https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=MakeTomorrow&feedformat=atomConservapedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T17:06:30ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.24.2https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=417574Liberal2008-03-31T03:50:38Z<p>MakeTomorrow: BIGAAAAAAR!</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|4096px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]<br />
<br />
A '''liberal''' can be a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* A government with large spending on social programs, and high taxes to support such programs<br />
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]<br />
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation<br />
* Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]<br />
* Taxpayer-funded [[public education]]<br />
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]] <!-- such as...? --><br />
* Wanting men and women to have the same access to jobs in the [[military]]<br />
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* Implimentation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* [[Political correctness]]<br />
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events<br />
* Support of [[labor union]]s<br />
* Teaching "comprehensive" sex-ed programs instead of [[abstinence]]-only programs.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted in a modern context, instead of how it was originally intended<br />
* Support for [[gun control]]<br />
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* Abolition of death penalty<br />
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref><br />
* [[Disarmament treaties]]<br />
* [[Globalism]]<br />
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref><br />
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]<br />
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Liberalism in North America today ==<br />
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are often [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref><br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it is an entirely different to the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref><br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==<br />
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]<br />
* [[Classical liberal]]<br />
* [[Drinking Liberally]]<br />
* [[Godless liberal]]<br />
* [[Hollywood values]]<br />
* [[Last wordism]]<br />
* [[:Category:Liberal activists|Liberal activists]]<br />
* [[Liberal arts]]<br />
* [[Liberal Arts college]]<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]<br />
* [[Liberal Christianity]]<br />
* [[Liberal deceit]]<br />
* [[Liberal Democrats]]<br />
* [[Liberal denial]]<br />
* [[Liberal Elite]]<br />
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]<br />
* [[Liberal Fascism]]<br />
* [[Liberal friendship]]<br />
* [[Liberal Gloss]]<br />
* [[Liberal grading]]<br />
* [[Liberal hate speech]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]<br />
* [[Liberal ideology]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]<br />
* [[Liberalism and art]]<br />
* [[Liberal labels]]<br />
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]<br />
* [[Liberal logic]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]<br />
* [[Liberal Myths]]<br />
* [[Liberal obfuscation]]<br />
* [[Liberal Party]]<br />
* [[Liberal quotient]]<br />
* [[Liberal supremacist]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style|Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[Liberal tools]]<br />
* [[Liberal tricks]]<br />
* [[Liberal values]]<br />
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]<br />
* [[Professor values]]<br />
<br />
==Further Information==<br />
<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=417570Liberal2008-03-31T03:47:49Z<p>MakeTomorrow: BIGGAR!</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|2048px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]<br />
<br />
A '''liberal''' can be a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* A government with large spending on social programs, and high taxes to support such programs<br />
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]<br />
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation<br />
* Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]<br />
* Taxpayer-funded [[public education]]<br />
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]] <!-- such as...? --><br />
* Wanting men and women to have the same access to jobs in the [[military]]<br />
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* Implimentation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* [[Political correctness]]<br />
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events<br />
* Support of [[labor union]]s<br />
* Teaching "comprehensive" sex-ed programs instead of [[abstinence]]-only programs.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted in a modern context, instead of how it was originally intended<br />
* Support for [[gun control]]<br />
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* Abolition of death penalty<br />
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref><br />
* [[Disarmament treaties]]<br />
* [[Globalism]]<br />
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref><br />
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]<br />
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Liberalism in North America today ==<br />
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are often [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref><br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it is an entirely different to the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref><br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==<br />
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]<br />
* [[Classical liberal]]<br />
* [[Drinking Liberally]]<br />
* [[Godless liberal]]<br />
* [[Hollywood values]]<br />
* [[Last wordism]]<br />
* [[:Category:Liberal activists|Liberal activists]]<br />
* [[Liberal arts]]<br />
* [[Liberal Arts college]]<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]<br />
* [[Liberal Christianity]]<br />
* [[Liberal deceit]]<br />
* [[Liberal Democrats]]<br />
* [[Liberal denial]]<br />
* [[Liberal Elite]]<br />
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]<br />
* [[Liberal Fascism]]<br />
* [[Liberal friendship]]<br />
* [[Liberal Gloss]]<br />
* [[Liberal grading]]<br />
* [[Liberal hate speech]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]<br />
* [[Liberal ideology]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]<br />
* [[Liberalism and art]]<br />
* [[Liberal labels]]<br />
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]<br />
* [[Liberal logic]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]<br />
* [[Liberal Myths]]<br />
* [[Liberal obfuscation]]<br />
* [[Liberal Party]]<br />
* [[Liberal quotient]]<br />
* [[Liberal supremacist]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style|Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[Liberal tools]]<br />
* [[Liberal tricks]]<br />
* [[Liberal values]]<br />
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]<br />
* [[Professor values]]<br />
<br />
==Further Information==<br />
<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&diff=417569Liberal2008-03-31T03:46:38Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Let's make it *huge*!</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Liberal Brain.jpg|thumb|1024px|top|<center>A satirical conception of the liberal brain.</center>]]<br />
<br />
A '''liberal''' can be a believer in many of the following political positions:<br />
<br />
* A government with large spending on social programs, and high taxes to support such programs<br />
* Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized [[abortion]]<br />
* [[Income redistribution]], usually through progressive taxation<br />
* Government-rationed and taxpayer-funded medical care, such as [[Universal Health Care]]<br />
* Taxpayer-funded [[public education]]<br />
* The denial of inherent [[gender differences]] <!-- such as...? --><br />
* Wanting men and women to have the same access to jobs in the [[military]]<br />
* Legalized [[same-sex marriage]]<br />
* Implimentation of [[affirmative action]]<br />
* [[Political correctness]]<br />
* [[Censorship]] of teacher-lead [[prayer]] in classrooms and school sponsored events<br />
* Support of [[labor union]]s<br />
* Teaching "comprehensive" sex-ed programs instead of [[abstinence]]-only programs.<ref> [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286671,00.html Democrats Aim To Kill Abstinence-Only Program Funding], [[Fox News]], Monday, June 25, 2007</ref><br />
* A "[[living Constitution]]" that is reinterpreted in a modern context, instead of how it was originally intended<br />
* Support for [[gun control]]<br />
* Government programs to [[rehabilitate criminals]]<br />
* Abolition of death penalty<br />
* [[Environmentalism]]<ref>[[Greenpeace]], for example.</ref><br />
* [[Disarmament treaties]]<br />
* [[Globalism]]<br />
* Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy <ref>Stefaan Walgrave and Joris Verhulst, [http://nicomedia.math.upatras.gr/conf/CAWM2003/Papers/Verhulst.pdf The February 15 Worldwide Protests against a War in Iraq: An Empirical Test of Transnational Opportunities. Outline of a Research Programme](PDF).</ref><br />
* Support of obscenity and pornography as a [[First Amendment]] right<ref>The [[Warren Court]], led by [[liberal]] Justices [[William O. Douglas]], [[Hugo Black]], [[Abe Fortas]], [[William Brennan]] and Chief Justice [[Earl Warren]] issued 36 decisions granting [[First Amendment]] rights to obscenity and pornography. These decisions remain fully supported by liberals today.</ref><br />
* Opposition to full private property rights<ref>For example, the liberal wing of the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] issued the 5-4 [[Kelo v. City of New London]] decision authorizing the taking of private property by government in order to give the property to another private entity rather than convert it to a public use.</ref><br />
* Reinstating the [[Fairness Doctrine]]<br />
* Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the [[Patriot Act]]<br />
<br><br />
<br />
== Liberalism in North America today ==<br />
[[Democrats]] and many media outlets in the [[U.S.]] are often [[liberal]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp|title=Media Bias basics|publisher=Media Research Center}}</ref><br />
<br />
===Liberal Rankings of Congress Members===<br />
<br />
The National Journal compiles the votes of each congress member each year and uses the information to create rankings<ref>http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/index.htm</ref> of how liberal each member of the United States [[Congress]] is. In addition to showing the voting records of each member and given an overall all ranking of liberalness, the National Journal also ranks congress members by liberalness in the areas of social, economic, and foreign policy.<br />
<br />
==Liberalism in Europe today==<br />
<br />
In Europe, on the other hand, parties that call themselves ''liberal'' are moderate in outlook, ranging from centre-left to centre-right, promote typically economic and business freedom. The Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe<ref>http://www.alde.eu</ref> is an party of the European Parliament that represents most ''liberal'' parties from European countries. Similar policies are promoted by many ''liberal'' parties throughout the world,<ref>http://www.liberal-international.org/</ref> such as the Liberal Party of Australia.<ref>[http://www.liberal.org.au/]</ref><br />
<br />
Trade unions and socialist parties often criticize politicians that promote lower taxes on business, or more flexible hiring and firing laws, by calling them "liberals" or [[neoliberal|neoliberals]]. Thus, just like in the US, "liberal" is often used as a term of abuse. But when someone is called "liberal" in Europe, it is an entirely different to the meaning in the US.<br />
In fact, the US meaning of liberal is more similar to the politics of European [[socialist]] or [[social democracy|social democratic]] parties.<ref>[http://www.pes.org]</ref><br />
<br />
==Historical Liberalism ==<br />
In history, the word "liberal" has meant different things at different times, and was associated with individual liberty in prior centuries. In the postwar period, liberals supported government intervention in the economy and welfare state policies, as well as peaceful coexistence with the communist block, which are not liberal policies in the sense of classical liberalism. After the end of the cold war, with the demise of socialism and communism, many liberals embraced some ideas from economic neo-liberalism, and coined it the "Third Way". In the area of national security and foreign policy liberals in the [[U.S.]] failed to define a consistent stance, even after the events of 9/11 and the beginning of the war in Iraq. Liberals generally support affirmative action, gay marriage, and abortion.<ref>"Political liberals tend, for whatever reason, to be ardent supporters of both gay rights and pro-choice programs." Greenberg and Bailey [http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/Bailey/Greenberg-Bailey/Homosexual%20Eugenics.pdf] </ref><br />
<br />
==Original meaning: Classical Liberalism==<br />
Liberalism is a political philosophy with freedom as its core value. The term was originally applied to supporters of individual liberties and equal rights, but, in America, the term has come to represent a movement of social change that often conflicts with [[conservative]] values such as moral values and tradition.<br />
<br />
See [[Classical Liberal|Classical Liberalism]]. Compare [[Libertarianism]].<br />
<br />
==Alternative meanings of 'liberal'==<br />
<br />
One definition of liberal is anything that is not conservative. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary includes this definition of "liberal":<ref>Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal</ref> <br />
* Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas ...<br />
<br />
==Liberal Organizations == <br />
*[[AARP|AARP - American Association of Retired People]] <br />
*[[ACLU|ACLU - American Civil Liberties Union]]<br />
*[[AFL-CIO|AFL-CIO - American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations]]<br />
*[[Amnesty International|AI - Amnesty International]]<br />
*[[Democratic National Committee]]<br />
*[[Greenpeace]]<br />
*[[NARAL|NARAL - National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League]]<br />
*[[NAACP|NAACP - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People]]<br />
*[[National Committee for an Effective Congress]]<br />
*[[National Education Association]]<br />
*[[National Organization of Women]]<br />
*[[Planned Parenthood|Planned Parenthood Federation of America]]<br />
*[[Rainbow/PUSH Coalition]]<br />
*[[MoveOn.org]]<br />
*[[A.N.S.W.E.R.]]<br />
<br />
Source: [http://www.politixgroup.com/lo.htm The Politix Group]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Conservapedia:Articles about liberals|Articles about liberals]]<br />
* [[Classical liberal]]<br />
* [[Drinking Liberally]]<br />
* [[Godless liberal]]<br />
* [[Hollywood values]]<br />
* [[Last wordism]]<br />
* [[:Category:Liberal activists|Liberal activists]]<br />
* [[Liberal arts]]<br />
* [[Liberal Arts college]]<br />
* [[Liberal Bias]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal celebrity obsession|Liberal celebrity obsession]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia|Liberal Behavior on Conservapedia]]<br />
* [[Liberal Christianity]]<br />
* [[Liberal deceit]]<br />
* [[Liberal Democrats]]<br />
* [[Liberal denial]]<br />
* [[Liberal Elite]]<br />
* [[Essay: Liberal Falsehoods|Liberal Falsehoods]]<br />
* [[Liberal Fascism]]<br />
* [[Liberal friendship]]<br />
* [[Liberal Gloss]]<br />
* [[Liberal grading]]<br />
* [[Liberal hate speech]]<br />
* [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal hysteria|Liberal hysteria]]<br />
* [[Liberal ideology]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Intellectualism|Liberal Intellectualism]]<br />
* [[Liberalism and art]]<br />
* [[Liberal labels]]<br />
* [[Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right|Liberal Lies About the American Right]]<br />
* [[Liberal logic]]<br />
* [[The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness|Liberal Mind]]<br />
* [[Liberal Myths]]<br />
* [[Liberal obfuscation]]<br />
* [[Liberal Party]]<br />
* [[Liberal quotient]]<br />
* [[Liberal supremacist]]<br />
* [[Essay:Liberal Style|Liberal Style]]<br />
* [[Liberal tools]]<br />
* [[Liberal tricks]]<br />
* [[Liberal values]]<br />
* [[Massachusetts liberal]]<br />
* [[Professor values]]<br />
<br />
==Further Information==<br />
<br />
* [[Conservative Links]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:Political ideologies]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deliberate_ignorance&diff=394204Deliberate ignorance2008-02-25T01:19:24Z<p>MakeTomorrow: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{speedy}}<br />
<br />
'''Deliberate ignorance''' is the practice of refusing to consider or discuss logic or evidence disproving ideologically motivated positions. Examples include:<br />
<br />
* [[Democrats]] refusing to acknowledge [[Barack Obama]]'s appeal to unpatriotic donors and supporters<br />
* [[materialists]] refuse to address the impossibility of material explanation for [[migration]] and [[homing]]<br />
* [[evolutionists]] refuse to address the lack of a plausible evolutionary path for the [[whale]]<ref>This is disputed by evolutionists at a blog worth reviewing further for plausibility at [http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/two_tales_of_whale_evolution.php].</ref><br />
* [[liberals]] refuse to address how [[socialism]] destroys productivity<br />
* [[abortionists]] refuse to address the undisclosed harm to the mothers who have [[abortions]]<br />
* Advocates of the [[global warming theory]] refuse to consider any scientific evidence which shows that natural causes have always had a greater effect on terrestial air temperature than human activity.<br />
<br />
(add more)<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
[[Category:philosophy]]<br />
[[Category:liberals]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=392219Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-21T02:34:20Z<p>MakeTomorrow: rmv nonsense</p>
<hr />
<div>Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:<br />
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.<br />
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."<br />
#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.<br />
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.<br />
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.<br />
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.<br />
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.<br />
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.<br />
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain... <br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. <br />
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.<br />
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.<br />
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.<br />
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref><br />
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!<br />
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.<br />
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.<br />
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].<br />
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.<br />
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]<br />
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.<br />
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.<br />
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.<br />
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.<br />
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.<br />
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.<br />
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."<br />
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.<br />
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.<br />
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o "Yours Is No Disgrace"] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.<br />
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.<br />
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<br />
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.<br />
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.<br />
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.<br />
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.<br />
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.<br />
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".<br />
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref><br />
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.<br />
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.<br />
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].<br />
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.<br />
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.<br />
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".<br />
#"Under God" by [[Pat Boone]].<br />
#"Fortunate Son" by [[Credence Clearwater Revival]].<br />
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band. <br />
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<br />
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed"] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Please add your best conservative picks.<br />
<br />
[[category:essay]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=392123Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-21T00:54:51Z<p>MakeTomorrow: I admit that was a joke.</p>
<hr />
<div>Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:<br />
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.<br />
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."<br />
#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.<br />
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.<br />
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.<br />
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.<br />
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.<br />
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.<br />
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain... <br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. <br />
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.<br />
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.<br />
#"Revolution 1" by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.<br />
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.<br />
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref><br />
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!<br />
#"I Can't Drive 55", by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.<br />
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.<br />
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.<br />
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].<br />
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.<br />
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]<br />
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.<br />
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.<br />
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.<br />
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.<br />
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.<br />
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.<br />
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."<br />
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.<br />
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.<br />
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o "Yours Is No Disgrace"] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.<br />
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.<br />
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<br />
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.<br />
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.<br />
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.<br />
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.<br />
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.<br />
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".<br />
#"Eat Starch Mom" by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. "It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!"<br />
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref><br />
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.<br />
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.<br />
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].<br />
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.<br />
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.<br />
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".<br />
#"Under God" by [[Pat Boone]].<br />
#"Fortunate Son" by [[Credence Clearwater Revival]].<br />
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band. <br />
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<br />
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed"] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Please add your best conservative picks.<br />
<br />
[[category:essay]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390523Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T21:09:26Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* In Your Eyes */ Correction.</p>
<hr />
<div>See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.<br />
<br />
: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?<br />
<br />
: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit<br />
<br />
: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.<br />
<br />
: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Last Kiss==<br />
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Possible Addition==<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==<br />
<br />
:I'm glad the commies were thrown out<br />
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board<br />
<br />
Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Are these truly conservative? ==<br />
<br />
While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.<br />
<br />
For example: The Beatles - Revolution<br />
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing. <br />
<br />
I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?<br />
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== In Your Eyes ==<br />
<br />
Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Sorry, my edit summary should have been "basic statistical interpretation". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 16:09, 18 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390522Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T21:08:32Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* In Your Eyes */ Basic statistics</p>
<hr />
<div>See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.<br />
<br />
: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?<br />
<br />
: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit<br />
<br />
: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.<br />
<br />
: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Last Kiss==<br />
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Possible Addition==<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==<br />
<br />
:I'm glad the commies were thrown out<br />
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board<br />
<br />
Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Are these truly conservative? ==<br />
<br />
While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.<br />
