Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Joseph Stalin

2007-03-08T04:25:51Z

TheTruth: Reverted edits by TheTruth (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly

[[Image:Josephstalin.jpg]]

Joseph Stalin lived from Dec. 21, 1879 to March 5, 1953. He was secretary general of the Communist Party in Russia. [[Leon Trotsky]] had a power struggle with Stalin. Trotsky took the view that socialism in the Soviet Union must await a revolution in Western Europe and even worldwide. Stalin wanted power immediately and expelled Trotsky from the political party in 1927 and exiled him from Russia two years later.

Joseph Stalin was also one of the worst murderers in the history of the world. He starved about 20 million Ukrainians. Many youths were brainwashed in his "youth groups", telling them how great he was and how great communism was. Also, he persecuted all religious groups, destroyed houses of worship, controlled the press, and forced women to work in factories just like men.

'''Sources:'''

Joseph Stalin

2007-03-08T04:24:26Z

TheTruth:

Abraham Lincoln

2007-03-08T04:23:13Z

TheTruth: Reverted edits by Jaytkay (Talk); changed back to last version by MountainDew

[[Image:Abe_Lincoln.png|right|Abraham Lincoln]]

'''Abraham Lincoln''' (1809-1865) presided over the Civil War as the 16th president of the United States. Idolized by the North and hated by the South, Lincoln pursued his goal of keeping the Union together despite the fervent desire by southerners to secede. Approaching secession with the mind of the attorney that Lincoln was, he declared it illegal and managed, or mismanaged in the view of some, the resultant war. He is also famous for his [[Gettysburg Address]], affirming the commitment of America to equality for all with the words: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.."

Homeschooled in his youth, Lincoln became a successful attorney in Illinois who was known for his integrity and his piercing cross-examinations. He lost many more political races than he won, and served briefly in [[Congress]] as a Whig opposed to the Mexican War. That cost him reelection, and a decade later in 1858 he ran for the [[U.S. Senate]] against the dynamic speaker [[Stephen Douglas]], who defeated him. But Lincoln ran a strong enough race that Douglas was forced to alienate some of his supporters with his [[Freeport Doctrine]], and when both ran for president two years later in 1860, Lincoln won easily without even campaigning. His victory precipitated the Civil War, since many southern states believed that he would abolish slavery, since abolition was a core plank of the [[Republican]] party.

Lincoln was perhaps the only President who appeared to greatly increase his Christian faith while in office. As a congressmen in the 1840s, Lincoln distinguished himself by redoing the geometric proofs in the great work of [[Euclid]], and prided himself on logic rather than faith. From 1860 to 1863 Lincoln continued to rely entirely on logical arguments in his speeches and approach to the Civil War. But on the way to the cemetery in Gettysburg in November 1863, Lincoln apparently found God and inserted after "one nation" the phrase "under God" into his pre-written Gettysburg Address. The following year Lincoln won reelection, and his Second Inaugural Address was filled with spiritual references lacking from his First Inaugural Address.

Lincoln was shot at Ford's Theatre in Washington, DC on Good Friday, April 14 1865, a few days after the Civil War ended, and died the next day. He became a martyr to the North and a cause for revenge against the South, from which the assassin (John Wilkes Booth) had come.

==References==
*[http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/gettysburg.htm Gettysburg Address]

User talk:TheTruth

2007-03-07T00:22:00Z

TheTruth:

Welcome to the SYSOP group! Please block immediately users who post obviously inappropriate entries. We can always undo blocking mistakes if they happen. If the disagreement is borderline, then a prior warning is appropriate. We don't block merely for differences of opinion unless it really gets out of hand. Thanks.----

: I will do my best.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]]

Lewis "Scooter" Libby

2007-03-07T00:10:21Z

TheTruth: Unproven remark removed.

Scooter Libby is a former deputy secretary of defense, national security advisor to the vice president, chief of staff to the vice president and private attorney.

Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?

