorality is conjecture. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Many people play these games; how does that in any way disprove the assertion that they are tools which teach moral relativism? You mention that the &quot;questing knight, the valiant monk, and the wise sorceror&quot; are good guys. What sorts of acts do these &quot;good guys&quot; engage in? In most games I've seen, the answer is murder and robbery--justified by &quot;We're the good guys.&quot;<br /> <br /> :As for &quot;harmless card games,&quot; are you suggesting that games like poker and blackjack can't help foster amorality and outright immorality? Doubtless that's why Las Vegas is such a bastion of Christian virtue and decency. I personally know of at least one incident in which a child who played one of these fantasy card games was attacked and robbed by an adult because the cards he was carrying were &quot;rare and powerful.&quot; --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:07, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691392 2009-08-11T14:11:42Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: /* Games */</p> <hr /> <div>{{uncited}}<br /> <br /> '''Liberal indoctrination''' is the process by which [[liberals]] influence children to their way of thinking before they are aware enough to make choices for themselves. It can be considered a form of [[brainwashing]], as children are unwittingly led into [[liberal]] ideologies while systematically being denied [[conservative]] values.<br /> <br /> = Forms =<br /> There are many ways that liberals introduce [[liberalism]] to children:<br /> <br /> == School ==<br /> Liberal thought is often promoted in public schools, either by teachers or [[liberal friendship|peer pressure]] from older students. Examples include the removal of school prayer and the teaching of [[evolution]]. Some [[public school]] teachers ignore the Pledge of Allegiance.<br /> <br /> == Books and movies ==<br /> Picture books like [http://www.amazon.com/Heather-Has-Two-Mommies-Anniversary/dp/1555835430 Heather Has Two Mommies] and [http://littledemocrats.net/index.html Why Mommy is a Democrat] explicitly promote the [[homosexual agenda]] and characterize [[Republicans]] as unequivocally bad.<br /> <br /> == Games ==<br /> Children are introduced to the liberal agenda through games, which they claim are &quot;not political&quot; and &quot;just for fun&quot;. However, games like [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=70811 &quot;Climate Cops&quot;] that promote police-state [[environmentalism]] are hardly &quot;not political&quot;!</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:TheHeroExcelsior&diff=691391 2009-08-11T14:07:21Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: Created page with '==Hello== I am a 21 year old (there goes my credibility) conservative (got some back) living in Chicago (gone again) I have been a conservative since as long as I can remember. ...'</p> <hr /> <div>==Hello==<br /> I am a 21 year old (there goes my credibility) conservative (got some back) living in Chicago (gone again) I have been a conservative since as long as I can remember. I was a boy scout and a private school student. I wasn't very reverent until High School. I really began to understand God's importance at Holy Cross High School in River Grove, IL. My theology teacher was instrumental in showing me that the Bible isn't always literal, but uses metaphor to teach moral lessons. He guided me to understand that God exists and works in many, sometimes unnoticed ways.<br /> <br /> I believe strongly in free speech. No voice, however small, should ever be silenced. The media sickens me with it's left-wing bias. I support gun owners and gun rights. I own several firearms myself. I am a recent NRA member. My faith in gun rights has increased in recent years as police find themselves outgunned in Chicago. If the civilian population could help them fight back, my city would be safer. Mr. Daley still disagrees, then under-staffs his own force.<br /> <br /> I oppose the liberal bias in public education. I have had a social science teacher with a Ward Churchill attitude try to feed me her &quot;blame America&quot; attitude. My response was, &quot;Yes, white settlers killed Native Americans, but the Mayan and Aztec had been sacrificing each other and warring for centuries before white men arrived.&quot; She had no retort to me, but never would have taught that dirty little secret to the class. I called her out on historic revisionism. She told me to shut it. Ever since then, I have opposed bleeding-heart liberals.<br /> <br /> When I was told to omit &quot;under God&quot; from the Pledge, I spoke that portion the loudest. I was never afraid to defy &quot;authority.&quot; When asked why I would stand against them, I borrowed from Patric Henry, &quot;if this be treason, let us make the most of it!&quot;<br /> <br /> I have never supported abortion. I was, in an odd way, an abortion survivor. My unborn brother died in an abortion, and 2 years later, I was conceived. I lived because he died. I have always taken such a strong stance against abortion because I know that someone had to die for me to live. Some people tell me it's survivor's guilt. I call it knowing right from wrong.</div>

TheHeroExcelsior https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal_indoctrination&diff=691388 2009-08-11T13:50:39Z

<p>TheHeroExcelsior: </p> <hr /> <div>Seeing the link about Climate Cops on the front page made me look for something like this, so I created it when I saw there was no such page. Please feel free to add more! --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 19:11, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> What exactly does it mean to &quot;ignore&quot; the Pledge of Allegiance? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :It means to downplay it or skip it entirely in class. You know what I meant. Don't play semantics here, please. --[[User:WPalmer|WPalmer]] 18:47, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::If I knew what you meant I wouldn't have asked. Don't get short with me, please. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:02, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Why mommy is a democrat==<br /> While I may never buy this book for my kids its not an example of liberal indoctrination. People are allowed to write books on whatever they like and still more people are allowed to buy whatever books they like. Its hardly an indoctrination if you can choose not to read it. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 20:08, 9 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Dungeons and Dragons==<br /> I play D&amp;D, and Magic The Gathering. They are nothing more than Dice and Card games respectively. In D&amp;D, you have the option to play villains, but it's only acting and the players know that. Dungeon Masters have a habit of making it hard for players of evil characters. In D&amp;D, the questing knight, the valiant monk, the wise sorcerer are the good guys. Those are the people you want to play. In regards to M:TG, you cannot say they will lead to amorality any more than you could say that poker and blackjack lead to it. Therefore, I wish to remove that portion of the article and have more contributed to the indoctrination of children in public schools. No one mentioned it is a shame that our tax dollars pay for turning our children into immoral liberals. [[User:TheHeroExcelsior|TheHeroExcelsior]] 09:50, 11 August 2009 (EDT)</div>

TheHeroExcelsior