<br />
For example: The Beatles - Revolution<br />
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing. <br />
<br />
I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?<br />
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== In Your Eyes ==<br />
<br />
Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: The single best predictor of how conservative someone votes is how often he attends a place of worship of God. Your argument suggesting that you are a counterexample to that correlation means nothing. See point #2 in [[liberal logic]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:04, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::That wasn't irrelevant at all. Correlation != causation. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 16:08, 18 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390509Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:53:24Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* In Your Eyes */ Clarification</p>
<hr />
<div>See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.<br />
<br />
: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?<br />
<br />
: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit<br />
<br />
: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.<br />
<br />
: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Last Kiss==<br />
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Possible Addition==<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==<br />
<br />
:I'm glad the commies were thrown out<br />
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board<br />
<br />
Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Are these truly conservative? ==<br />
<br />
While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.<br />
<br />
For example: The Beatles - Revolution<br />
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing. <br />
<br />
I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?<br />
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== In Your Eyes ==<br />
<br />
Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. One's personal merely interpersonally-social morals under religion might be more "conservative", in the loosest sense of the term — not conservative, simply somewhat more so — than they would be otherwise; however, that does not automatically make one politically conservative.--[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390506Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:50:46Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* In Your Eyes */ Explanation.</p>
<hr />
<div>See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.<br />
<br />
: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?<br />
<br />
: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit<br />
<br />
: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.<br />
<br />
: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Last Kiss==<br />
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Possible Addition==<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==<br />
<br />
:I'm glad the commies were thrown out<br />
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board<br />
<br />
Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Are these truly conservative? ==<br />
<br />
While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.<br />
<br />
For example: The Beatles - Revolution<br />
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing. <br />
<br />
I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?<br />
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== In Your Eyes ==<br />
<br />
Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Peter Gabriel can object all he likes. "In Your Eyes" appeals to conservative values, as in "a thousand churches." Do you think we should object when a liberal says something conservative???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:27, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::Religion is not conservative. Fundamentalism is, but not religion. The presence of religion in a song does not make it conservative, even as adherence to religion does not make a person conservative. Look at me, I'm a Christian, but I'm also a communist. Obviously the two are not mutually exclusive. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:50, 18 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390491Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:23:10Z<p>MakeTomorrow: In Your Eyes</p>
<hr />
<div>See [http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkNDU5MmViNzVjNzkzMDE3NzNlN2MyZjRjYTk4YjE= this]. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:04, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The [[neoconservative]] ''National Review'' list is 95% garbage, not [[conservative]] at all. I only found one tune on the list that should be added ours ("Stand by your man"), and National Review had it at #50.<br />
<br />
: The contrast here with ''National Review'' illustrates the need for ''Conservapedia''. But thanks for your link.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Oops... it seems that I added a bunch of songs from that list. Several of mine (Brick, Red Barchetta, I Can't Drive 55, Sweet Home Alabama, and Revolution 1) were on there. That's interesting, though... the NR person and I thought alike on this one. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:16, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sweet Home Alabama? I love that song (and I'm a liberal)! Revolution's great, too.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 18:29, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry? Why was my entry for The Fall's Pseud Mag Ed removed? They have always been the great deflators of liberal complacency. What is going on?<br />
<br />
: Post a link to the lyrics of the song here and we'll see. Also, please sign your entries by using the signature button in the row above the edit box. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:16, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Can a song possibly be just a song, rather than a political statement? - BornAgainBrit<br />
<br />
: Uh, sure, there are songs that lack any meaning at all. "I wanna hold your hand," for example, is a pleasant jingle from your homeland. I trust we'd agree that it is not the most meaningful song in the world. That tune is fun for reminiscing.<br />
<br />
: But surely you don't deny that many songs do have political meaning. [[Liberal]] attempts to deny political bias are familiar to us and no one here is fooled. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:37, 18 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The deletion of Bob Dylan's song was not properly explained. Observing that people serve either the devil or the Lord is a conservative observation, and of course Bob Dylan was a born-again Christian who expressed his faith in song (but don't expect [[liberals]] to tell you that).--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I didn't mean to step on any toes, but apathy towards devil worship doesn't seem to me like a very conservative trait. Unfortunately, the verses of the songs don't give us ''any'' meaning whatsoever, so the only meaning we can glean from the song are the four lines of the chorus, three of which are essentially the same :/ [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:06, 21 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Paradise by the Dashboard light? I know its a song about having pre-marital sex, but the end is about how it screwed up his life.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 04:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
After reading this list, I've gotta ask, just how do you define a 'conservative' song?--[[User:Offeep|Offeep]] 15:27, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: [[Conservative]] is a term that is well-understood. A "conservative song" reflects some of those values without diluting them with a [[liberal]] message.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:42, 26 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I can't believe Okie from Muskogie isn't on here. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:23, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I know this is being nitpicky, but I don't like the message of Last Kiss because it seems to suggest a works salvation, that one gets to heaven by doing good rather than accepting Jesus. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:30, 27 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:... and on that note, let's open up a can of [[Mountain Dew]] and get ready to [[Debate:Are we saved by faith or works?]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:16, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Last Kiss==<br />
Somebody just put up "Last Kiss;" actually I recall when it was a hit circa 1964 many adults, parents, teachers and ministers where horrified that a song about death was considered appropriate for young people. My my, how things had changed by 1967.... [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:08, 28 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Just like 'Teen Angel,' 'Leader of the Pack,' 'Dead Man's Curve,' and 'Tell Laura I Love Her.' [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 00:35, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Possible Addition==<br />
<br />
Ok, I have a suggestion, but I want some feedback before putting it on the page. I was listening to the radio today, and Another Brick in the Wall by Pink Floyd came on. I was thinking that the song talks about the way that public schools brainwash children and turn them into "bricks" in the wall that is liberal society. In a way, the song is pro-homeschooling, because it's teachers that need to leave the kids alone so that parents can instruct their children correctly. Maybe I'm reaching a bit here, but I wanted to see what you all thought. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 00:23, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'm open to comments and suggestions about this, but I've never viewed the famous song "another brick in the wall" as conservative. You may be right that the song properly complains about the effect of schooling, but the song doesn't offer any conservative solution that I can see.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Love Me, I'm a Liberal==<br />
<br />
:I'm glad the commies were thrown out<br />
:Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board<br />
<br />
Hardly sounds like a Communist critique. Have you read all the lyrics of the song? [http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~trent/ochs/lyrics/liberal.html] It's twitting liberals for their supposed concern for others, which is actually sorely lacking. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:14, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:That song is pure sarcasm and Ochs assumes the role of a 1960s-era (Cold War era) "liberal" to attack them from the extreme left in a sarcastic way. Read the lyrics again, he is attacking the AFL-CIO for throwing out the commies. He is saying liberals aren't far left ''enough''. It's not a conservative song, it's an extreme leftist one. [[User:Parrothead|Parrothead]] 17:22, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So there's a song on this list about breaking the law 'I can't Drive 55,' and one about obeying the law 'I fought the law.' Which is the conservative value? And the Bobby Fuller Four's version of the latter was the superior version, BTW. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 10:40, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Are these truly conservative? ==<br />
<br />
While I understand completely some of these songs being on here, I don't really understand the why Bob Dylan, The Beatles, or Ben Folds (Five) would be on this list. These individual songs may be able to be warped into our mindset, but if one truly looks at these, they become overwhelmingly liberal.<br />
<br />
For example: The Beatles - Revolution<br />
While this song does indeed talk about how "Carrying pictures of Chairman Mao" will do no good, it also talks about how war and money can't solve problems. In addition, if a child is to read tis and decide to find out more about The Beatles, they will undoubtedly find some intensely liberal themes. The same idea goes for Bob Dylan. Look at any of his other songs. At the same time, Ben Folds does exactly the same thing. <br />
<br />
I cannot argue with the songs and parts on this list, but I wonder if this is a slippery slope?<br />
::It's possible that many of these songs were adopted by conservatives, such as Mike Huckabee playing John Cougar Mellencamp's hits. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:48, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Many of the songs here have a powerful [[conservative]] message, and demonstrate that the music industry does not have to be [[liberal]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:00, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: P.S. [[Liberals]] do say [[conservative]] things from time to time. We're listing songs here, not artists.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:01, 18 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== In Your Eyes ==<br />
<br />
Okay, the song can be considered to be about God, but that alone does not make it conservative. I think Peter Gabriel himself would object to the song's inclusion in this list. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:23, 18 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390486Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:21:31Z<p>MakeTomorrow: "Love", in the sense of this song, is not a conservative value. A hippie value, perhaps, but…</p>
<hr />
<div>Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:<br />
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.<br />
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."<br />
#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.<br />
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.<br />
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.<br />
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.<br />
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.<br />
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.<br />
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain... <br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. <br />
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.<br />
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.<br />
#"Revolution 1" by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.<br />
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.<br />
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref><br />
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!<br />
#"I Can't Drive 55", by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.<br />
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.<br />
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.<br />
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].<br />
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.<br />
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]<br />
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.<br />
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.<br />
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.<br />
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.<br />
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.<br />
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.<br />
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."<br />
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.<br />
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.<br />
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o "Yours Is No Disgrace"] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.<br />
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.<br />
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<br />
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.<br />
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.<br />
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.<br />
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.<br />
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.<br />
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".<br />
#"Eat Starch Mom" by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. "It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!"<br />
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref><br />
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.<br />
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.<br />
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].<br />
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.<br />
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.<br />
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".<br />
#"Under God" by [[Pat Boone]].<br />
#"Fortunate Son" by [[Credence Clearwater Revival]].<br />
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band. <br />
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<br />
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed"] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''<br />
#"Bullet the Blue Sky", [[U2]]. "…women and children/Into the arms of America".<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Please add your best conservative picks.<br />
<br />
[[category:essay]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390483Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:19:58Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:<br />
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.<br />
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."<br />
#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.<br />
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.<br />
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.<br />
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.<br />
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.<br />
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.<br />
#"In Your Eyes" by [[Peter Gabriel]]. Love and a thousand churches for those who are lost.<br />
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain... <br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. <br />
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.<br />
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.<br />
#"Revolution 1" by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.<br />
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.<br />
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref><br />
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!<br />
#"I Can't Drive 55", by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.<br />
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.<br />
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.<br />
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].<br />
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.<br />
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]<br />
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.<br />
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.<br />
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.<br />
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.<br />
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.<br />
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.<br />
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."<br />
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.<br />
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.<br />
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o "Yours Is No Disgrace"] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.<br />
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.<br />
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<br />
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.<br />
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.<br />
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.<br />
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.<br />
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.<br />
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".<br />
#"Eat Starch Mom" by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. "It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!"<br />
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref><br />
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.<br />
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.<br />
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].<br />
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.<br />
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.<br />
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".<br />
#"Under God" by [[Pat Boone]].<br />
#"Fortunate Son" by [[Credence Clearwater Revival]].<br />
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band. <br />
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<br />
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed"] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''<br />
#"Bullet the Blue Sky", [[U2]]. "…women and children/Into the arms of America".<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Please add your best conservative picks.<br />
<br />
[[category:essay]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390482Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:19:31Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Undo revision 390481 by Special:Contributions/MakeTomorrow (User talk:MakeTomorrow) -- Whoops.</p>
<hr />
<div>Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:<br />
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.<br />
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."<br />
#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.<br />
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.<br />
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.<br />
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.<br />
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.<br />
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.<br />
#"In Your Eyes" by [[Peter Gabriel]]. Love and a thousand churches for those who are lost.<br />
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain... <br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. <br />
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.<br />
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.<br />
#"Revolution 1" by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.<br />
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.<br />
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref><br />
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!<br />
#"I Can't Drive 55", by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.<br />
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.<br />
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.<br />
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].<br />
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.<br />
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]<br />
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.<br />
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.<br />
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.<br />
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.<br />
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.<br />
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.<br />
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."<br />
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.<br />
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.<br />
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o "Yours Is No Disgrace"] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.<br />
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.<br />
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<br />
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.<br />
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.<br />
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.<br />
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.<br />
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.<br />
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".<br />
#"Eat Starch Mom" by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. "It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!"<br />
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref><br />
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.<br />
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.<br />
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].<br />
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.<br />
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.<br />
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".<br />
#"Under God" by [[Pat Boone]].<br />
#"Fortunate Son" by [[Credence Clearwater Revival]].<br />
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band. <br />
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<br />
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed"] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''<br />
#''Bullet the Blue Sky'', [[U2]]. "…women and children/Into the arms of America".<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Please add your best conservative picks.<br />
<br />
[[category:essay]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390481Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:19:04Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:<br />
#''Sweet Home Alabama'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.<br />
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. ''As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free.''<br />
#''My Love'' by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.<br />
#''Starting All Over Again'' by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.<br />
#''Thank You My Lord'' by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.<br />
#''I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)''. Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.<br />
#''Fast Car'' by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.<br />
#''You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)''. Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.<br />
#''In Your Eyes'' by [[Peter Gabriel]]. Love and a thousand churches for those who are lost.<br />
#''Pomp and Circumstance'' ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain... <br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= ''Jerusalem''] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q ''Brothers In Arms''] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. <br />
#''The Ascent of Stan'' by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former ''textbook hippie man'' who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.<br />
#''Brick'' by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.<br />
#''Revolution 1'' by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.<br />
#''Alive'' by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.<br />
#''Gotta Serve Somebody'' by [[Bob Dylan]]. ''It may be the devil or it may be the Lord.''<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref><br />
#''Stand By Your Man,'' by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!<br />
#''I Can't Drive 55'', by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.<br />
#''Jesus Take The Wheel'' by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.<br />
#''Red Barchetta'' by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.<br />
#''You Light Up My Life'' by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].<br />
#''Father of Mine'' by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.<br />
#''The Taxman'' by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, ''Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes.'' [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]<br />