2007-03-06T23:33:54Z

TheTruth:

'''It shouldn't.''' Two plus two equals four, not five. Of course we should have a bias--toward the truth. Absolute truth does exist, and the very act of grasping that axiom establishes that we are at odds with liberals--because liberals are ''postmodernistic'' in their thinking. [[Postmodernism]] asserts that no such thing as truth exists--an echo of a famous [[Rhetoric|rhetorical]] question by [[Pontius Pilate]].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:31, 6 March 2007 (EST)

: While no comment on the topic, I note that not all liberals are "postmodernistic (sic)" and in fact many "conservative" claims border on post-modernism. See for example Warren Nord's arguments for teaching religion in public schools, look at "pressupositional apologetics", or look at Steve Fuller's testimony in the Dover trial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::Interesting claim--that not all liberals are postmodern in their thinking. Actually, some liberals are ''modernistic'', which arguably is worse. Modernists assert that "[[science]]" will inevitably explain everything, and will explain it purely as an action of matter. [[Atheism|Atheists]] are modernists--and, I maintain, modernists have to become atheists in order to remain modernists.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 14:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: Not all atheists are modernist either in that sense, and no a modernist doesn't need to be an atheist (could be for example, an agnostic or some form of deist who believes that God is amenable to scientific analysis). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:54, 6 March 2007 (EST)

"Everything conservatives believe is absolute truth" is not a very good starting point, because not all conservatives believe the same things. You can, of course, get around this by saying "the ones that don't believe the same things that I believe aren't really conservatives, then." However, you may find that the pool of people who believe ''exactly'' the same things that you believe is small.

Saying "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and two plus two equals four is an example" doesn't get you very far. You still need to figure out what to do when you know that "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son" and you meet someone who says "there is such a thing as absolute truth, and the absolute truth is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:14, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::::: Personaly, I am striving towards as much conservative "bias" as possible. --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 16:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

I agree to an extent. We want to be fair and factual. One thing that separates us from Wikipedia is that we do not claim ''not'' to have a bias and then take one anyway. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:50, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:It's worth noting that there's a difference between conservative ''bias'' and conservative ''flavour''. One can't have bias ''and'' be 'fair and factual,' it's one or the other. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 16:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

On the contrary! One '''''can't''''' be "fair" and factual. If we give equall opportunity to both sides of the political spectrum we will be half ''non''factual. I beleive that absolute truth is right-of-center (that's why I'm a conservative). '''''Conservapedia needs take a position on political issues''''' ''or else we will abandon factuality.'' --[[User:BenjaminS|BenjaminS]] 17:09, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:I think we're working to different definitions of "fair" here. I'm not a compulsive centrist. Truth is fair, IMO. The tricky part is establishing it in the first place. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: David hit the nail on the head. We don't make false claims of neutrality, as Wikipedia does. We have certain principles that we adhere to, and we are up-front about them. Beyond that we welcome the facts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:49, 6 March 2007 (EST)

::: I have to agree with Aschlafly, there will undoubtably be right-wing bias here as the site is called "Conservapedia". I just want to help make sure that everything here is based on fact and not on someone's personal opinion. If it was all based on personal opinion, it would be no better than wikipedia. I appreciate your being up front about the possibility of conservative bias, and though I do not agree with many of the political views of many of the users of this site, I intend to respect them and do my best to keep this site as unbiased and truthful as I am allowed to. The truth is all we need to make this a viable source for information on many things.--[[User:TheTruth|TheTruth]] 18:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

==See also==
*[[Rhetorical question]]

User:TheTruth

2007-03-05T18:57:26Z

TheTruth:

I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias. I am a socialist & agnostic Canadian male. I believe in removing bias from the media and from informational webpages and other forms of educational/informative material.

Have a problem? Wish to discuss current events & issues? Wish for my input on a debate? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-05T18:52:51Z

TheTruth: /* '''why not?''' */

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

No - intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006). God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's rediculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer.

==='''why not?'''===

Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice.

Debate:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?

2007-03-05T18:52:31Z

TheTruth:

=='''Post Your Thoughts'''==

==='''yes...'''===

Yes, if they taught in Religious studies.