#''Back in the U.S.A.'' by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.<br />
#''Government Cheese'' by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.<br />
#''Angry Young Man'' by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with ''his fist in the air and his head in the sand'' comes in for biting criticism.<br />
#''Gimme Back My Bullets'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.<br />
#''Let My People Go'' by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. ''How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait.'' An anti-protest song.<br />
#''Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun'' by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.<br />
#''Something For Nothing'' by [[Rush]]. ''You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free.''<br />
#''Neighborhood Bully'' by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.<br />
#''Get It Right the First Time'' by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.<br />
#''Only The Young'' by [[Journey]]. ''The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong''. An anthem for the Reagan Generation.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o ''Yours Is No Disgrace''] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.<br />
#''Fair Exchange'' and ''Sparks of the Tempest'' by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.<br />
#''In America'' by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<br />
#''Storm the Embassy'' by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.<br />
#''We Must Take America Back'' by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.<br />
#''Renegade'' by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.<br />
#''Capitalism'' by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.<br />
#''Unborn Child'' by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.<br />
#''Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)'' by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and ''the left-wing band with their head in the sand''.<br />
#''Eat Starch Mom'' by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. ''It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!''<br />
#''Last Kiss'' by [[Pearl Jam]]. ''Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world''<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref><br />
#''Love Me, I'm a Liberal'' by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.<br />
#''America USA'' by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.<br />
#''Red White and Blue'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].<br />
#''Simple Man'' by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.<br />
#''That Smell'' by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.<br />
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially ''Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)''.<br />
#''Under God'' by [[Pat Boone]].<br />
#''Fortunate Son'' by [[Credence Clearwater Revival]].<br />
#''Christmas Shoes'' by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band. <br />
#''God Bless the USA'' by Lee Greenwood.<br />
#''God Bless America'' Words and music by Irving Berlin.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU ''No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed''] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, ''This is the supper of the mighty one'', Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''<br />
#''Bullet the Blue Sky'', [[U2]]. ''…women and children/Into the arms of America''.<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Please add your best conservative picks.<br />
<br />
[[category:essay]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Songs&diff=390480Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs2008-02-18T20:18:04Z<p>MakeTomorrow: </p>
<hr />
<div>Conservative songs exist, and some are immensely popular. Here is our growing list:<br />
#"Sweet Home Alabama" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A response to hippie culture. Defends Southerners from stereo-typed attacks by Canadian liberal rocker Neil Young.<br />
#Lee Greenwood's rendition of [[Battle Hymn of the Republic]]. "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."<br />
#"My Love" by [[Petula Clark]]. Christian love in secular form.<br />
#"Starting All Over Again" by [[Petula Clark]]. Keep moving onward, even in the most difficult of times.<br />
#"Thank You My Lord" by [[Petula Clark]]. The title says it all.<br />
#"I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)". Its title says it all. The version by [[The Clash]] has a good tempo.<br />
#"Fast Car" by [[Tracy Chapman]]. Self-help with a criticism of alcohol.<br />
#"You Can't Hurry Love (You Just Have to Wait)". Abstinence for rock fans. The versions by [[The Supremes]] and [[Phil Collins]] were popular.<br />
#"In Your Eyes" by [[Peter Gabriel]]. Love and a thousand churches for those who are lost.<br />
#"Pomp and Circumstance" ([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOcvcBxrfN4 ''Land of Hope & Glory'']) By Freedom gain, by Truth maintain... <br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ0oCmDXrVk&mode=related&search= "Jerusalem"] Don't let the sword sleep in the hand.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wahd2piIr4Q "Brothers In Arms"] by [[Dire Straits]]. We're fools to make war on our brothers in arms. <br />
#"The Ascent of Stan" by [[Ben Folds]]. Tells the story of a former "textbook hippie man" who realizes that he has become everything that he was protesting against.<br />
#"Brick" by [[Ben Folds Five]]. Shows the regret involved in abortion.<br />
#"Revolution 1" by the [[Beatles]]: Against silly support of Communist revolutionaries.<br />
#"Alive" by [[P.O.D]].: About being thankful for the gift of life.<br />
#"Gotta Serve Somebody" by [[Bob Dylan]]. "It may be the devil or it may be the Lord."<ref>http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/serve.html</ref><br />
#"Stand By Your Man," by [[Tammy Wynette]]. Don't expect [[liberals]] to like that one!<br />
#"I Can't Drive 55", by [[Sammy Hagar]]. A libertarian protest against highway speed limits.<br />
#"Jesus Take The Wheel" by [[Carrie Underwood]]. A gospel-themed hit from the American Idol winner.<br />
#"Red Barchetta" by [[Rush]]. Tells the story of a future with excessive regulation, where even driving is illegal.<br />
#"You Light Up My Life" by [[Debbie Boone]]. One of the biggest hits ever, but [[liberals]] omit that this song is about [[Jesus]].<br />
#"Father of Mine" by [[Everclear]]. A reminder of the importance of good parenting. Everclear singer Art Alexakis wrote much of his material from his own perspective of a troubled childhood. At the end of the song, Alexakis promises to be a better father than his own had been.<br />
#"The Taxman" by [[The Beatles]]. George Harrison said, "Taxman was when I first realized that even though we had started earning money, we were actually giving most of it away in taxes." [http://home.att.net/~chuckayoub/Taxman_Lyrics.html]<br />
#"Back in the U.S.A." by [[Chuck Berry]]. A patriotic song about missing life in the U.S.A.<br />
#"Government Cheese" by [[The Rainmakers]]. Humorous spoof of welfare.<br />
#"Angry Young Man" by [[Billy Joel]]. The doctrinaire leftist radical with "his fist in the air and his head in the sand" comes in for biting criticism.<br />
#"Gimme Back My Bullets" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. The name says it all.<br />
#"Let My People Go" by [[The Pursuit of Happiness]]. "How will you free us with your hate? How many heads will smash when you smash the state? You say march, I think I'll wait." An anti-protest song.<br />
#"Don't Let 'Em Take Your Gun" by [[Grand Funk Railroad]]. A father gives his son some sage advice.<br />
#"Something For Nothing" by [[Rush]]. "You can't get something for nothing, you can't have freedom for free."<br />
#"Neighborhood Bully" by [[Bob Dylan]]. Israel's right to exist and defend itself.<br />
#"Get It Right the First Time" by [[Louisiana's Le Roux]]. Wealthy Georgia politician is placed in high office and turns out to be a puppet with no ideas of his own. Released in 1980 when Jimmy Carter was up for re-election.<br />
#"Only The Young" by [[Journey]]. "The shadows of a golden age, a generation waits for dawn, the brave carry on, the bold and the strong". An anthem for the Reagan Generation.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2UE5g72s0o "Yours Is No Disgrace"] by [[Yes]]. Written to, and about, the troops headed for Vietnam.<br />
#"Fair Exchange" and "Sparks of the Tempest" by [[Kansas (band)|Kansas]]. Warnings about totalitarian governments who want to take away your freedom in the name of utopia. Also much of their early 80s material, which has Christian lyrics.<br />
#"In America" by the [[Charlie Daniels]] Band. Patriotism makes a comeback in response to the Iran hostage crisis and Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<br />
#"Storm the Embassy" by the [[Stray Cats]]. Another conservative song about the Iran hostage crisis.<br />
#"We Must Take America Back" by [[Steve Vaus]]. Became an underground country music hit in 1992 after RCA dropped him and took the album out of print due to the political lyrics.<br />
#"Renegade" by [[Steppenwolf]]. John Kay's childhood escape from Communist East Germany.<br />
#"Capitalism" by [[Oingo Boingo]]. There's nothing wrong with free enterprise.<br />
#"Unborn Child" by [[Seals and Crofts]]. This pro-life song was a hit single in 1974, but for some reason gets left off the Seals and Crofts greatest hits albums.<br />
#"Bad Rap (Who You Tryin' To Kid, Kid?)" by [[Steve Taylor]]. Takes aim at LA and NY hipsters, the Village Voice, abortion, and "the left-wing band with their head in the sand".<br />
#"Eat Starch Mom" by [[Jefferson Airplane]]. A pleasant surprise from their last album in 1972 to say the least. An angry tirade against vegetarians and tree hugging health food nuts, and a celebration of muscle cars. "It'll move faster than you can, vegetable lover!"<br />
#"Last Kiss" by [[Pearl Jam]]. "Oh where oh where can my baby be; The Lord took her away from me; She's gone to heaven so I got to be good; So I can see my baby when I leave this world"<ref>http://www.songmeanings.net/lyric.php?lid=14</ref><br />
#"Love Me, I'm a Liberal" by [[Phil Ochs]]. Revealing Liberal hypocrisy for what it is.<br />
#"America USA" by [http://giveagiftofsong.com/products.htm]Joey Sudyka. Not very well known, perhaps, but a good patriotic song.<br />
#"Red White and Blue" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]].<br />
#"Simple Man" by Charlie Daniels. A song about how drugs and poor politics are a result of people putting their bibles down. Also a strongly pro death penalty song.<br />
#"That Smell" by [[Lynyrd Skynyrd]]. A very strong anti-drug use song by Americas most prestigious southern rock band.<br />
#Virtually anything by [[Toby Keith]], but especially "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue (The Angry American)".<br />
#"Under God" by [[Pat Boone]].<br />
#"Fortunate Son" by [[Credence Clearwater Revival]].<br />
#"Christmas Shoes" by NewSong - a Christmas song by a Christian band. <br />
#"God Bless the USA" by Lee Greenwood.<br />
#"God Bless America" Words and music by Irving Berlin.<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kZ0pA9REyU "No Opportunity Necessary, No Experience Needed"] [[Yes]] ''...I know your cross is heavier With every step Every step But I know a man who'd walk miles for you...''<br />
#[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCXiuqJ1E6g Supper'sReady] [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] ''There's an angel standing in the sun, and he's crying with a loud voice, "This is the supper of the mighty one", Lord of Lords, King of Kings, Has returned to lead his children home, To take them to the new Jerusalem.''<br />
#''Bullet the Blue Sky'', [[U2]]. "…women and children/Into the arms of America".<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
Please add your best conservative picks.<br />
<br />
[[category:essay]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Communism&diff=389308Communism2008-02-17T03:17:41Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Per talk page</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation .]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to oppress one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref> It is worth noting that no states of any magnitude have existed that strictly fulfilled the definition of "communist", although they have approached it with varying degrees of accuracy. Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist, presumably for propaganda purposes.<br />
<br />
==Theory==<br />
[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|right|300px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]] <br />
Communism is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. In many cases, members of the ruling party have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]). <br />
<br />
Various communist or quasi-communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].<br />
<br />
The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''. <br />
<br />
Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."<br />
<br />
==Communists cite scripture==<br />
<br />
Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good. Many anti-communist apologists have various responses to the viewpoints, of varying validity.<br />
<br />
==Demise of Communism==<br />
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].<br />
<br />
Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.<br />
<br />
President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said, <br />
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Notable communists==<br />
<br />
Notable communists include [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Friedrich Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Che Guevara]], and [[Fidel Castro]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Capitalism]]<br />
*[[Socialism]]<br />
*[[Nazism]]<br />
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Communism]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Communism&diff=388993Talk:Communism2008-02-16T18:57:27Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Discuss on talk page? */ Okay…</p>
<hr />
<div>==totalitarian nightmare==<br />
<br />
I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].<br />
<br />
Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth. <br />
<br />
Not that democracy is Heaven, but:<br />
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).<br />
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.<br />
<br />
Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.<br />
<br />
It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]]</sub> 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,<br />
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.<br />
<br />
Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture ==<br />
<br />
I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==<br />
<br />
(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)<br />
<br />
Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness. <br />
<br />
These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)<br />
<br />
:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people? <br />
<br />
:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism<br />
<br />
== Communist could be good ==<br />
<br />
Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture ==<br />
<br />
Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== very biased ==<br />
<br />
This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.<br />
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]<br />
<br />
:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== In bad shape ==<br />
<br />
From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):<br />
<blockquote><br />
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?<br />
<br />
::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.<br />
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::No,it's not like that.<br />
<br />
:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.<br />
<br />
:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.<br />
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.<br />
<br />
Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Communism / China ==<br />
<br />
Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:But we don't have agendas....<br />
<br />
TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better. <br />
<br />
My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!<br />
<br />
Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.<br />
<br />
So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Marxism vs. Communism==<br />
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!<br />
<br />
:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society. <br />
<br />
:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages? <br />
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks. <br />
<br />
Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress. <br />
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them. <br />
<br />
<br />
You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"<br />
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect. <br />
<br />
There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}<br />
<br />
:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.<br />
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here. <br />
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here. <br />
<br />
One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''<br />
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.<br />
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''<br />
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''<br />
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.<br />
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.<br />
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world. <br />
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information. <br />
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.<br />
<br />
The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind. <br />
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes? <br />
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq. <br />
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...<br />
:Vietnam was a Republican war?<br />
<br />
How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for. <br />
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?<br />
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....<br />
<br />
You should be ashamed of yourself.<br />
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==<br />
<br />
Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..." <br />
<br />
The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !<br />
<br />
One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}<br />
<br />
:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]<br />
<br />
::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]<br />
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.<br />
<br />
:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.<br />
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.<br />
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Get your facts straight! ==<br />
<br />
When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}<br />
<br />
:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==<br />
<br />
I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.<br />
<br />
I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.<br />
<br />
-Xenophon<br />
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.<br />
<br />
:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?<br />
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Category ==<br />
<br />
I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This article is a load of crap ==<br />
<br />
A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}<br />
:Rasch da, rasch!<br><br />
:Dann rührt euch von hin,<br><br />
:das du mir schafft!<br><br />
:Fort in die Schacht!<br><br />
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul!<br><br />
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}<br />
<br />
::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of <br/><br/>"Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]<br />
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Section Break===<br />
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<blockquote><br />
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':<br />
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,<br />
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<blockquote><br />
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].<br />
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,<br />
::''Evil people kill people''<br />
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<blockquote><br />
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]<br />
</blockquote><br />
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
----<br />
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.<br />
<br />
:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.<br />
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.<br />
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean. <br />
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Exaggeration in the Introduction==<br />
<br />
Cut:<br />
<br />
:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.<br />
<br />
This is a mixture of truth and fiction:<br />
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money<br />
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory<br />
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned<br />
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars<br />
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]<br />
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights<br />
<br />
In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.<br />
<br />
It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.<br />
<br />
[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Re-write Opening Sentence==<br />
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."<br />
<br />
That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}} <br />
<br />
*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions. <br />
<br />
My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.<br />
<br />
Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.<br />
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}<br />
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==<br />
<br />
I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<--<br />
<br />
Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):<br />
<br />
:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."<br />
<br />
:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential <br />
<br />
:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."<br />
<br />
:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"<br />
<br />
:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.<br />
<br />
[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "<br />
<br />
:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society." <br />
<br />
:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 65- 100 million people killed ==<br />
<br />
I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this : <br />
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."<br />
<br />
:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Employment ==<br />
<br />
Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==<br />
<br />
Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.<br />
<br />
:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :<br />
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}} <br />
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first. <br />
<br />
To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports, <br />
<br />
::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."<br />
<br />
::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine." <br />
<br />
:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
*Exactly so. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==<br />
<br />
Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.<br />
<br />
Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.<br />
<br />
Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other. <br />
<br />
Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?<br />
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?<br />
<br />
:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.<br />
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''<br />
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"<br />
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his <b>work</b>, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007<br />
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]<br />
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]<br />
<br />
::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}<br />
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.<br />
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}<br />
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] <br /><br /><br />
--<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress? <br />
<br />
::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Capital Letters==<br />
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}<br />
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==<br />
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[[Image:lol.gif]]<br />
--<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Am I, y'know… ==<br />
<br />
…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|<font color="#ff0000">Angry</font><font color="#000000">Communist</font>]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==<br />
<br />
Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?<br />
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Discuss on talk page? ==<br />
<br />
I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'll take that as a "yes". --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:57, 16 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:TerryH&diff=388899User talk:TerryH2008-02-16T15:17:48Z<p>MakeTomorrow: CreationWiki</p>
<hr />
<div>Talk to me! Am I right? Wrong? Any suggestions? --[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_1|Archive 1]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive2|Archive 2]]<br />
*[[User_talk:TerryH/Archive_3|Archive 3]]<br />
<br />
== Administrative Office ==<br />
The door is always open. Please place questions, suggestions, complaints, ''et cetera'', here.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 13:50, 6 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think you're right and glad you ain't left. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Instead of typing out <tt>'''<nowiki><nowiki>{{Essay}}</nowiki></nowiki>'''</tt>, you can instead type <tt>'''<nowiki>{{tl|Essay}}</nowiki>'''</tt>. This is less effort and produces a similar result, except that it includes a link to the template: {{tl|Essay}}.<br />
<br />
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:18, 18 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 66.212.16.194 ==<br />
<br />
I may be wrong about this, and this may be encyclopedia policy, but I noticed you banned [[User:66.212.16.194]] for an infinite period of time. It seems somewhat illogical to ban an IP address infinitely, because somebody else may end up with that IP and be unable to create an account.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:37, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:That's not how IP addresses work. A little probabilistic math ought to convince anyone that the hazard you describe is a virtual non-issue.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 20:46, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::You're correct, I guess. I was thinking of the way they do it on Wikipedia, but I guess Conservapedia isn't popular enough for this to be an issue.--[[User:Tmcfulton|Tmcfulton]] 20:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==[[Jesse MacBeth]]==<br />
The phony soldier himself. All we need is a pic. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 06:04, 25 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Reply ==<br />
<br />
Capitalism essentially becomes the practice of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. I do not see why the failure of one or two states that pretended to be communist so they could garner the support of the masses makes capitalism any less abhorrent. And Terry, spouting the occasional occasional fragment of fortune-cookie wisdom does not improve your argument, nor does it compensate for the unequivocally unamicable tone of your response. I mean no offense, I simply didn't expect to be greeted with such open hostility in response to what was intended as a partially fatuous comment. --[[User:AngryCommunist|<font color="#ff0000">Angry</font><font color="#000000">Communist</font>]] 23:03, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:You are too late. My opinion of Communism is obviously widely shared. And if it is "unamicable" to say that Communism is bad, then you will see in me the least amicable person you are likely ever to meet on the Internet. Let that suffice.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 07:27, 5 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Examples of Bias in Wikipedia ==<br />
<br />
I know I'm new here and I haven't made many edits, but could you please give me an explanation for [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia&diff=366421&oldid=366407 reverting] my edit to [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]? I didn't delete that example just because I felt like it. One of the sources in the Wikipedia article really does mention something about extrapolation, making our allegation false. I'm not trying to censor anything, I just don't want this site filled with the same kind of lies and inaccuracies that pervade Wikipedia. Best, [[User:Gillespie|Gillespie]] 22:36, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Explain what? Do you deny it?<br />
:Do you deny that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than is the American public?<br />
:In fact, [[Jimbo Wales]] is proud of that statistic. Proud! He seems to think that we "Yanks" are too busy playing cowboys and Indians to be truly enlightened.<br />
:If you are prepared to show that that entry is in error--show me. Do it on the Talk page of the article in question, so that everybody who takes as active an interest as I do, will see it as well.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 23:29, 9 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Schlafly ==<br />
You objected to speculation, I removed it. Now you are censoring my opinion in violation of the Conservapedia Commandments. [[User:MatthewHopkins|MatthewHopkins]] 11:35, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
==Help!==<br />
Hey Terry - I hate to have to ask - but I saw that your online and you had just done a template a bit ago, so I assume you're good with templates. Would you mind helping me out on [[Template:USState]]? I can't get it to work properly - I think the problem is {{tl|!-}}. Thanks--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Oh btw - see the talk page for the visual on the problem--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:39, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
Oh hey - I figured it out! It was just a weird thing with the spacing - I'll fix it now--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:49, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Well now the only problem is that there's a ton of spaces under "capital" if the parameters aren't filled in - but hopefully I can figure out how to fix this - thanks for your help--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:52, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== CreationWiki ==<br />
<br />
Is there something wrong with CreationWiki right now? That seems to happen a lot; it's been going on for several weeks in a row now. I try to access the site and it always tells me "Internet Explorer Cannot display the webpage". I figured you'd know something since you're an admin, please help me out here '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 09:52, 14 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks! I was getting kind of worried there. I Pray it's up again soon. '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 21:18, 14 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I'm hearing a lot of crap about the God of the OT being infanticidal. How should I respond? '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 10:00, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, they're talking about God's directives for the Israelites' enemies. "Why would God command them to kill the babies too?" (God tells them to kill the men, women and children and animals) '''<font color="#FFCC00">Scorp</font><font color="#773300">ion</font>'''<sup>[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]]</sup> 10:12, 16 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Headline text ==<br />
Terry, it's a lot quicker to go look at my contributions, hit the "rollback" button, then hit "back" on your browser and go up the list. By the way, ask Andy if he got my email yet! --[[User:HelpfultipsforTerryH|HelpfultipsforTerryH]] 12:00, 15 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Hai ==<br />
<br />
Terry,<br />
<br />
Those last two ethereal apparitions of vandals were not me, but I totally endorse what they did. Seems as though I have some admirers!<br />
<br />
In regards to the second vandal's tips, it's sound advice. I'd feel sorry for you (that's a lie - maybe a small bit of pity, of definitely not sorry) if one of those WillyOnWheels vandals from last year showed up when you were the only sysop on patrol. Advice is advice, take it from where you can. But, in your defense, it is hard to teach an <s>old dog</s> dinosaur new tricks.<br />
<br />
Also, consider archiving those two pages.<br />
<br />
You should be looking forward to the next RDubya project - It's an article which systematically compares Conservapedia to your very own definition of extremism! I can't wait for it to be the shining gem of the internet.<br />
<br />
By the way, please tell Andy to check his email - I have an important message waiting for him.<br />
<br />
Please feel free to email me, the link on my deleted userpage should still be active.<br />
<br />
Regards,<br />
-Hojimachong<br />
<br />
== CreationWiki ==<br />
<br />
Re-install MediaWiki. I use PHP5 on my Mac with Apache2 to run the software for my personal use, and have never had a problem. I understand the base is heavily hacked, but that's life. Alternatively, you might want to consider replacing all of the <code>include</code> directives with <code>include_once</code> directives. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 10:17, 16 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Wilson_Reagan&diff=388619Ronald Wilson Reagan2008-02-16T03:49:23Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Governor of California */ Corrected formatting</p>
<hr />
<div>{{President<br />
|image=Aaag.jpg<br />
|seq=40<br />
|term_start=January 20, 1981<br />
|term_end=January 20, 1989<br />
|party=Republican<br />
|vp=George H. W. Bush<br />
|previous=Jimmy Carter<br />
|next=George H. W. Bush<br />
|birth_date=February 6, 1911<br />
|birth_place=Tampico, Illinois, USA<br />
|death_date=June 5, 2004<br />
|death_place=Bel Air, California<br />
|spouse=Jane Wyman<br />
|spouse2= Nancy Davis Reagan<br />
|religion=Presbyterian<br />
}}<br />
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and helping bring about the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with the Democratic Speaker of the House, [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.<br />
<br />
==Early Life==<br />
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of athletics and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during World War II, but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of "War Bonds".<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref><br />
<br />
Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the Screen Actors Guild. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to ever lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950's, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan, wrote: ''Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from Hollywood, he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement.'' Reagan met his second wife, actress Nancy Davis, when she ended up on the "Black List" and came to him for help.<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]</ref><br />
<br />
==Governor of California==<br />
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, succeeding [[Pat Brown]]. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by [[Jerry Brown]]. Events and achievements during his terms included:<br />
<br />
*Called in the National Guard to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restoring order to California's chaotic University campuses. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048] Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley <ref>University of California, Berkeley - Police Department. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048 History Topic: People's Park] August 2006</ref>, saying "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with."<ref> ''San Francisco Chronicle'', early morning edition, May 15 1969</ref> In the resulting chaos, police used fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.<br />
<br />
*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.<br />
<br />
*Working well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.<br />
<br />
*Opposing the Dos Rios Dam.<br />
<br />
==Presidency==<br />
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]<br />
In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election, he received 50.75% of the popular vote and 90.9% of the electoral.<br />
<br />
Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).<br />
<br />
In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]] with the help of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] and [[Pope John Paul II]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by not being able to compete with defense spending.<ref>[http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/agathon/2661_8.htm#7867The Demise of the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization], " The party leadership gradually came to understand that the sustaining of domestic [[perestroika]] in the USSR was endangered by the inability of an inefficient economy to carry the burdens of excessive overseas military spending in the form of the Warsaw Pact".</ref><br />
<br />
===Economy===<br />
Fueled by an over spending Congress that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. The economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of GDP lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation.<br />
<br />
===Foreign policy===<br />
Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative became popularly known as "Star Wars," the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular George Lucas films. This plan was never actually fully instituted. Although billions of dollars have been spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully until 2006. While many academics claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount. However, it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref><br />
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]]<br />
Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
===Soviet Union===<br />
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref><br />
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]<br />
A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet [[CPSU]] General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref><br />
<br />
By the late 80s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref><br />
<br />
===[[Containment]] and the [[Iran]]ian initiative===<br />
<br />
In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980 Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.<br />
<br />
The objective of the plan was fourfold:<br />
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West; <br />
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;<br />
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which and become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]]; <br />
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].<br />
<br />
There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the Iran-Iraq War had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet inspired subversion which had in the decade of the 80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices and influence hostage takers in Lebanon who had held several Western prisoners, many of the Christian Missionaries, for several years.<br />
<br />
Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] who's [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the Boleyn Amendment forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.<br />
<br />
This operation was known as the "Iran-Contra Affair." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications had had been on in that period.<br />
<br />
==Cold War victory==<br />
Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing [''[[perestroika]]''] and [''[[glasnost]]''] as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one. One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending [[optimism]] that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra [[confidence]] to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.<br />
<br />
Columnist [[Cal Thomas]] wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive [[demonstration]]s in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet threat]], Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Brian Mulroney]], the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw [[Soviet communism]] as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the [[industrialize]]d democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
*Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan paid tribute to the fallen president in a recent ''Wall Street Journal editorial''. In it, Noonan noted: "Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an ‘empire,’ because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid."<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref><br />
<br />
== Retirement & Alzheimer's ==<br />
<br />
==Miscellaneous Facts==<br />
*Reagan was the first and only labor leader and former President of an AFL-CIO union ever elected US President.<br />
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.<br />
*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref><br />
*Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]"<br />
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.<br />
*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California.<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref><br />
*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.<br />
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan portrait out of jelly beans].<br />
*His speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] is a columnist for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.<br />
<br />
== Quotes ==<br />
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983<br />
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985<br />
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br />
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990 <br />
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985<br />
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br />
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982 <br />
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the founding fathers many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973<br />
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - Oct. 16, 1973<br />
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for Reagan's response to the shoot down by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people on board, on Sept. 1. 1983.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']<br />
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]<br />
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]<br />
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]<br />
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]<br />
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]<br />
[[Category: United States Governors]]<br />
{{USPresidents}}</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Wilson_Reagan&diff=388471Ronald Wilson Reagan2008-02-15T22:22:51Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Governor of California */ Added ref</p>
<hr />
<div>{{President<br />
|image=Aaag.jpg<br />
|seq=40<br />
|term_start=January 20, 1981<br />
|term_end=January 20, 1989<br />
|party=Republican<br />
|vp=George H. W. Bush<br />
|previous=Jimmy Carter<br />
|next=George H. W. Bush<br />
|birth_date=February 6, 1911<br />
|birth_place=Tampico, Illinois, USA<br />
|death_date=June 5, 2004<br />
|death_place=Bel Air, California<br />
|spouse=Jane Wyman<br />
|spouse2= Nancy Davis Reagan<br />
|religion=Presbyterian<br />
}}<br />
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and helping bring about the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with the Democratic Speaker of the House, [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.<br />
<br />
==Early Life==<br />
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of athletics and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during World War II, but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of "War Bonds".<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref><br />
<br />
Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the Screen Actors Guild. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to ever lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950's, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan, wrote: ''Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from Hollywood, he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement.'' Reagan met his second wife, actress Nancy Davis, when she ended up on the "Black List" and came to him for help.<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]</ref><br />
<br />
==Governor of California==<br />
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, succeeding [[Pat Brown]]. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by [[Jerry Brown]]. Events and achievements during his terms included:<br />
<br />
*Called in the National Guard to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restoring order to California's chaotic University campuses. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048] Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley<ref>http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/06/08_reagan.shtml</ref>, saying "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with." In the resulting chaos, police used fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.<br />
<br />
*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.<br />
<br />
*Working well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.<br />
<br />
*Opposing the Dos Rios Dam.<br />
<br />
==Presidency==<br />
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]<br />
In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election, he received 50.75% of the popular vote and 90.9% of the electoral.<br />
<br />
Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).<br />
<br />
In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]] with the help of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] and [[Pope John Paul II]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by not being able to compete with defense spending.<ref>[http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/agathon/2661_8.htm#7867The Demise of the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization], " The party leadership gradually came to understand that the sustaining of domestic [[perestroika]] in the USSR was endangered by the inability of an inefficient economy to carry the burdens of excessive overseas military spending in the form of the Warsaw Pact".</ref><br />
<br />
===Economy===<br />
Fueled by an over spending Congress that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. The economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of GDP lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation.<br />
<br />
===Foreign policy===<br />
Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative became popularly known as "Star Wars," the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular George Lucas films. This plan was never actually fully instituted. Although billions of dollars have been spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully until 2006. While many academics claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount. However, it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref><br />
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]]<br />
Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
===Soviet Union===<br />
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref><br />
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]<br />
A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet [[CPSU]] General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref><br />
<br />
By the late 80s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref><br />
<br />
===[[Containment]] and the [[Iran]]ian initiative===<br />
<br />
In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980 Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.<br />
<br />
The objective of the plan was fourfold:<br />
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West; <br />
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;<br />
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which and become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]]; <br />
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].<br />
<br />
There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the Iran-Iraq War had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet inspired subversion which had in the decade of the 80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices and influence hostage takers in Lebanon who had held several Western prisoners, many of the Christian Missionaries, for several years.<br />
<br />
Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] who's [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the Boleyn Amendment forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.<br />
<br />
This operation was known as the "Iran-Contra Affair." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications had had been on in that period.<br />
<br />
==Cold War victory==<br />
Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing [''[[perestroika]]''] and [''[[glasnost]]''] as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one. One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending [[optimism]] that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra [[confidence]] to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.<br />
<br />
Columnist [[Cal Thomas]] wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive [[demonstration]]s in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet threat]], Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Brian Mulroney]], the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw [[Soviet communism]] as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the [[industrialize]]d democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
*Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan paid tribute to the fallen president in a recent ''Wall Street Journal editorial''. In it, Noonan noted: "Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an ‘empire,’ because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid."<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref><br />
<br />
== Retirement & Alzheimer's ==<br />
<br />
==Miscellaneous Facts==<br />
*Reagan was the first and only labor leader and former President of an AFL-CIO union ever elected US President.<br />
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.<br />
*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref><br />
*Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]"<br />
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.<br />
*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California.<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref><br />
*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.<br />
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan portrait out of jelly beans].<br />
*His speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] is a columnist for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.<br />
<br />
== Quotes ==<br />
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983<br />
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985<br />
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br />
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990 <br />
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985<br />
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br />
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982 <br />
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the founding fathers many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973<br />
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - Oct. 16, 1973<br />
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for Reagan's response to the shoot down by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people on board, on Sept. 1. 1983.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']<br />
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]<br />
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]<br />
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]<br />
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]<br />
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]<br />
[[Category: United States Governors]]<br />
{{USPresidents}}</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Wilson_Reagan&diff=388469Ronald Wilson Reagan2008-02-15T22:21:20Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Governor of California */ He was a good man, and a good President, but he was not a saint.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{President<br />
|image=Aaag.jpg<br />
|seq=40<br />
|term_start=January 20, 1981<br />
|term_end=January 20, 1989<br />
|party=Republican<br />
|vp=George H. W. Bush<br />
|previous=Jimmy Carter<br />
|next=George H. W. Bush<br />
|birth_date=February 6, 1911<br />
|birth_place=Tampico, Illinois, USA<br />
|death_date=June 5, 2004<br />
|death_place=Bel Air, California<br />
|spouse=Jane Wyman<br />
|spouse2= Nancy Davis Reagan<br />
|religion=Presbyterian<br />
}}<br />
'''Ronald Wilson Reagan '''(February 6, 1911- June 5, 2004), considered by many to be one of the greatest American Presidents, was the 40th [[President of the United States of America]] from 1981 to 1989, following [[Democrat]] [[Jimmy Carter]] and preceding [[Republican]] [[George H. W. Bush]]. Ronald Reagan is credited with leading America peacefully through the Cold War, lowering taxes, promoting a free economy, and helping bring about the end of [[communism]] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. He was known affectionately to Americans as "The Gipper," harking back to a film where he was cast as All-American George Gip.<ref>[http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