Islam, hinduism and other religious ideas are taught in school.

==='''no...'''===

1. Creationism is not scientific, and should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution.

2. If we're forced to teach alternative beliefs as ID and Creationism in science classes, the so-called Pastafarians would have the same right to teach their Flying Spaghetti Monster belief.

Our numerals are called Arabic numerals. Astronomy has a large ongoing list of Arabic names. They all stem from the time period spanning 800-1100 when Arabic culture where the center of the development of knowledge. However, in the 1100s, an Iman declared that mathematics is evil. Since then the Arabic intellectual culture has never recovered, only a couple of scientific Nobel prizes have been won by Arabs, compared to the much smaller ethnic group of Jews.

Does it really do any good if American children learn to dismiss natural science? Do we really want to fall behind Europe and the rest of the world?

: '''REPLY'''
: Creationism is not scientific? This is absolute nonsense. This is what evolutionists like to think, but it is the farthest thing from the truth. What can evolutionists bring up about creationism that is non-scientific? Also, what do you mean when you say that "[creationism] should only be studied in religious studies if we are to follow the Constitution."? Where exactly does the Constitution deny this right? [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 21:01, 28 December 2006 (EST)
:::Philip, you seem to be implying that creationism is scientific, but provide no information to that effect. I think if you look objectively, you will find that there isn't much in the way of evidence to support creationism besides the Bible. Also, since creationism carries with it obvious religious baggage, it would seem to violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.

:::Creationism/ID is the theory that to explain complexity/life/beauty/existence we need a religious answer: namely that God created or made it that way. If you allow the state to teach such a theory you are making a law establishing the religions that believe in a God. That is why it is unconstitutional. Our constitution forces America to be a secular state and prevents a theocratic/christian nation state. Secondly, the theory that "God made it that way" is inherently non-scientific. How could you prove such a theory? In what way did he make it that way? Did he make it that way using slow changes in gene populations over millions of years? More importantly to being scientific: how could you disprove such a theory? No matter how it was done it could be (should be?) claimed to be done that way by God.

"Reply"
What do Arabic numerals have to do with teaching creationism in public schools? Peole that are fighting for teaching creationism/intelligent design in public school want academic freedom. No, this does not mean that everything from flying saucers to religions will be taught in public schools. This means that a purely scientific theory will be taught a long side evolution. Ofcourse it would do students good to challenge their scientific reasoning. Why are people so afraid of this being taught? Let me guess it is because it might actually prove that thre is a God that created this world. Deborah G.
:::Deborah, I'm all for teaching competing scientific theories, once they've actually been demonstrated to be scientific. They way it works is that scientific research develops a robust theory with explanatory power that succeeds where other theories fail to explain certain phenomenon. Then, once that has been established, it is worth teaching in school. Not the other way around. Also, you make it seem like creationism is the opposite of evolution, but you're wrong. Creationism is opposed to abiogenesis, which is NOT taught in school.

No - intelligent design is not science and should not be taught in a science class. It's an alternative belief, to be sure, but it's not a scientific belief.

Definition of Science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. (Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006). God, and therefore any faith based idea, such as the divinity of Jesus, miracles, magic, astrology, etc. shouldn't be taught in a science class. The idea of god is not physical or material. Therefore, the basic premise of intelligent design, that something metaphysical designed life, is untestable. God, currently, doesn't manifest itself in the material world, therfore, it can't be taught as a causal factor in a science class. I, personally, think the world was created 5 minutes ago by the 3rd freckle from the second hair on my big toe, and that all world religions are a deceptive mechanism put together by my knee, who doesn't like my big toe, and therfore wants to deceive us. Prove me wrong. Go ahead and try. "That's rediculous," you would say. No more so than any other crackpot creation theory. My hypothesis is unfalsifiable, so you can't. Therefore, it's not science. It belongs in a philosophy class.

Evolution is a scientific theory because it seeks to explain life using physical, testable properties. You can use the same properties to devise an alternate theory, and if yours is better than evolution, then you can be sure evolution won't be around very much longer.