In one of his most famous challenges to Soviet communism in Europe, Reagan gave a speech in front of the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin in which he said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Reagan's economic policies became known as "Reaganomics" based on the idea that tax cuts will spur savings and investment. Reagan was strongly opposed to the concept of big government, advocating a reduction in the size and budget of the federal government. During his terms in office, he faced a divided Congress split between Republican and Democratic control for six of his eight years as President. Reagan was known for forging alliances with the Democratic Speaker of the House, [[Tip O'Neill]], among others, to effectively pass legislation.<br />
<br />
==Early Life==<br />
Reagan was born and raised in Illinois and attended Eureka College, where he quickly developed a reputation as a "jack of all trades", excelling in the areas of athletics and theater. In his first year at Eureka, where Reagan earned a degree in economics, the president of the college tried to cut back the faculty. Reagan immediately helped organize a student strike. Reagan enlisted in the military during World War II, but his eyesight was not good enough for combat duty. He used his acting skills to make military training films and promote the sale of "War Bonds".<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/05/reagan.obit/index.html</ref><br />
<br />
Reagan became a radio sports announcer, and then a famous actor, leading the Screen Actors Guild. Ironically, Reagan was thus the only president to ever lead a [[labor union]], traditionally considered bastions of liberalism. Reagan himself was a registered Democrat well into the 1950's, but as head of the Screen Actors Guild he fought against communist infiltration. Peggy Noonan, wrote: ''Even in his zeal to purge the communist influence from Hollywood, he fought those who engaged in witch hunts and defended those who had been falsely accused of involvement.'' Reagan met his second wife, actress Nancy Davis, when she ended up on the "Black List" and came to him for help.<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2001/11/17/noonan_when_character_was_king]</ref><br />
<br />
==Governor of California==<br />
In 1966, he was elected the 33rd Governor of California, succeeding [[Pat Brown]]. In 1970, he was re-elected. But in 1974, he chose not to seek a third term and was succeeded by [[Jerry Brown]]. Events and achievements during his terms included:<br />
<br />
*Called in the National Guard to restore order when People's Park protesters began attacking police, and restoring order to California's chaotic University campuses. [http://police.berkeley.edu/about_UCPD/ucpdhistory.html#anchor178048] Reagan authorized the use of violent force against the peaceful protesters in Berkeley,{{fact}} saying "If there has to be a bloodbath, then let's get it over with." In the resulting chaos, police used fired buckshot into the crowd, fatally wounding one bystander and blinding another, and injuring hundreds of others.<br />
<br />
*Led a comprehensive and far-reaching revision of California's massive public assistance programs, actually increasing benefits to the truly needy.<br />
<br />
*Working well with the Democrats to forge consensus on a variety of issues.<br />
<br />
*Opposing the Dos Rios Dam.<br />
<br />
==Presidency==<br />
[[Image:Reaganfamily-red-rr-.jpg|left|thumb|275px|President & Mrs. Reagan with their extended family.]]<br />
In 1968, Reagan was a late candidate for president in the Republican primaries. However, [[Richard Nixon]] easily won that nomination. In 1976, Reagan challenged Gerald Ford for the Republican nomination, before withdrawing his name from consideration. Reagan knew if he continued, he would take the nomination away from Ford, and forever be branded as a Party spoiler. This he did not want, so he signaled his wish to be removed from consideration, and gave a very effective speech at the convention in support of Ford. Then, in 1980, he beat [[George H. W. Bush]] in the Republican primaries, and went on to oppose [[Jimmy Carter]] (incumbent) in the general election with G.H.W. Bush as his running mate. A poor economy and the incumbent's failing to deal with several international crises aided Reagan. As he put it, "I'm told I can't use the word depression. Well, I'll tell you the definition. A recession is when your neighbor loses his job; depression is when you lose your job. Recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." In the general election, he received 50.75% of the popular vote and 90.9% of the electoral.<br />
<br />
Once in office, Reagan showed he was playing hardball. When the Federal [[Air Traffic Controllers]] struck illegally, Reagan gave them 48 hours before he fired all who hadn't gone back to work (11,359).<br />
<br />
In 1984, Reagan won 49 out of 50 states' electoral votes, and the largest public vote in almost 100 years, 58.77%. During his second term, he helped end the [[Cold War]] with the help of [[Mikhail Gorbachev]] and [[Pope John Paul II]] by recognizing the weakness of the Soviet economy, and spent them out of existence by not being able to compete with defense spending.<ref>[http://www.valt.helsinki.fi/agathon/2661_8.htm#7867The Demise of the Brezhnev Doctrine and the Dismantling of the Warsaw Treaty Organization], " The party leadership gradually came to understand that the sustaining of domestic [[perestroika]] in the USSR was endangered by the inability of an inefficient economy to carry the burdens of excessive overseas military spending in the form of the Warsaw Pact".</ref><br />
<br />
===Economy===<br />
Fueled by an over spending Congress that steadfastly refused Reagan's budget proposals, the national debt increased 160% during his two terms in office. The economic growth that resulted from tax cuts made deficits as a percentage of GDP lower than what they had been in during the previous decade of stagflation.<br />
<br />
===Foreign policy===<br />
Reagan's 1983 Strategic Defense Initiative became popularly known as "Star Wars," the name given to it by critics because they thought it was pure fantasy like the popular George Lucas films. This plan was never actually fully instituted. Although billions of dollars have been spent on development, no space-based missile defense was tested successfully until 2006. While many academics claim SDI gave the United States a large amount of leverage in its standoff with the [[Soviet Union]], many political scientists and historians note that Star Wars played a secondary role in the calculus of Soviet policy-making, where internal structural problems were paramount. However, it should be noted that the threat the Soviet Union felt from the initiative was instrumental in making them step-up negotiations, according to many involved with diplomacy at the time. [[Henry Kissinger]] wrote: ''I know it's an axiomatic view of the Left around the world that missile defense is sinful, and that it's desirable to keep each nation as vulnerable as possible. But that's a debatable premise. The U.S. must defend itself against ''whoever'' has missiles that would threaten the United States. And you don't have to be able to name an enemy.''<ref>[http://www.doublestandards.org/dreifus1.html]</ref><br />
[[Image:300px-ReaganBerlinWall.jpg|right|275px|thumb|"Mr.Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"]]<br />
Upon his death, Margaret Thatcher commented: ''As Prime Minister, I worked closely with Ronald Reagan for eight of the most important years of all our lives. We talked regularly both before and after his presidency. And I have had time and cause to reflect on what made him a great president. Ronald Reagan knew his own mind. He had firm principles - and, I believe, right ones. He expounded them clearly, he acted upon them decisively. When the world threw problems at the White House, he was not baffled, or disorientated, or overwhelmed. He knew almost instinctively what to do. When his aides were preparing option papers for his decision, they were able to cut out entire rafts of proposals that they knew 'the Old Man' would never wear. When his allies came under Soviet or domestic pressure, they could look confidently to Washington for firm leadership. And when his enemies tested American resolve, they soon discovered that his resolve was firm and unyielding. Yet his ideas, though clear, were never simplistic. He saw the many sides of truth. Yes, he warned that the Soviet Union had an insatiable drive for military power and territorial expansion; but he also sensed it was being eaten away by systemic failures impossible to reform. Yes, he did not shrink from denouncing Moscow's 'evil empire'. But he realized that a man of goodwill might nonetheless emerge from within its dark corridors. So the President resisted Soviet expansion and pressed down on Soviet weakness at every point until the day came when communism began to collapse beneath the combined weight of these pressures and its own failures. And when a man of goodwill did emerge from the ruins, President Reagan stepped forward to shake his hand and to offer sincere cooperation. Nothing was more typical of Ronald Reagan than that large-hearted magnanimity - and nothing was more American.''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/thatcher.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
===Soviet Union===<br />
Shortly after taking office in 1981 Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive 11-82, (NSDD 11-82), that explicitly made U.S. defense spending a form of economic warfare against the Soviets. The United States would "exploit and demonstrate the enduring economic advantages of the West to develop a variety of [arms] systems that are difficult for the Soviets to counter, impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition and obsolesce previous Soviet investment or employ sophisticated strategic options to achieve this end. Reagan's [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (SDI), or "Star Wars" as the media referred to it, was a costly high tech research and development program designed to make arms spending a "rising burden on the Soviet economy."<ref>Peter Schweizer , [http://www.reason.com/news/show/28929.html ''Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism''], New York: Doubleday, 2002.</ref><br />
[[Image:Photo 4 250.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Reagan and Gorbachev at Reykjavik]]<br />
A report by the CIA of the critical domestic economic problems and social discontent Soviet [[CPSU]] General Secretary Gorbachev provided a look what the sources of his principal dilemma-the very reforms needed to deal with the problems would threaten preservation of the [[nomenklatura]] and put at risk Gorbachev’s ability to maintain the power to bring about [[Perestroika]].<ref>CIA Assessments of the Soviet Union: [https://www.cia.gov/csi/monograph/russia/enter.html Chapter 5, Enter Gorbachev ], Douglas J. MacEachin, CIA Publications, 1996.</ref> Gorbachev requested a Summit with Reagan in Reykjavik in October 1986 to discuss the stresses competition from the Reagan’s defense posture was having on Soviet military spending and economy, and Gorbachev’s ability to carryout his plans of restructuring Communist control. Gorbachev told the [[Politburo]] in preparation for the Summit, "Our goal is to prevent the next round of arms race. If we do not do this ... will pulled into an arms race beyond our power, and we will lose this race, for we are presently at the limit of out capabilities."<ref>Notes of Politburo Meeting 4 October 1986, [http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ Gorbachev's instructions for the group preparing for Reykjavik]</ref><br />
<br />
By the late 80s, the Soviet Union began unilateral force cuts and troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe, and by May 1989 an unprecedented series of disclosures by senior Soviet officials revealed actual reductions in defense spending for the 1986-1990 and 1991-1995 Five Year Plan periods.<ref> Christopher Wilkinson NATO Review, [http://www.nato.int/docu/review/1991/9102-4.htm Soviet Defense Spending], NATO's Economics Directorate No. 2 - April 1991, Vol. 39 p. 16-22</ref> Genrikh Grofimenko, a former adviser to [[Leonid Brezhnev]], said "Ninety-nine percent of the Russian people believe that [the US] won the Cold War because of your president's insistence on SDI".<ref>Peter Schweizer, ''Reagan’s War''.</ref><br />
<br />
===[[Containment]] and the [[Iran]]ian initiative===<br />
<br />
In 1985, after Reagan won reelection to his second term, the focus turned from reviving the domestic economy to several foreign policy matters which had been lingering throughout the decade. One such matter involved Iran, a long time ally of the Western Allies since 1941 that had experienced an Islamic Revolution in 1979 after President Carter announced [[Human Rights]] had superseded [[Containment]] as the primary focus of American foreign policy. Since 1980 Iran had been enmeshed in a brutal trench war with neighboring Iraq which was emerging as a potent military threat in the region to other allies. Members of the National Security Council staff, along with CIA Director [[William Casey]], persuaded Reagan much could be gained and several problems could be addressed simultaneously with an overture to Iran to restore relations.<br />
<br />
The objective of the plan was fourfold:<br />
#Take steps to restore good relations with the [[Islamic Republic of Iran]] which was becoming increasingly hostile to the West; <br />
#Take measures to convince Iran that Israel could become a friend and ally;<br />
#Insurance against Iraq becoming too strong which and become a threat to [[Kuwait]] or [[Saudi Arabia]]; <br />
#Provide funding for other operations to continue the policy of containment in the Western Hemisphere, most notably [[Nicaragua]], and the violence the Soviet/Cuban/Nicaragua connection was creating in [[El Salvador]] and [[Honduras]].<br />
<br />
There were humanitarian aspects to the proposal as well; (1) the Iran-Iraq War had stalemated for nearly six years and Reagan was advised that he was in the unique position as President to help facilitate bringing a senseless war with much suffering to an end; (2) the suffering of the people of the Central American Republics at the hands of Soviet inspired subversion which had in the decade of the 80s established a beachhead in North America; (3) Iran perhaps could be persuaded to use its good offices and influence hostage takers in Lebanon who had held several Western prisoners, many of the Christian Missionaries, for several years.<br />
<br />
Reports had filtered back to Reagan that children as young as nine years old had been used by Iran to clear minefields.<ref>[http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/iran-iraq.htm Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), ''Iraqi Retreats, 1982-84''], Globalsecurity.org, retrieved 20 March 2007.</ref> In weighing Iraq's delicate Sunni/Shia balance and the growing threat of Iranian-sponsored terrorism, the NSC staff and Casey recognized the dangers of an Iraqi collapse as well as the urgent need to dissuade Iran from continuing its ruthless and inhumane tactics.<ref>[http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/iraq53.pdf NSDD 139, 5 April 1984].</ref><br />
<br />
The [[Boland amendment]], a Vietnam era-style Congressional impingement on the legitimate foreign policy prerogatives of the Executive via the power of the purse, was used to deny Reagan's recommitment to the [[Truman Doctrine]] which had been adhered to by every President, Democratic and Republican alike since Truman, with the exception of [[President Carter]] who's [[human rights]] policy had brought one of the active belligerents, the [[Ayatollah Khomeini]], to power. In three of the active Soviet fronts, [[Afghanistan]], [[Nicaragua]], and [[El Salvador]], some Congressional Democratic leaders were openly sympathetic to Soviet foreign policy.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/591eifow.asp ''One Weekend in April, A Long Time Ago ... What John Kerry thought about the Sandinista in Nicaragua''], Hugh Hewitt, The Weekly Standard, 09/09/2004.</ref><ref>[http://web.archive.org/web/20060331222819/www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/6/7/234527.shtml ''Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan''] Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff, 7 June 2004.</ref> So the decision was made to fund [[Containment]] of Soviet objectives on an active front in North America with sales of TOW missiles to Iran. Israel provided the TOWs because the Boleyn Amendment forbade direct US funding and it was a welcome opportunity for Israel to build bridges to a much needed friend in the Middle East.<br />
<br />
This operation was known as the "Iran-Contra Affair." After word got out about the operation in November 1986, investigations were made, leading to the convictions of several members of the Reagan administration. President Reagan himself testified before the Tower Commission that he had poor recollection of the details of the operation due in part to the heavy pain medications had had been on in that period.<br />
<br />
==Cold War victory==<br />
Reagan is credited for ending the [[Cold War]] in victory for the United States. Historian Tony Judt in ''Postwar'' credits Soviet leader [[Mikhail Gorbachev]], while the political scientist Jan Kubik presents a viewpoint that credits [[Pope John Paul II]].<ref>[http://praguepost.com/articles/2007/02/28/letters-to-the-editor.php]</ref> Other historians contend structural weaknesses within the Communist bloc meant Reagan's actions were inconsequential to the end of [[communism]]. This is the view adopted by [[Russia]]ns themselves, and many political historians, citing [''[[perestroika]]''] and [''[[glasnost]]''] as beginning an inevitable slow fading of central power, and a collapse by irreconcilable differences between the central Soviet [[Politburo]] and the constituent republics, especially the [[Ukraine]].<ref>David Remnick, "Lenin's Tomb</ref> In the end, the consensus seems to point to all of the above, that hastened the demise of the Soviet Union; Internal factors, religious pressure brought by the Pope, Gorbachev's "Perestroika" and the united front of Ronald Reagan and [[Margaret Thatcher]], leading [[NATO]] and [[the West]] to embed a [[missile defense system]] in [[Western Europe]], and the economic superiority of [[Capitalism]], which simply out-spent and out-performed that of the Communist one. One thing that cannot be quantified is Reagan's ability to give [[hope]], his never-ending [[optimism]] that good would indeed triumph over evil. Many see that as key to bringing extra [[confidence]] to those locked behind the "[[Iron Curtain]]" to press even harder for reforms.<br />
<br />
Columnist [[Cal Thomas]] wrote about it like this: ''He proved he was right about the big things. Faced with editorial denunciations at home and massive [[demonstration]]s in [[Europe]] against his plan to put missiles there to offset a [[Soviet threat]], Reagan went ahead and did it anyway. The Soviets could not keep pace with the buildup or Reagan's proposed missile defense system (derided by critics as "[[Star Wars]]"). When those critics could not bring themselves to admit they were wrong, they unpersuasively claimed the Soviet Union fell under its own weight. More accurately, Reagan pushed it onto "the ash heap of history," with the able assistance of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and [[Pope John Paul II]]. What Reagan did more than anything else - and it will be his lasting legacy - is replace [[despair]] with hope. Most people, even his detractors, felt a glow from being in his presence. He was the kindest, most gracious president I have met, and I have met them all since JFK. In his presence you felt he was interested in you and not himself. He was a good man.''<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2004/06/07/ronald_reagans_wonderful_life]</ref><br />
<br />
[[Brian Mulroney]], the Canadian Prime Minister, said of Reagan: ''"Some in the West during the early 1980s believed communism and democracy were equally valid and viable. This was the school of "[[moral equivalence]]." In contrast Ronald Reagan saw [[Soviet communism]] as a menace to be confronted in the genuine belief that its squalid underpinning would fall swiftly to the gathering winds of [[freedom]]. Provided, as he said, that NATO and the [[industrialize]]d democracies stood firm and united. They did. And we know now who was right."''<ref>[http://reagan2020.us/eulogies/mulroney.asp]</ref><br />
<br />
*Former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan paid tribute to the fallen president in a recent ''Wall Street Journal editorial''. In it, Noonan noted: "Ronald Reagan told the truth to a world made weary by lies. He believed truth was the only platform on which a better future could be built. He shocked the world when he called the Soviet Union ‘evil,’ because it was, and an ‘empire,’ because it was that, too. He never stopped bringing his message to the people of the world, to Europe and China and in the end the Soviet Union. And when it was over, the Berlin Wall had been turned into a million concrete souvenirs, and Soviet communism had fallen. But of course, it didn’t fall. It was pushed. By Mr. Know Nothing Cowboy Gunslinger Dimwit. All presidents should be so stupid."<ref>[http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1679]</ref><br />
<br />
== Retirement & Alzheimer's ==<br />
<br />
==Miscellaneous Facts==<br />
*Reagan was the first and only labor leader and former President of an AFL-CIO union ever elected US President.<br />
*Reagan was the first and only divorced president.<br />
*Reagan was a lifeguard for seven years growing up, and was said to have saved 77 people.<ref>http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2004/reagan/stories/bio.part.one/index.html</ref><br />
*Reagan was the first president to break the "[[Curse of Tippecanoe]]"<br />
*At 69, Reagan was the oldest man elected to the presidency.<br />
*The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum is located in Simi Valley, California.<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/visitorguide/hours_directions.asp</ref><br />
*Reagan's 1994 announcement that he had Alzheimer's Disease brought large amounts of public attention to the disease.<br />
*Reagan loved jelly beans.<ref>http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/trivia.shtml</ref> The blueberry flavor was made in his honor. [[Jelly Belly]] even created a [http://www.jellybelly-uk.com/pages/q&a/bean_art_gallery.shtml Ronald Reagan portrait out of jelly beans].<br />
*His speech writer [[Peggy Noonan]] is a columnist for the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]''.<br />
<br />
== Quotes ==<br />
*"The house we hope to build is not for my generation but for yours. It is your future that matters. And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"We have every right to dream heroic dreams. Those who say that we're in a time when there are no heroes, they just don't know where to look." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"I've learned in Washington, that that's the only place where sound travels faster than light." - December 12, 1983<br />
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985<br />
*"I have only one thing to say to the tax increasers: Go ahead, make my day." —March 13, 1985, in a speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br />
*"A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough." - December 5, 1990 <br />
*"The challenge of statesmanship is to have the vision to dream of a better, safer world and the courage, persistence, and patience to turn that dream into reality." - March 8, 1985<br />
*"If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here, to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." —Speech at the Berlin Wall, June 12, 1987<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3638320/</ref><br />
*"...I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp." - February 10, 1982 <br />
*"There is no question that we have failed to live up to the dreams of the founding fathers many times and in many places. Sometimes we do better than others. But all in all, the one thing we must be on guard against is thinking that because of this, the system has failed. The system has not failed. Some human beings have failed the system." - June 21, 1973<br />
*"The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth." - Oct. 16, 1973<br />
*"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever." - January 20, 1981<br />
*"In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about." - August 17, 1992<ref>http://www.reaganfoundation.org/reagan/quotes/default.asp</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for Reagan's response to the shoot down by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people on board, on Sept. 1. 1983.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040614-646317,00.html Time Magazine Article on ''The All-American President'']<br />
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html White House Official Page]<br />
*[http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/ Reagan's Presidential Library]<br />
*[http://imdb.com/name/nm0001654/ Actor Bio At IMDB]<br />
*[http://www.ronaldreaganmemorial.com/ Official Memorial]<br />
*[http://www.reagan.navy.mil/index.html USS ''Ronald Reagan'' CVN 76 official website]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Presidents of the United States]]<br />
[[Category: United States Governors]]<br />
{{USPresidents}}</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Homosexuality_and_the_Bible&diff=388388Homosexuality and the Bible2008-02-15T19:37:06Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Homosexuality and the Bible and the City of Sodom */ Improved.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:FacProfilemontoya.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[Alex D. Montoya]]]]<br />
In respect to '''homosexuality and the Bible''', sound [[Bible Exegesis|Bible exegesis]] and [[Bible Exposition|Bible exposition]] demonstrates that the Bible condemns [[homosexuality]].<ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/romans_malick.pdf David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans 1:26-27," Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 599(1993): 327-340]</ref><ref>[http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/homosexuality_corinthians6.pdf David E. Malick, “The Condemnation of Homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6:9,” Bibliotheca Sacra 150: 600 (1993): 479-492]</ref><ref>[http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html HERMENEUTICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF THE BIBLE TO JUSTIFY THE ACCEPTANCE OF HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE, Guenther Haas, Redeemer College]</ref><ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000) 155-168 HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref> In addition, [[Christianity|Christian]] apologist [[JP Holding]] refutes various arguments that assert that the [[Bible]] does not condemn homosexuality.<ref>http://www.tektonics.org/qt/romhom.html</ref><ref>http://tektonics.org/gk/genhom.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/lp/lev18.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gayjude.html</ref><ref>http://www.tektonics.org/gk/gaydavid.html</ref> In his essay which examines [[Bible]] passages regarding homosexuality, Pastor and Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries at [[The Master's Seminary]] [[Alex D. Montoya]] states that "The Christian needs to befriend and witness to the<br />
homosexual with such love, compassion, and wisdom that such will respond to the saving [[grace]] of [[God]]."<ref>[http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj11h.pdf The Master's Seminary Journal (TMSJ), 11/2 (Fall 2000), page 169, HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CHURCH, Alex D. Montoya (Associate Professor of Pastoral Ministries)]</ref><br />
== Biblical Statements Regarding Homosexuality ==<br />
[[Image:Moses.jpg|thumb|150px|right|The prophet [[Moses]] authored the book of [[Leviticus]].]]<br />
Homosexuality is condemned in the [[Bible]]. Below are some Bible verses that condemn homosexuality:<br />
* [[Leviticus]] 18:22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.<br />
* [[Leviticus]] 20:13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.<br />
* [[Romans]] 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.<br />
* [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9;&version=31; I Corinthians 6:9](NIV) - Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.<br />
*[http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Timothy%201:8-11;&version=49; I Timothy 1:8-11 (NASB)] - "But we know that the [[Mosaic Law|Law]] is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and [[sin|sinners]], for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious [[gospel]] of the blessed [[God]], with which I have been entrusted."<br />
*[[Jude]] 1:6-7 (NASB) - And [[angel]]s who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as [[Sodom]] and [[Gomorrah]] and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.<br />
<br />
==Homosexuality and the Bible and the City of Sodom==<br />
The Bible mentions [[Sodom]] in variety of biblical books. The prevalent view among evangelical Christians is that Sodom was destroyed as a result of prevalent homosexuality, however, this is open to debate, based upon traditional Jewish interpretation of the event, and the fact that many undesirable practices, many vastly more reprehensible, were likely engaged in in the general region.<br />
[[Image:Martin destruction sodom640x422.jpg|thumbnail|300px|right|Destruction of [[Sodom]] by [[God]]]]<br />
[[Christian Apologetics|Christian apologists]] Dr. [[Phil Fernandes]] states the following regarding the judgment of Sodom by [[God]]:<br />
{{Cquote|The Bible tells us of the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah. Though homosexuality was not the only vice of these cities, the Bible makes it clear that this sin was one of the main reasons why God judged them. [[Genesis]] 19:1-11 speaks of the men of Sodom gathering at Lot's house and calling out to [[Lot]], saying, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with" (Genesis 19:5). Lot's two visitors were actually angels who manifested themselves as men. Lot's carnal attempt to rescue his visitors was his offer to provide the men of Sodom with his two virgin daughters (Genesis 19:8). But, the men of Sodom rejected Lot's offer. Finally, the angels miraculously struck the immoral men with blindness (Genesis 19:11). Jude, commenting on the destruction of Sodom and [[Gomorrah]], wrote, "Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example, in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire" (Jude 7).<ref>http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Writings/Biblical-Perspective-of-Homosexuality.html</ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Ex-Homosexuals and the Bible==<br />
The [[Paul|Apostle Paul]] wrote of the existence [[Ex-Homosexuals|ex-homosexuals]] in the early [[Christianity|Christian]] church in a letter of his to the [[Corinth|Corinthian]] church. ([http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=I%20Corinthians%206:9-11;&version=49; I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASB)])<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Homosexuality]]<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
[[Category:Homosexuality]]<br />
[[Category:Bible]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Westboro_Baptist_Church&diff=388090Westboro Baptist Church2008-02-15T03:07:01Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Improvements, no need to attack the Democratic Party here.</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Westboro Baptist Church''' is a church led by the denominationally-unaffiliated rabidly homophobic [[Fred Phelps]]. The church's members are almost entirely family members and are most infamous for their protests and pickets at soldier funerals who died in the line of duty where the church members then take the opportunity to denounce what they consider to be America's acceptance of [[homosexuality]]. The name of their [[website]], which contains a vulgar word, reflects this. Their antics are denounced across almost all spectrums of political and religious thought.<br />
<br />
For more information, see [[Fred Phelps]].<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Hate groups]]<br />
[[Category:Cults]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Communism&diff=387659Talk:Communism2008-02-14T00:53:33Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Discuss on talk page?</p>
<hr />
<div>==totalitarian nightmare==<br />
<br />
I think that the "Christian sharing" section is out of place here. It gives a false impression that Communism - i.e., [[Marxism-Leninism]] - is in any way related to the voluntary sharing of "[[Christian communism]]". The latter is a form of [[communitarianism]].<br />
<br />
Communism is a totalitarian nightmare, as Orwell chillingly portrayed it in ''[[1984]]''. I've read books on Soviet, Chinese, Cuban, Vietnamese and North Korean life. I've met refugees from various communist countries and in 1992 personally visited 4 former Soviet SSR's. It's hell on earth. <br />
<br />
Not that democracy is Heaven, but:<br />
#The [[Iron Curtain]] was to keep people in (see also [[Berlin Wall]]).<br />
#Refugees mainly want to come to America and Britain.<br />
<br />
Am I biased on this? I have made up my mind, but it is based purely on the objective facts. Anyway, I do look forward to working cooperatively with other editors here. Just don't try any liberal tricks. This is a subject I know thoroughly. I have books and references. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:53, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with you completely, and I urge you to improve this article as well.<br />
<br />
It's funny that you bring this up because I just wrote the Berlin Wall stub this afternoon. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I think we must distinguish between the concepts that communism supposedly follows, and the fascist regimes that call themselves "communist" (USSR, China, etc.) because there is quite an important distinction between the two. You can't really disagree with this. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:05, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm with you 100%, been there, got the tee shirt (and the sweat shirt, and the gold-embossed mug), etc. I have personally met the author of ''Communism: Promise and Practice''. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:08, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::*Well, this may be true, but the main point to be made is that even with total control of a nation's populous Communism (Marx & Engel's version) doesn't really work "outside of the laboratory". This may reflect an element of biological evolution wherein a person's genetic desire to be the "fittest" precludes an egalitarian and altruistic society; i.e. why should '''I''' help those who aren't of my genetic lineage by this "sharing" or pooling of resources. Sometimes it is a benefit to do so, and so we do to some extent, but a full fledged society goes against evolutionary forces. MOO --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]]</sub> 23:14, 28 March 2007 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::If God and Heaven did not exist, it would merely be an odd coincidence. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:56, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:That stuff comes from early Marxist writings, and dedicated Marxists still cite it today. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:55, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
OK, here's a better quote from Toynbee,<br />
:"According to the Communist prophet's intuition ...the class-war is bound to issue in a victorious proletarian revolution.... A time is to come when....the New Society of the Marxian Millennium will be able to cast away not only 'the Dictatorship of the Proletariat' but also every other institutional crutch, including the State itself; for in that Marxian earthly paradise to come 'they neither marry nor are given in marriage' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sheesh! People as lab rats ... it doesn't even work *in* the lab ... all the poor rats keep trying to escape. Just think about 2 sets of borders: one, when you cross it you're a refugee or defector - the other, when you cross it you're a welcome immigrant.<br />
<br />
Who ever heard of someone crossing the Gulf of Mexico in a raft to escape '''into''' Cuba? And don't get me started on Vietnam - I read ''Le Gulag Vietnamien'' and even met the author [[Doan Van Toai]] in Boston. Read about him [http://www.worldandi.com/specialreport/1986/october/Sa11490.htm here]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 23:22, 28 March 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture ==<br />
<br />
I don't think you need the hammer and sickle to spin... I'm replacing the picture. [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 14:12, 11 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Communism in the history of political thought (Draft) ==<br />
<br />
(I'm trying to come up with a concise chapter on the history of communism, but don't have time to complete it. This is part of the draft. Please feel free to edit as if this were part of the article. When it's done I'll copy and paste it in to the main text.)<br />
<br />
Communism as an idea was born out of the Industrial Revolutions in Europe in the 19th century. At the beginning of the century, workers in industrial nations such as Britain began to organise themselves in to co-operative societies, for the purposes of providing members with a fair price for staple goods and for the support of members who were unable to work, either because of difficulties finding employment or sickness. <br />
<br />
These societies were often formed as a reaction to predatory employers, who would pay workers solely in vouchers to be spent at the company store, making competition impossible and enabling the employer to fleece employees. Leaders of the co-operative movement, such as Robert Owen, abhorred such practice and wished to reorganise society along similar lines to their own movement. In 1826, Owen wrote "There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, — that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each." (cite ISBN when I dig out my copy)<br />
<br />
:Communism is responsible for the [[democide]] of 100 million plus lives in very recent memory, and one quarter of the planet remains enslaved under it. Dressing it up as anything else border's on Holocuast denial. Let's stick to the facts on this sad chapter of human history, and not try to present it as anything other than what it is--a failed attempt by atheists and rationalists to dominate the human race and exterminate anyone who opposed them. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:41, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Wow, is that a chip on your shoulder, or a huge boulder? These are the facts. Regardless of what you think of communism, it is important that historical information be included in any article in an encyclopaedia. Should we perhaps not include the history of the British Empire because it killed so many people? <br />
<br />
:: Communism is an important part of the history of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is intertwined with the social and demographic trends of industrialisation. To ignore that history is to be doomed to repeat it. --[[User:Abrown|Abrown]] 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::To ignore the real history of Communism, like ignoring the real history of Nazism, is to be doomed to repeat it. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:29, 14 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Robert Owens was a social reformer not a communist. His ideas come from the same roots as the British Labour Party. The reformers of Britain in the 19th Century and the Factory Acts which gave workers rights are based on Liberal ideas not Marxist. The Labour Party Nationalised transport, fossial fuel and created the National Health Service to provide free health care for all. Not because of Communism (they ejected communists from the party, would not support the General Strike of 1926) but because of Liberalism and Social equality. It is true that factory owners in the 19th Century were paying the workers in vouchers and docking wages at the drop of a hat so that workers owed the factory money. They even had inhouse dentists to ensure that workers didn't take unnecessary time off. However the Factory Acts (from 1833 onward) changed this and introduced free education for children as well as other measures to help workers and stop them from being exploited by the factory owners. We have to remember though that not all factory owners were the same and some did look after their workers very well. So please try not to mix social reform up with marxism and communism<br />
<br />
== Communist could be good ==<br />
<br />
Communism idealistically is a good system. Everyone makes the same amount of money so the rich can't exploit the poor.--[[User:BushRules12|BushRules12]] 23:17, 28 April 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Picture ==<br />
<br />
Don't you think we should use it's logo as the image at top? Why was it removed? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 22:15, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We are not here to promote, memorialize, or glorify a [[democidal]] subject. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:38, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Accepting your premise that Communism is evil, and putting its logo at the top glorifies it, then shouldn't we remove the picture at the top of [[Nazi]]? [[User:Marl Karx|Marl Karx]] 17:37, 3 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Who put it there? It was probably placed by some scumbag troll anyway. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:01, 3 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== very biased ==<br />
<br />
This article, although it holds much truth, should be changed to be more neutral in order to give people a good idea as to what communism is about.<br />
:Oh really? You don't think eyewitness testimony from the [[Gulag]]s can't give us a good idea as to what communism is about? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:32, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is one of the rare occasions where wikipedia has a better definition. This has no inofrmation about communism as opposed to Wikipedia's "Communism is an ideology that seeks to establish a classless, stateless social organization based on common ownership of the means of production. It can be considered a branch of the broader socialist movement. Communism as a political goal is generally a conjectured form of future social organization, although Marxists have described early forms of human social organization as "primitive communism" This article we are discussing just states the death's and how it has been abused not the actual concept an that is NOT an unbiased source. BTW for the wikipedia article notice how they use words like SEEKS instead of has because it hasn't thats its goal. [[User:thatgamerguy|thatgamerguy]]<br />
<br />
:That speaks like present tense, "an ideology that seeks..."; we only deal with facts. Communism has had 150+ plus years to "seek" whatever it sought, and left a trail of corpses in its wake that made Hitler envious. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:35, 12 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== In bad shape ==<br />
<br />
From the very beginning, this article is terrible. Below is my proposed lead (feel free to edit):<br />
<blockquote><br />
'''Communism''' is a social and political ideology which advocates the establishment of a classless, stateless society, in which the population (the [[proletariat]]) has group ownership of the means of production. According to the communist ideology, once a communist utopia is achieved, political means such as [[government]], [[military]], and [[police]] will be archaic and unnecessary. While the theory of communism advocates fairness and equality, the modern practice of this ideology has been punctuated by censorship, violence, and oppression. the founders of modern communism were [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]]. Other famous communists include [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Iosef Stalin]], [[Mao Zedong]], and [[Leon Trotsky]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:48, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I like this lead, but I think the article looks ok. Whats there should stay. Engels founded it to, no?[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 23:51, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::So should the [[capitalism]] article begin "The imperialist swine are evil money-grubbers"? I mean, stereotypes are bad; starting an article off with statistics based on a flawed practice of the theory is no way to go. And Marx was the better known than his co-author Engels, no? It is not "Engelsism", but "Marxism".--<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 23:54, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Quite true, he is better known. But credit should be given were credit is due. marxism includes the philosophy of Engels.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 23:58, 24 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::Perhaps you misunderstood me. Your introduction should be incorporated. But the horrors of communism should not be discarded.[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 00:01, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::Oh, of course they are to be included; I am just concerned that this article on a very important ideology ''begins'' with the victim statistics. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 00:08, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::::Certainly, that should be changed. Your introduction is nice, my compliments. It should be put in[[User:Bohdan|Богдан]] <sup>[[User talk:Bohdan|Talk]]</sup> 00:09, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::Feel free to edit it, I feel like it is lacking eloquence. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 00:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
Sorry, this page is not going to be used as a forum for (a) advocacy, or (b) apologetics, for a [[democidal]] ideology. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:27, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:RobS, please attempt to distinguish between the theoretical ideals of communism and the flawed ways in which it has been practiced. We are not here to promote or frown upon anything; we are here to build an encyclopedia. It is not "apologetics" to ''state'' the ''basic beliefs'' of communists. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:04, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Hojimachong, Why don't you don't you go to the [[Nazi]] article and explain to us how they were misunderstood. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:45, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::RobS, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? The Nazis were not Communists, they were Socialists. A much more fair comparison would be to ask Hojimachong to go to the [[Christianity]] page and explain how modern 'Christians' have distorted the original message of Christ. Or perhaps one could go to the Nazi page and draw all of the valid comparisons between the Nazis and the current government of the United States (which is not meant to imply the government is run by Nazis, but there are valid comparisons). Or, in keeping with the bizarre theme of this silly page on Communism, one could begin the page about the United States by detailing all of the crimes committed by the US government. Things like the persecution of the Native Americans (unless 'Manifest Destiny' allows such [[democidal|democides]]), exploitation of industrial workers in the 1880s and 1890, exploitation of agricultural workers through today, internment camps, state-mandated and assisted apartheid, legalized abortion, etc. could be mentioned. However, they '''aren't'''! So why does the Communism page start in such a startling way?<br />
<br />
::::Please, this is little more than Soviet & Communist holocaust denial, and discussion with such extremists should not be countenanced by CP Admins. They need to be blocked. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:33, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Again I ask, does 'conservative' equate to close-minded (or even non-sensical)? How could one make it clear to you that the Soviets were most emphatically '''not''' Communists? Would you argue that it was Christians that were responsible for the slaughter of the pre-Columbian indigenous people of North and South America? You would probably claim that it was Conquistadors instead (unless you would deny ''that'' particular genocide). Just because the USSR was run by an organization calling themselves the 'Communist Party' doesn't mean they were Communists. Perhaps that's the point that ''needs'' to be made in an encyclopedia article. I'm not being an extremist; I'm taking perspective, attempting to view the circumstances outside of my bubble of personal ideology and life experiences. That's part of scholarship. If you are too confused or emotionally invested to understand that, I suggest that you are not fit to be editing this article.<br />
:::::::I guess I'm just dense; is this like the debate "Does a ceramic yard toad belong in [[Catagory:Toads]]? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:18, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::::No,it's not like that.<br />
<br />
:Is this page to be used as advocacy for other causes, then? Like exploiting developing countries, attempting to overthrow valid democracies, etc.? Just because people don't write your gospel, RobS, doesn't mean that they are writing ridiculous things. Perhaps you should find an encyclopedia and read about Communism. It is not practiced anywhere in the world today. Communism is a STATELESS economic system, there are no totalitarian governments that could run gulags, etc. That's the point Hojimachong is trying to make. Communism does not advocate violent revolution; Marxism advocates violent revolution to achieve Communism. If you can't recognize the difference you really need to step back and find a much broader literature base. Indeed, by improving this article along the lines that Hojimachong suggests, other people would perhaps be able to better understand the difference by reading the Conservapedia! Isn't that what the point is: getting out unbiased, factual information to dispel the myths propagated by leftist, godless, non-Americans? Show people what ''real'' communism is in contrast to the socialist regimes implemented in North Korea, Cuba, et al.<br />
<br />
:*I would say an encyclopedia is here to deal with facts. Since I do not know of a pure Marxist Communist state having ever existed, how does on craft an article about something that has never existed or been practiced? And wouldn't that kind of crap be in the article about Karl Marx, not here? --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 01:12, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::I would hope that since communism is an ideology, that the ideology itself would be discussed here, alongside ways in which it has failed, which are many and varied. But not including the hammer and sickle - the most blatant and obvious symbol associated with communism - is verging on ridiculous. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:17, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is a joke, right? First, there's no such thing as a Communist '''state''' as Hojimachong points out in his proposed paragraph. Second, there ''have'' been Marxist Socialist states. Third, it's absurd to think that one is unable to write an article about an ideal. Has the Christian ideal ever been realized? But there are certainly articles about Christianity on the Conservapedia. Finally, it's irresponsible to call things you disagree with 'that kind of crap' since there are approximately 4 billion people on this Earth (a very large majority) that might say the same thing about Christianity. Perhaps it's a good thing we don't live in a global democracy.<br />
:::Colloquially, "communism" refers to the condition by which in theory, the workers own the means of production. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 01:23, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::But your initial paragraph is good because it does ''not'' fall back on the colloquial usage; that, I believe, is important for an encyclopedia article.<br />
<br />
Regarding Hoji's proposed definition, I'd recommend using only the first two sentences. While the third gives important information, it isn't really relevant to the meaning of the word, pe se. Also, substantively, I have some angst about whether the first couple of sentences are properly "Communism," or, rather, "Markism," which aren't necessarily the same thing. Which suggests that there might be a problem with the underlying assumption that there even is a single, unitary definition of the word "Communism." Like most definitions, I think you'll need multiple entries, reflecting the different senses in which the same word is sometimes used. I'd think there should be one entry for "Communism," the ecomomic/political theory, and a separate entry for "Communism," referring the class of governments that generally profess (or professed) to be Communist, with varying degrees of sincerity. Obviously, the core concept of Communism as a theory is the elimination of all private property rights (according to it's proponents, rendering private property rights obsolete, by creating a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them). Equally obviously, no society or state has ever actually done so; however, communist governments are called "Communist" because they at least profess to be working toward that end. Again, that seems sufficient information for a definition; the encyclopedia article should go on to discuss both the fact of these historical failures and the reasons for them--i.e., that the theory doesn't work in practice, for reasons we now understand pretty well. [[User:QBeam]] 2:28, 10 Oct. 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Communism / China ==<br />
<br />
Something needs to be added stating how completely discredited Communism is, and how today, although called "communism" what is in place in China, really isn't. It is more a revert to the Imperial Bureaucracy. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 00:58, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:But we don't have agendas....<br />
<br />
TK, you are right, and I think Hoji misunderstood my comment several weeks ago about distinguishing between "promise and practice". Communism is much more than "an ideology with an ideal". It is an ideology which justifies the forcible overthrow of existing governments, '''on the grounds that''' it will be possible someday to make things much better. <br />