==='''why not?'''===

I feel that Creationism/Intelligent design should be allowed in schools. Not replacing evolution in the cirriculum, but as an option for students to lean about, just as some schools(mainly Christian ones) have world religions & other related classes as a choice. I'm not a religious person, I'm actually agnostic, but I feel that if one wants to learn creationism/intelligent design in school, they should ba allowed to have that choice without necessarily having to go to a Christian school.

Reconstruction

2007-03-02T18:41:53Z

TheTruth: Added a definition for reconstruction, if a cite is needed for the definition, I'll add it later

Reconstruction is the act of rebuilding something after it has been damaged or destroyed.

Reconstruction was the period after the [[Civil War]] in which the South was militarily inhabited by Northern troops. This was to ensure that the [[Emancipation Proclamation]] was carried out. Though it was not as effective as hoped, society was rebuilt.

Bodhisattva

2007-03-02T18:37:01Z

TheTruth: typo

In [[Buddhism]] a '''bodhisattva''' is An enlightened person who delays nirvana in order to help others reach Nirvana. [[Mahayana]] and [[Theravada]] Buddhism have different attitudes towards bodhisattva's. In the Theravada tradition, a person can achieve complete enlightenment as an individual without becoming a bodhisattva. In contrast, Mahayana take a dim view of such individuals and argue that in order to achieve true and complete Nirvana one must become a bodhisattva

Pope John Paul I

2007-03-02T18:36:18Z

TheTruth: Edited out biased remark(If it was supposed to be there, just put it back)

Pope John Paul was the pope before [[Pope John Paul II]]. He was the Vicar of Christ for only 30 days before dieing of a heart attack during his sleep.
[[Image:John_paul_I.jpg]]

Debate:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?

2007-03-02T18:32:57Z

TheTruth: Fixed a couple small typos

Absolutely not. The attack was necessary to gird the hearts and loins of patriotic but unmotivated Americans to win the war against un-American forces. The 3000 innocents killed were a tragic loss, to be sure, but without them a terrible dictator would still be gassing his own people, and developing weapons to use against us. These are the terrible but necessary choices a Commander-in-chief must make.

[[User:Bob|Bob]]

Did he really?! I havn't heard of this but will research it. If he did know thEn he was wrong.

[[User:BenjaminS|Ben]]

Are you sure that would be wrong if Roosevelt did know? I think effective war strategy makes those kind of decisions. In chess it's called a "[[gambit]]".

--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:46, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:I'm guessing that "him" was Franklin D. Roosevelt and "the attack" was Pearl Harbor. The conditions leading up to Pearl Harbor are ''extremely'' controversial and I don't think the idea that Roosevelt knew is accepted as fact.

:However, there is an incident, about which there's no doubt, that raises a similar moral question.

::Oops. I take it back. There is doubt. Oh, well. I read about this in Anthony Cave-Brown's book, ''Bodyguard of Lies,'' but apparently its truth has been questioned. Well, here's the story anyway: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:24, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:During the Second World War, the Allies broke the German coding system known as "[[Enigma]]," a fascinating story involving the early development of computers and [[Alan Turing]]. The Germans did not know the code had been broken. The Allies were therefore continually faced with the moral dilemma of whether or not to act on the information they decrypted. If they were to act on it too often, the Germans would suspect the code had been broken and change the coding system, stopping the flow of information.

:In November of 1940, the Allies learned, through a decrypted message, that the Germans intended to conduct an air raid on Coventry. They decided that it was more important to keep the secret of ''Ultra,'' their decrypting system, and therefore did not warn Coventry or take any protective measures. Germany attacked with three hundred bombers, killing over five hundred people, destroying tens of thousands of homes and a medieval cathedral. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 12:24, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:: Dpbsmith describes the dilemma extremely well. I've been meaning to add an entry on the Enigma, and hope to do so this afternoon.

:: I don't have a definite view about how to solve this dilemma. It's a good topic for debate and discussion. What's your view, Dpbsmith?

:: I do think it's clear that Roosevelt had advance warning of the Pearl Harbor attack, by the way. I think we may have moved one key aircraft carrier or battleship out of the way (moving more ships would have tipped the Japanese). Also, simply radar would have given us an hour's notice, and 2,400 sailors need not have died unless as a gambit for a greater objective.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:28, 1 January 2007 (EST)

::: I thought the incoming Japanese aircraft ''were'' seen on radar, but the radar operator couldn't believe they were really being attacked and misidentified them as an expected flight of incoming B17's? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:42, 1 January 2007 (EST)

:::: Boy, that sounds very odd! But you may be right, and I have not researched this further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:44, 1 January 2007 (EST)

::::: Don't you think it would be good if you research these things BEFORE you present them as fact?

:::::Here is a section from ''A Patriot’s History of the United States'', by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen that addresses the matter:

'''''Did Roosevelt Have Advance Knowledge About the Pearl Harbor Attack?'''''

“Even as the last smoke billowed from the sinking ships in Hawaii, many people were asking how the United States could have been so unprepared. Historian Charles Tansill suggested that the debacle could only have occurred with Franklin Roosevelt’s foreknowledge. Clearly, if a president in possession of advance warning had allowed hundreds of sailors and soldiers to die in a surprise attack, it would have constituted high treason. Why would any chief executive permit such a strike?
In his famous book, ''Back Door to War'' (1952), Tansill accused Roosevelt of allowing a Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to provide the United States with the motivation and justification to enter the war against Hitler in Europe, but little new evidence was provided over the years until the 1980s, when John Tolland published Infamy, wherein he claimed to have located a navy witness who, while on duty in San Francisco, received transmissions locating Japanese carriers and forwarded the information to Washington. Adding to Toland’s revelations, a “Notes and Documents” piece in the American Historical Review disclosed that the FBI had acquired information from an Axis double agent named Duskow Popov (“Tricycle”), who had information on a microdot about the attack. Although Tolland and others maintained that Popov’s documents included a detailed plan of the Japanese air attack, it did no such thing. Tricycle’s data dealt almost exclusively with buildings and installations, but had nothing on ships, aircraft scouting patterns, or any of the rather important items that one would expect from a “detailed plan.” In 1981, Asian historian Gordon Prange published ''At Dawn While We Slept''; following his death, his students Donald Goldstein and Katherine Dillon completed his work with new Pearl Harbor claims in ''Pearl Harbor: The Verdict of History''. The authors found Toland’s mystery sailor, Robert Ogg, who empathetically rejected Toland’s assertion that he had said that he had intercepted massive Japanese radio traffic. Meanwhile, Documents acquired from Japanese archives raised a more serious problem for the conspiracy theorists because they proved that the Japanese fleet had been under strict radio silence during the voyage to Pearl Harbor.
The controversy refused to go away. In 1999, Robert B. Stinnet’s ''Day of Deceit'' revived the argument that Roosevelt had prior knowledge of the attack with important new code-breaking information. But the crucial pieces of “evidence” that Stinnet employed often proved the opposite of what he claimed. He used precise intelligence terms—code breaking, interception, translation, analysis—interchangeably, which produced massive errors: An intercepted document is not necessarily broken, and if intercepted and broken, it may not be translated, and if intercepted and broken, and translated, it may not be analyzed for days, weeks, or even years. Some intercepts from November 1941 were indeed broken, but were not translated or analyzed until…1945!
The entire argument of the revisionists hinges on the notion that FDR couldn’t get into the war with Germany without pretext. But Roosevelt had already had ample cause if he’d wanted to, to ask for a declaration of war against Germany. Nazi U-boats had sunk American ships, killed American sailors, and in all ways shown themselves hostile. Against a nation that declared war on Mexico over a handful of Cavalry troopers or that had declared war on Spain for the questionable destruction of a single ship, Germany had long since crossed the line needed for a declaration of war. …Pearl Harbor was a Tragedy, but not a conspiracy. <ref>A Patriot’s History of the United States Pages 594-595</ref>