<br />
My point is not that we should "love the ideal, hate the practioners". That is a grotesque distortion of the Christian dictum, "hate the sin, love the sinner". Rather, Communism begins with a fake ideal!<br />
<br />
Communists claim that they are motivated by an ideal, but there is no evidence that they have ever tried to put this ideal into practice. So they are even worse than Nazis. This explains why Soviets and Red Chinese each murdered 10 times as many people as Hitler did. It's all a lie.<br />
<br />
So we need to describe the difference between the ideal Communists '''say''' they are striving for and the things they actually '''do'''. They are not simply socialists "gone wrong". They started out wrong! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:02, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'm not much concerned with the body of the article, but rather the lead paragraph, which should adequately state what the theory ''aims to accomplish''. The failures should be documented at [[Leninism]], [[Stalinism]], [[Maoism]], and [[Trotskyism]]. And the image is staying. --<font color="#0000CC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ĥøĵĭmåçħôńğ''']]</font><sup><font color="00FFAA">[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]</font></sup> 16:42, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Marxism vs. Communism==<br />
Every comparison made between any government that has existed and Communism is false. Communism cannot exist in a state framework. While the Soviets and Chinese governments are run by so-called communist parties, that's akin to calling Richard Cheney a Christian; we can label ourselves any way we want. We have a term in the English (or rather American) language to describe these socialist governments, so why don't we use it? Conservapedia could stand as the lone beacon trying to shine the light on the truth of the differences between Marxism and Communism!<br />
<br />
:See may latest edit to the article, near the top. [[Dialectical materialism]] is the "ideology" or philosophy which is the basis of [[Marxism]]. I defy anyone to show me where it talks about how the [[dictatorship of the proletariat]] will even "wither away" into a classless society. <br />
<br />
:No progress or stability can come from struggle. What we need, on the contrary, is voluntary cooperation. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:36, 25 May 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== About communism - is it possible to edit the article anyway? ==<br />
<br />
I don't understand you folks. Came here to check the site out to get an alternative view on things as you say it is about in the NY. But bashing communism like you are is just sad. Illegal to own cars? And no fair wages? <br />
The first one seemed like a minor error, something your propaganda has teached you. But the whole idea about communism is fair wages for everyone. And savings? ofcourse you can save the money you earn - even in banks. <br />
<br />
Also you invest through taxes. The public as a whole are the onwers and investors of the companies. As a member of the party you suggest what should be built in your county and then everyone vote about it. Just as a big company congress. <br />
That communism just as any other ideolgy has been miss-used is true. Horrible people have come to power while the nations citizens didn't bother standing up against them. <br />
<br />
<br />
You also write in the article about socialism that: "without compensation to the builders of the capital,"<br />
The problem in these articles in general is not that the points of views are wrong but that the "facts" those views build on are incorrect. <br />
<br />
There is compensation to the builders of capital. The builders of capital in this case are the populus(the population) and they recive compensation for their efforts through public ownership of companies (and thus the output of the public stock) like under Titoism or through public spending, free vacations and things like this in the USSR. {{unsigned|Ondskan}}<br />
<br />
:Oh, so we're just supposed to ignore, or deny, [[democide]], and apologize or explain how a mountain of corpses was just an experimental mistake, or misinterpretaion. Wow. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:43, 20 June 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Just skimmed the above and found at least one mistake: what kind of country offers its citizens "free vacations" but labels as "[[defector]]s" anyone who tries to emigrate? And punishes successful defectors by taking retribution on any family members left behind.<br />
::Sounds like you have a fantasy that idealizes something you know little about. Try researching the history of Russia and Cuba. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 09:02, 12 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Just back here looking for information on a few American writers and to reply on what has been written here. <br />
Yes I belive so. I belive we should learn of what has happend through history and build improve the future with knowledge of what went bad and what went well in the past. Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags. Funny enough both countries were built upon revolution and both countries wouldn't exist if people didn't rise up to their masters. But as we know, new masters are formed from the ashes of the old and if power corrupts then the absolute power the leaders of the USA and USSR had back then corrupts absolutely. Thus much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed and instead added into the history of each country that had comited the crimes against humanity that are listed here. <br />
<br />
One thing though I find completely ridicilous. Pol Pot was financed by the United States and the United States supported him in his war against Vietnam while it was the communist Vietnam that liberated the people of Cambodia from Pol Pot and his massmurder regime which killed anyone who had an education. If anything, what ever ideology the U.S. had at that time should be blamed and not communism. I'm eager to hear what you have to say on this, t'll then I'll remove Pol Pot. [[User:Ondskan|Ondskan]] 17:53, 21 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Just like the United States napalm bombed Vietnam and had students beaten up during the 20's and 60's the Soviet Union invaded Prague in the same period and put people in the Gulags.''<br />
::Interesting contrast, isn't it. Beating up people, etc. is akin to running them down with tanks, taking away all thier civil and human rights, and exterminating them through forced labor in gulags.<br />
:''much of what is written in the article about communism should be removed...''<br />
::<RobS is thinking to himself....."no...don't...why is my right hand inching toward the banhammer....maybe this user really ''does'' intend to engage in rational, intelligent disucssion...no, be patient one moretime...."> [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:''Pol Pot was financed by the United States''<br />
::(a) Show cites, (b) even w/cites it still doesn't mean the US paid him to exterminate people (there is such a thing as free will, you know; God gave Cain life, and he was a murderer. Does that mean God is responsible for Cain murdering Abel?). [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:53, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::For the record [http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/bj21.jpg][http://www.cnd.org/HYPLAN/yawei/june4th/wmr1a.jpg] here is Communism in today's world. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:06, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Taking away rights? The United States took away the rights of people seen as communists just like the USSR took away rights from people seen as Liberals/Conservatives during McCarter period. '''They were prosecuted for what they belived in'''.<br />
:Name one. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Rights were taken away from people during the 1920's when members/leaders of Worker unions were beaten up by police that was financed by bribes from big companies and they were also fired and it was made hard for these to find new jobs.<br />
:How is that akin to being run over with a tank? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Today hundreds if not thoulsands of people are being tortued in Guantanamo and other places in the world. <br />
:Hundreds of thousands at Guantanamo? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
At the same time the only valid reason for Invading Iraq left is that Sadam was a tyrant who tortured people to extract information. <br />
:Ah yes, the good old days. If Saddam was only around to keep the peace....ah yes, the good ol days.<br />
<br />
The people that Sadam tortured were those who were belived to be Kurdish seperatists IE terrorists in his mind. <br />
:Right. They had it coming. Anyone who challenges totalitartian dictatorship deserves extermination. At least you are being consistent with many [[socialist]] dreams and goals. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Are we to blame the constitution, the ideology of the United States and it's people for these mistakes? <br />
If that is the way to go then the Republican party has killed far more people through it's wars and sanctions than most realise. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1997/srirq997.htm reports that at least 500 000 children have in only 5 years died of UN sanctions imposed by the US against Iraq. <br />
:Hmmmm, [[Ramsey Clark]] said one million children died in Iraq during Mr. & Mrs. Clintons's term of office. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
2,5 millions died in the Vietnam War. etc...etc...<br />
:Vietnam was a Republican war?<br />
<br />
How come in your oppinion these things don't count as crimes against humanity comited by a conservative ideology/party compared to what you belive Communism is responsible for. <br />
:If you question made any sesne, I'd try to answer it. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:53, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
And how can you even dare to draw god and his creation into a comparison with the United States cowardly financing of a murder regime (Pol Pot) to in a desperate attempt stop the winning Vietnam Forces?<br />
:When was that? Was during Kennedy/Johnson, or during President Carter, when Carter said [[human rights]] was America's number [[foreign policy]]. Oh, BTW, when was the [[Killing Fields]].....hmmmmm.....let's see.....during which President's term of office....hmmmm lemme see.....think think think.....1977.....<br />
<br />
You should be ashamed of yourself.<br />
:Thank you. I am. Why I even bother reading this trash or trying to respond to it frankly makes me disgusted with myself. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:51, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== US embargo on Cuba is not over Communism ! ==<br />
<br />
Falsely stated above:"... Cuba, is still kept under economic repression by the USA due to its communist beliefs..." <br />
<br />
The embargo on trade with Cuba is to punish Cuba for having expropriated ( with compensation offered but refused )and subsequently nationalized american companies that paid slave wages without benefits to its workers. If you disapprove of Cuban expropriation look up american 'eminent domain' !<br />
<br />
One of these companies owned by the Fanjul family now located in Florida operates sugar cane fields in the Dominican Republic using actual slave workers. This is how glorious "opportunity-for-all Capitalism" worked in pre-Castro Cuba. {{unsigned|RickyTemple}}<br />
<br />
:Excellent point. And the quote in the article looks like commie prop anyway. Please make the change! Thanks! [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:20, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Unfortunately, such talk is typical Liberal [[deceit]]. Paying workers the normal prevailing wage in their country is not "slave wages" it is the normal prevailing wage. It is highly illogical to compare wages in a third world country with the wages in the United States, or UK, and then call them "slave wages". U.S. companies paid the going rate. Exactly what they do in the United States. The cost of living in Cuba, pre-1963, and Dominican Republic today, is like 1/100th of that in the U.S. Apples and Oranges comparison, and typical Liberal double-talk. --[[User:TK|<small>Sysop-</small>TK]] <sub>[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]</sub> 19:46, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:*Actually, I think your talk is typical "conservative" bias. You have no problem with the Dominican Republic paying such wages to workers, because DR fits your political/economic standard, but yet if Cuba is paying the same wages you would probably call it 'slave wages' because you don't like Cuba or its economic system. For some reason Cuba is held to a higher standard than Dominican Republic because of its economic and political system. Neither DR or Cuba can be compared to the USA or any first-world country. [[User:Shola|Shola]]<br />
<br />
::Shola, if you honestly think living in communist Cuba is so great, fly down there and live for a while. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:26, 25 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::*Hmm, typical selective reading from a "conservative"... I never said Cuba was great... just that you lot are holding it to a higher standard than other Carribean nations, which is unfair. [[User:Shola|Shola]]<br />
:::::Has the Dominican Republic promoted, funded, trained and equiped commie insurgent movements to overthrow governments outside its borders? This is the standard. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:35, 25 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
Actually RobS i am not sure about the Dominican Republic but America sure has! That's right our nation under god has overthrown governments all the time, check out our involvement w/ Guatemala and The United Fruit company (chiquita) u might be surprised. --[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:06, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:Glad you reminded me. I have to do something with [[Rex Tugwell]] and United Fruit company soon. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:43, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:*The most amazing thing about this arguement is, he's got it half right. Cuba is experiencing economic troubles because of trade restrictions in the US, as another editor has pointed out. Now many with the same POV that criticize US trade restrictions on Cuba will turn around and criticize [[NAFTA]], arguing against [[free trade]]. As you say, typical double-speak. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:19, 17 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Of course the embargo isn't over communism - it's over the Cuban Missile Crisis. If it was just communism - then we wouldn't be trading with Vietnam or China (side note on China: maybe we shouldn't be trading with it ...).--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 23:39, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:The Cuban embargo began about 1959, when Castro came to power, siezed prive property, and repudiated [[foreign debt]]; the missile blockade was three years later. Let's not confuse a trade embargo between the US & Cuba, with a military action disrupting transfer of weapons between two other sovereign powers. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 01:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::I think you have your sources wrong - to my knowledge (and to apparently the knowledge of other per a google search) - the embargo began in 1962 - however - regardless we can both agree that the current embargo isn't over communism - as otherwise we wouldn't be trading with China.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 01:41, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::We're confusing "embargo," a bilateral trade restriction, with "blockade," a military intervention restricting importation of weapons from one foreign power to another foreign power. While the blockade disrupted Cuba's foreign trade with the Soviet Union, i.e. arms trade, the transfer of the types of weapons violated multilateral agreements.<br />
<br />
:::While the military blockade is nolonger in force (at least to the extent that it was during the Missile Crisis) the bilateral trade embargo between the US & Cuba remains in force. IOW, we are speaking about two distinctly different events & circumstances. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::::Again, my sources seem to indicate that the embargo (meaning no trade) was in '62 - but regardless, same goes as above--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:20, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::::I'm embarassed to say, I'm looking at WP right now. It says, "....the US began to impose gradual trade restrictions on the island. On September 4 1959, Ambassador Bonsal met with Cuban Premier Fidel Castro to express “serious concern at the treatment being given to American private interests in Cuba both agriculture and utilities.”[15]" It links to some good primary sources,[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba-United_States_relations#Post_revolution_relations] but doesn't support the "gradual trade restrictions" statement stemming from 1959. But this is what happened. It was not a total break in 1959, but leverage was used, and evidentally by 1962 either by Congressional action of Executive action, a total embargo was imposed.<br />
:::::Embargos work by degrees; import quotas are embargos, though the same nations still carry on trade and there may not be quotas on different commodities. A total break in relations usually results in a total break in ''legal'' trade between nations. The "gradual" reference is called applying "leverage." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:37, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:::::Bottomline: Castro wanted to play the big hero and repudiated the foreign debt, using [[Lenin]] as his model. Leftists cheered, "Hoorah! for the underdog, standing up to the big bully!" Only it was the Cuban people who now suffered, cause leftist & commie idiots do not understand people need each other, that is what trade is, everybody profits, everybody benefits, its a win-win situation.<br />
:::::Now Castro wants to play the victim, "the big bad United States won't trade with me" and the people of Cuba eat rats. The problem is, he's too proud to admit he screwed up, big time. And libs & commies share the moral responsibiltiy for the Cuban people's sufferring. Just you wait and see, when he's dead, his name is dirt, the Cuban people will scream "Never Again!" [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
:I agree with you - however, the gradual start of the embargo, in my mind at least - was not the real begging - as a lot was still allowed, just to clarify--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 22:54, 7 November 2007 (EST)<br />
::That's right. It wasn't an immediate break, so the idea the US was hard-nosed & inflexible simply isnt't true. The break came over a protracted period because of Castro's inflexibility, and has remained so for the same reasons. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:17, 8 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Get your facts straight! ==<br />
<br />
When I began reading this article I thought it was a parody, upon further examination I (humorously)found that this page claims to be fact. Most of this is opinion with small bits of fact that are obviously used to support your opinion, while ignoring other facts that are extremely important in understanding what Communism is. What I found the most ridiculous, however, was that "Nazism" was under the "see also" column. Communism just happens to the polar opposite of Nazism, because Communism is on the far left of the political spectrum, while Nazism is on the far right. This obviously shows, that once again, this is purely bias, despite the claim that you are less biased than wikipedia. Its almost funny that you can claim this as fact, but I suppose its actually a bit sad, because I'm sure some idiot believes it to be as factual as you can get. {{Unsigned|ThePantsMobile}}<br />
<br />
:Wow. You sound like an extreme POV pusher. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:13, 29 July 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Unbelievably Hypocritical ==<br />
<br />
I am completely dumbstruck by this article. It reeks of so much bias that I thought I must have been looking at Unclyclopedia - a parody site, like someone else said. If Conservapedia wishes to claim a higher standard than Wikipedia, such atrocities as this need to be fixed as soon as possible. I would help myself, but I think this is practically at the point where the entire thing needs to be done over. And yes, this article is an atrocity. Despite the horrible crimes against humanity committed by governments claiming to be communist, communism is only an idea, and really, true communism has never existed on a large scale. In it's purest form of material equality, it has only lasted in situations like with Jesus and his disciples.<br />
<br />
I would plead with the creator of this article to start from scratch and define communism only as an idea and ideal. Please go ahead and describe to great extent how this concept has been abused and has gone wrong, but just set yourself straight with this issue.<br />
<br />
-Xenophon<br />
:On one level I'd be inclined to agree with you. The [[Political spectrum]] is only an idea. [[Conservativism]] is only an idea. "[[Right-wing]]" is only an idea. The atrocities conservatives and "right-wingers" have suffered however, at the hands of Communists, is having ideas ascribed to them that they do not hold.<br />
<br />
:So, what we indeed are discussing is [[doctrine]]. Communist doctrine, the historical record not proves (a) is a platform for [[deceit]], and (b) has both advocated and practiced [[democide]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:26, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
P.S. My last account got banned or something for absolutely no reason, other than perhaps what my username was, so do I need to try to be more conservative to continue to contribute to this site?<br />
:And what account was that? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:40, 1 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::This is one of the standard justifications for Communism: the pretense that it is "only an idea", as if that excuses all the damage it has done. Communism includes an [[ideology]] and a plan for action. Carrying out the plan caused untold harm. Pretending that this harm is unrelated to the plan or the ideology is unbelievably foolish at best, and if done intentionally is inexcusably wicked. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:40, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Category ==<br />
<br />
I don't think that "liberal falsehoods" is an appropriate category for this article. We can argue about whether communism is a left wing or right wing ideology, but the simple matter of fact is that the word "liberal" isn't even stated in the article, and the ideology is not currently being proposed by liberals. Could a sysop please remove this category, and possibly add an Economics category to complement the Politics one that is on there? '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''<sup><small>[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]]</small></sup> 12:41, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:No, economics is not the proper category for communism anymore than anthropology is the proper category for national socialism. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:51, 3 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== This article is a load of crap ==<br />
<br />
A load of crap. Total, total crap. It sounds like the people who made this article have been hiding out under a rock since the Red Scare and have just now reentered modern society. In addition, it's full of spelling and grammatical errors. "Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights"? What the hell is that drivel? Clean it up. NOW. {{unsigned|Nickalexwb}}<br />
:Rasch da, rasch!<br><br />
:Dann rührt euch von hin,<br><br />
:das du mir schafft!<br><br />
:Fort in die Schacht!<br><br />
:Weh euch, find ich euch faul!<br><br />
:Auf dein Fersen folge ich euch nach!{{unsigned|RobS}}<br />
<br />
::Actually to some extent I agree - I mean communism is an economic theory - economic theories can't enslave or kill.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:05, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Really? Let's figure 100,000,000 x averge weight of 130 pounds = 130,000,000,000 lbs. divide by 2000 = 65,000,000 tons of dead, rotting stinking flesh. You think communist scumm today are going to hide that? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:14, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Before we think about math let's just start thinking about logic. Communism is an economic theory. Saying it kills people is like saying intelligent design kills people.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::bla bla bla bla [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Ahh another intellectual jewel from the famous RobSmith--[[User:TomLee|TomLee]] 21:02, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
Why don't we change the first sentence to something more along the lines of <br/><br/>"Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]." --[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:41, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:What would be the purpose of giving this murderous doctrine any sort of intellectual credibility? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:44, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Logic and accuracy. It's not giving the doctrine intellectual credibility - it's giving the article intelligence.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:45, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::It is ''not'' an economic theory. It is a murderous doctrine which has only brought misery, sufferring, and death (except to ''some'' of its advocates & apologists). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]]<br />
::::Rob - it's not a murderous doctrine - that doesn't even make sense. I agree with you that it has brought misery, thus the second sentence, but to call it something it's not is over the top--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 21:50, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::::I realize dead people don't talk, so you are saying the Memorial to the Victims of Communism is just a scam and tourist attraction? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:17, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::::RobS again - I'm not saying that when communism is the system of government deaths don't occur - and you would realize that if you read my second sentence. Please stop trying to twist my words and also try to remain civil (comments like "bla bla bla" aren't necessary)--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:24, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Iduan, if you want to debate this, please suggest a page to add to our [[Debate topics]]. This is going nowhere; and it's not helping to make the article better. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:42, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I don't post at debate because it's not a debate - it's about the article's first sentence. No one disputes that communism is a theory by Karl Marx.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Section Break===<br />