--[[User:ChrisS|Chris]] 11:18, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, DPBSmith is right about the Japanese bombers appearing on the American radar screen. (''Air Raid- Pearl Harbor!'') American leaders, even those in the military, did not believe that an initial Japanese attack would come on Pearl Harbor. They believed such an attack would come on the Philippines, Wake Island, or Midway Island. As a matter of fact, the US carriers ''Lexington'' and ''Enterprise'' were ferrying F4F Wildcat fighter planes to further fortify Midway and Wake. Even the Secretary of War did not believe the news when it reached him. He exclaimed, "This can't be true! This must mean the Philippines!" --[[User:DuncanB|DuncanB]] 14:39, 9 January 2007 (EST)

===References===

<references/>

Parties

2007-03-02T18:09:03Z

TheTruth: Removed Silliness

In America, politicians are members of political '''parties'''.

They are called parties because they have so much fun spending other peoples' money.

See [[Congress]].

George H. W. Bush

2007-03-02T18:08:08Z

TheTruth: Removed silliness and obvious bias

''George H. W. (Herbert Walker) Bush'', [[Republican]], was president of the U.S. from 1990-1994, following [[Ronald W. Reagan]] and preceeding [[William J. Clinton]]. He is the father of [[George W. Bush]].

His presidency was marked mostly by a poor economy, and a war with Iraq in which he deliberately made the decision to end the conflict when the original goal of liberating Kuwait was achieved, and to stop short of invading Iraq (That is, he formulated an "exit strategy" before entering.).

Saint Valentine's Day

2007-03-02T18:04:38Z

TheTruth: Removed silliness(why was it allowed to stay for THAT LONG??) added minimal info.

February 14th.

A holiday characterized by showing one's love for someone.

User:TheTruth

2007-02-22T18:14:47Z

TheTruth:

I am here to make sure the pages here are the truth and to remove all bias.

Have a problem? Edit my discussion page and voice your concerns.

Charles Darwin

2007-02-22T18:12:42Z

TheTruth:

[[Image:darwin.jpg|thumb|150px|right|Charles Darwin]]
Charles Darwin was born in [[England]] to a Christian family on February 12, [[1809]]. He was a significant figure in the development of the theory of evolution. After touring the [[Galapagos Islands]] and studying the animals that lived there, he came up with his theory of [[natural selection]] and published [[''The Origin of Species'']] in [[1859]].

While often regarded by evolutionists as "the father of modern biology," Darwin himself was aware that some aspects of his work were not as scientific as he wished. In a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, he wrote "I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=104]

Some people claim that he recanted on his death bed. However, this story was put about by a certain Lady Hope, who according to Darwin's family, never attended his deatbed at all. It is a story completely without support and consists of little more than [[Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia|gossip]]{{fact}}

Bill Clinton

2007-02-22T18:07:37Z

TheTruth:

Bill Clinton served as president of the United States from 1993-2001. Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote.

[[Image:billclinton.jpg|thumb|left|150px|Bill Clinton]]

Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote, capitalizing on public discontent with a weak economy. In his first two years in office, 1993 through 1994, Clinton failed at his massive attempt to gain government control of the health care system. His approach consisted of appointing a planning committee with secret members to reshape this important sector of the economy. The [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] successfully sued to force disclosure of the committee members and ultimately to defeat the program.

Clinton also signed into law the [[Violence Against Women Act]], which opened the federal courts to claims of domestic disputes between men and women, which had always been handled under state rather than federal law. A key provision of this law was later ruled unconstitutional in [[United States v. Morrison]].<ref>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-5.ZS.html</ref>

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a landslide victory to Republicans in Congress. That ended much of Clinton's power. Though reelected against a weak Republican candidate in 1996 ([[Bob Dole]]), Clinton spent the remainder of his presidency combatting scandals, one of which (the Monica Lewinsky scandal) resulted in an impeachment trial.

Bill Clinton's wife, Hillary Clinton, has long sought to become president herself. She used her position of influence to obtain the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate without opposition in 2000, and was elected in this safely Democratic state. Reelected in 2006, she is now running for president in 2008.

----

'''Sources:''' <references/>