*Perhaps, somewhere in the first or second paragraph, it would be wise for us to have a text-book explanation of exactly what Communism is. I am not talking about practice, or what it became. Just a simple explanation of what Marx said it was. Then we can, and have shown what a liar/dreamer/schemer he was. --<font color="#0002AC" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="OOFFAA">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 23:25, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::I would say that the mix is there in the paragraph I provided. I mean both sentences currently in the opening paragraph are included in the paragraph I provided - but I also say what communism is, text book wise.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:27, 21 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<blockquote><br />
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disastrous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
:::This block of text confuses two different meanings of ''communism'':<br />
:::#The ideal stage of economy when (as Marx theorized) [[socialism]] "withered away"; and,<br />
:::#The actual system of [[totalitarian]] government which overthrows [[Capitalism]] and institutes [[Socialism]] by force. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:46, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Communism has one meaning - there is not a second definition. Communism is the theory by Karl Marx, but in practice - it has been disastrous - leading to more than 100 million deaths. The paragraph states that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
I wonder, by RobS line of thinking, should the article entitled "Guns" lead off with the number of people killed by guns? Funnily, I didn't come across that statistic anywhere in the article, despite the fact that it is FAR greater than those killed by communists. Ideologies, like guns, do not kill people. Evil people kill people. If this site has a reasonably educated base, you ought to be able to present the facts in an ENCYCLOPEDIC fashion without having to worry that the article is converting people to communism. [[User:Vinceipierce|Vinceipierce]] 21:34, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:While your guns argument is a good point in the changing of this article's intro - you've dragged it out excessively - please attempt to present your comments in a calm fashion.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:59, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
RobS - while Vinceipierce did it in a bad fashion - he is the fourth editor to say the intro needs changing. I again show you the proposed paragraph which, again, states all the information of the current paragraph but provides what communism is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<blockquote><br />
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]].<br />
</blockquote>Vinceipierce said,<br />
::''Evil people kill people''<br />
Now we're getting closer to the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:07, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Exactly Robs - however communism is not a person. Nor is it a device, or any solid thing. It is an idea - and you're refusal to accept that is hurting this article. Everyone here except you has said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:24, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Our page on [[National Socialism]] does not begin, "Nazism was a social theory...", and it will not read as such either. It states the record. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:27, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
Now you're really reaching - it doesn't say "Nazism killed" this many people either. It says "Nazis is an acronym for the National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei)." That's not "record" - that's fact. Just as the proposed intro is.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:30, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<blockquote><br />
Communism is [[Karl Marx]]'s economic theory that emphasizes the non-existence of personal property and thus a classless system. History has shown disasterous results when communism has been instituted, as under it the lives of more than 100 million have been lost. Today 1/5 of the world's population are under communist rule - with the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]<br />
</blockquote><br />
:I unprotected [[Nazism]], why don't you go fix it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:34, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
:This analysis is half true, but it uses Communist & Socialists idioms to impose a communist & socialist view of the world. Using the statement, "the rest of the world being under [[socialism]] or [[capitalism]]", is misleading because Communism itself ''is'' capitalist. It could not function otherwise. The question resolves around ownership rights (or "title", to use the legal term). In the communist/socialist/marxist and somtimes "liberal" scheme, a worker does not own title to his labor, and communist party bosses, such as still exist in China, Cuba, and North Korea, own ''both'' the "means of production", and the title to the workers labor. So I will vigorously protest using marxist terminolgy in any definitive scheme. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:58, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
----<br />
And an Administrative note: cutting and pasting redundant arguments, such as [[User:Iduan]] does above to make redundant points, will be regarded as trolling, a blockable offense. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:08, 30 August 2007 (EDT) <br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
I wasn't making a point on nazism - you were. You keep trying to change the subject or be incomprehensible in your effort to avoid the fact that the intro needs to be changed - and when you aren't those you're making ridiculous attempts to justify the intro- as you did with [[Nazism]]. Everyone has agreed that the intro needs to be changed - you're the lone wolf that disagrees. TK said the intro should be changed, I have said it, Nickalexwb said it and Vinceipierce also said it. You're completely outnumbered.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 14:45, 29 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It would be good somewhere in the [[Gun]]s article to say how many people were killed by them. However, a gun is neutral; it can be used for aggression or for self-defense. Guns can save lives (by preventing attack). We need an article explaining [[John Lott]]'s analysis of this in ''[[More Guns, Less Crime]]'', but surely you are aware that disarming the citizenry allows a dictatorship to consolidate its power and commit mass murder - precisely what Stalin and Mao did.<br />
<br />
:We should mention the number of civilians murdered by followers of Nazism: it is around 11 million; see [[Holocaust]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:51, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything.<br />
RobS you have yet to actually respond to much of anything. You started out with German, then with the "bla bla bla" thing - and then with a math equation and response that actually wasn't responding to anything - it was more of a comment, and then you did say that communism shouldn't be "intellectual credibility" - and then you had you're whole Nazi thing ... which was off base to say the least. Is there anything you actually disagree with in the paragraph?--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:13, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We do no one a service referring to communism as some sort of theory, intellectual, social, or economic doctrine. Communism is the name upon which 10s of millions of lives have been destroyed. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
:Communism was a criminal enterprise from its inception which destroyed the lives of scores of millions of innocent people. The manner in which the Soviet Union collapsed, despite the fact that it held diplomatic recognition from the United States, Great Britain, and held seats in the UN, demonstrated the Communist party never held legitimate power in the Soviet Union.<br />
:We do not allow wide sections of [[Nazi]] related content to be used to put forward the theories of Adolf Hitler, Rudolf Hess, Josef Goebbels, and Julies Striecher, expounding how theories expressed in Mien Kampf were misunderstood or misinterpreted, or what they really mean. <br />
:Now, if you persist in communist apologetics, attempting to characterize it as anything other than the misery and death it has wrought upon the human race, and continue this trolling with this extremist point of view, you are looking at a permaban. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You seem to be confusing communist apologetics and reality. There's actually a difference. In one the paragraph would start out "Communism is the best thing in the world - capitalism, its rival, sucks". In the other, my paragraph - which states how many people communism killed and also that its an economic doctrine - and your accusation of trolling is merely you being a troll - for even TK said we should say what communism actually is in the intro - unless your calling TK a troll too. We do people a service because we're actually giving them information. From this essay I can see someone saying "Communism killed 100 million people." "But do you know what communism is?" "It killed 100 million people" "But what is it" "It's a monster duh". I mean in the whole article we don't really even say who created it - Marx (we do say that Marx created Marxism - but this was the first form of communism, and that's not noted).--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 10:21, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Exaggeration in the Introduction==<br />
<br />
Cut:<br />
<br />
:It does not allow for savings and investment, the ownership of private property, such as homes or cars, or even fair payment of wages and labor. Persons born in Communist countries have no citizenships rights.<br />
<br />
This is a mixture of truth and fiction:<br />
*savings - false: no one makes you spend all your money<br />
*investment - true: you can't buy stock in a company, or create a partnership in a privately owned business like a factory<br />
*homes - uncertain: but apartment buildings are only state-owned<br />
*cars - false: Soviet citizens could own cars<br />
*wages - unclear: depends on what "fair" means; certainly the idea of paying everyone the same, regardless of productivity can be demoralizing; see [[incentive pay]]<br />
*citizenship rights - misleading: Communist countries grant citizenship rights<br />
<br />
In general, nothing should be in the intro unless it refers to something explained in greater depth later on in the article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 13:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:All of this can be supported by evidence; particularly citizenship rights, which are only granted to party members. And concepts such as "wages", and "money", are bourgeois. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:45, 30 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
::You seem to be confusing communism and socialism, among other things. No Communist regime, if I recall correctly, has ever claimed that it had implemented communism (although the Chinese Communist Party came close to doing so during the Great Leap Forward era and the creation of People's Communes). Rather, they claimed to be in a socialist phase of development which precedes communism. No Soviet-type communist government abolished wages or money.<br />
<br />
It is also important to have a description and discussion of communist ideologies. Just to go 'commies - evil' over and over again is counter-productive, and does the conservative cause no good whatsoever. "Know thine enemy" involves having an understanding of him/her; encouraging ignorance of your enemy is to aid him/her.<br />
<br />
[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 10:41, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Re-write Opening Sentence==<br />
"In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed more than 100 million lives. Today, it continues to enslave one-fifth of the world's people."<br />
<br />
That may be true, but shouldn't the introductory sentence actually tell us something? Shouldn't it say who created the concepts of Communism? Shouldn't it at least mention Marx? --[[User:Goldstein|Goldstein]] 23:29, 1 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:see two sections above- so far 5 people (including you) say that.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 23:59, 1 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Your buddy above just got an infinite block as denier of Communist genocide. Care to push your luck some more, too? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:19, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Do you typically threaten people when every else disagrees with you? Again, TK, that guy, and four other people above including myself have said the intro needs to be changed.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:13, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::And frankly rob - aside from that comment being way out of line - I'm starting to question your ability to read. I say in the paragraph that communism killed 100 million. Why don't you actually start making legitimate points -unless you want to bring up random subjects like Nazism again.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 16:15, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*Take some time and reflect on if you really want to be here. Leave the biting personal remarks out, as well as stating what others, including me, think. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 16:21, 2 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'd just like to point out that Marx has been misquoted. It's a small, frequent mistake, but it was actually "The Opiate of the people", not "the Opium of the people." {{unsigned|Illuminated}} <br />
<br />
*Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out, Illuminated. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 03:49, 12 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== The need to condemn communist crimes and hypocrisy ==<br />
<br />
In something less than 90years, communist regimes and left wing guerrilas eliminated more than 100 million people combined, not to mention they deprived the right to live with dignity to many more, maybe in the hundrends of millions. <br />
<br />
My point is that since communism has killed more people than nazism, why should we not condemn their crimes, and leave aside all deniers and apologists.<br />
<br />
Now, concerning this page, i suggest we include the common features of all communist regimes such as the implementation of the same disastrous agricultural and collectivization policy which resulted in millions of deads. First USSR forced mass collectivization under a group of pseudo-scientists (Lysenko etc) which occured simultaneously with severe anti-ukraine policies and violent purges against the intelligensia and the church. PRC, DPRK and "Democratic Campuchea" adopted and further incorporated "marxist" ideas. Communist world followed a specific pattern, which was firstly introduced by Lenin and Stalin.<br />
<br />
What is more, i beleive that we should also refer to dictatorship-nostalgic communist parties and other controversial issues so that their example acts as a deterrent.<br />
Such groups include left wing groups in both EU and US. {{Unsigned|User:Gmoros}}<br />
:Have at it (it's unlocked). [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:08, 6 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== we need to have a definition of communism start the article. ==<br />
<br />
I am no fan of communism but we need to have a definition of communism start the article. Right now the article starts off poor. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:54, 7 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:I'd object to trying to give it any sort of scholarly basis whatsoever, trying to label it as "an economic theory', or a "social theory". Even referring to as a "social system" or "economic system' is problematic, in that it gives it some sort of legitimacy. "Cult" is the best I can come up with, but I'm open to suggestions. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:07, 7 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Legitimacy? Communism has legitimacy just as Nazism use to have legitimacy. I mean, the second most powerful country in the world employs it (well, says it does). I mean it's not like this is just some wacky idea that came out of teletubbies. I agree with conservative - and I would stand by the introduction i stated above.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 22:56, 7 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::The point you make is correct, "legitimacy" in the past tense. The fact that nearly one quarter of the planet is enslaved in no way should be passed off by Conservapedia as legitimate. This is precisely the point. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:37, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Again - that doesn't make any sense. That's like saying that terms like "genocide" shouldn't have any legitimacy - sure there might be some going on, but that doesn't mean we should recognize them and give them "legitimacy".--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 13:43, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<--<br />
<br />
Our definition intertwines communism with genocide; the record of the CCP certainly is genocidal. ''The Epoch Times'' as recently as 2004 has said this (some excerpts, I'd recommend reading all 9 Commenrtaries):<br />
<br />
:"Let’s take a close look at...what was imposed on China, after over 160 years, nearly 100 million unnatural deaths, and the destruction of nearly all Chinese traditional culture and civilization."<br />
<br />
:"Communist regimes clearly represent a huge step backward in human civilization. Unfortunately, the Communist Party has been '''seen as progressive''' by those who believe that violence is an essential <br />
<br />
:"The Communist Party completely overthrows the universal standards for human nature, and builds itself on principles that oppose human nature."<br />
<br />
:"training starts in preschools and kindergartens, where party-sanctioned answers to questions are rewarded, answers that do not comply with common sense or a child’s human nature. Students receive political education when they attend primary school, middle school and all the way to college, and they learn to follow party-sanctioned standard answers"<br />
<br />
:"According to modern political science, power comes from three main sources: force, wealth, and knowledge. The Communist Party has never hesitated to use monopoly control and force to rob people of their property. More importantly, it has deprived people of their freedoms of speech and of the press. It has raped people’s spirit and will in order to maintain its absolute control of power. From this aspect, the CCP’s evil possession controls society so tightly that it can hardly be compared to any other regime in the world.<br />
<br />
[http://en.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-9/24672.html On What the Communist Party Is] [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:14, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: There are small groups of people who live in communes which internally follow communism. While these people are indeed participating in the larger capitalist economy, the ideal and economic philosophy that they participate in is communism. As the group is purely voluntary there is no enslavement, nor is there any genocide. While implentations of communism elsewhere may have poor records on human rights and atrocities, this should not factor into the underlying economic philosophy. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 14:25, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::"One of the theories the communists employ is social Darwinism. The Communist Party applies Darwin’s inter-species competition to human relationships and human history, maintaining that class struggle is the only driving force for societal development. Struggle, therefore, became the primary “belief” of the Communist party, a tool in gaining and maintaining political control. "<br />
<br />
:::"Non-communist societies generally consider humanity’s dual nature of good and evil and they rely on fixed social contracts to maintain a balance in society. In communist societies, however, the very concept of human nature is denied, and neither good nor evil is acknowledged. Eliminating the concepts of good and evil, according to Marx, serves to completely overthrow the superstructure of the old society." <br />
<br />
:::"placed above human nature and feelings is the Party nature, which, according to the requirements of the Communist Party, transcends humanity. Thus, humanity becomes relative and changeable, while Party nature becomes absolute, beyond any doubt or challenge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:36, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
RobS - everyone knows that it's a bad theory - but obviously there are some that believe it is a good theory - in large part proven by it's application to past (USSR) and present (China) world powers. You act as though we want the article to have a communist-slant, but no one does - we just want the article to say the truth rather than hide it. Not saying what communism is - is censorship - sure it'd be good-intentioned censorship - but still censorship nonetheless, and it's the exact same censorship that communism uses.--[[User:Iduan|Iduan]] 00:00, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Those quotes are indeed examples of The Communist Party and its application of communism. However, The Communist Party is an implementation of communism and is no more communism than democracy is the Democratic Party. The philosophy and the political implementation are separate things and should be written as such. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:13, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
In particular, I would like to ask the question is a self sufficient [[kibbutz]] as part of a voluntary commune implementing communism (the philosophical ideal of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need") and is this as inherently evil as it is made out to be in the above quotes? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 00:56, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:What is the role of the opiate of the masses in a Kibbutz? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:40, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== 65- 100 million people killed ==<br />
<br />
I posted the following: "In less than the past 100 years, Communism has claimed between 65 million and 100 million lives.[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html][http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm][http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm][http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I think the starvation part is the most controversial. I don't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me as if the communists probably did not keep good records on their attrocities and incompetence. Why would you want to keep good records of such a thing? I would think you would want to sweep it under the rug if anything. I am open to any reasonable suggestions on why I my revision to the article improved on the article or detracted from the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:56, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:R.J. Rummel, who coined the term "[[democide]]", is the expert we should consult. [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM] Rummel puts the figure at roughly 110 million [http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.TAB1.GIF]. We can test Rummel's figures and methodology with our own entry [[Communist Genocide, Democide and Mass Homicide]]. Notice, for example this citation, [http://www.fff.org/freedom/0495a.asp] which on [[Operation Keelhaul]], the author refers to as the "Allied holocaust," says this : <br />
::"Roosevelt and Churchill would force the Russian anticommunists into Stalin's hands. The communists would take over from there and do the actual killing. ...How many were turned over to the Russians by American and British forces? Two million individuals . Yes, two million Russian people sent back to the communists where they were either immediately executed or sent to die in the Gulag."<br />
<br />
:I am not certain if these 2 million are included in Rummel's figures, and it certainly needs investigation. This is a forgotten democide, unreported in the West, and this figure of two million needs to be verified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think we should be overly reliant on one expert but at the same time my figure of 65 million is merely based on what two scholars stated (65 -93 million).[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365] I suspect we could do better in respect to the figures given, however, I do think that we should give a range. Ideally we would cite what the liberal scholars ranges are and then state if and why they are errant. At this point, I cannot say what the likelihood the liberal scholars are errant because I am not well informed on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 9 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Employment ==<br />
<br />
Conservative, you should back away from your statement there isn't private employment in China. It is unsupportable. And to argue that officially there isn't is a [[logical fallacy]] and typical of people using so-called "facts" to support the POV they wish an article to take. One doesn't need that kind of intellectual dishonesty to show how horrible Communism is, or what an economic sham it is in practice. The fact is, there is private employment in China, and people do employ others, therefore all statements to the contrary are false. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 16:32, 8 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== So called "Communist Regimes" were not communist ==<br />
<br />
Communism, as defined by Marx, did not have a state. The very fact that the USSR and China have/did have strong dictatorships makes them not-communist. These atrocities commited by "communists", were in fact committed by people claiming to be communists. If I claimed to be a Christian and went and killed a million people, would that make Christianity evil? No, it wouldn't.--[[User:DirtyCommie|DirtyCommie]] 08:26, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:We had this same discussion at [[Talk:Socialism]], were Socialists claimed the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics were not Socialists, they were Communists. Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, ''et al'' are not Communist. They are Socialist.<br />
<br />
:Gotta love discussing this garbage with Commies, Socialists, Libs, Progressives, Pinkos, Reds, Lefists, Radicals, etc.; never was the Word of God spoken more truthful and clearly :<br />
{{Cquote|henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and '''''carried about with every wind of doctrine''''', by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, '''''whereby they lie in wait to [[deceit|deceive]]''''' [http://biblebrowser.com/ephesians/4-14.htm]}} <br />
: [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: ''Ok, so let's take you at your word; Stalin, the USSR, the CCP, the British Labour Party, et al are not Communist. They are Socialist.'' You are confusing two stages of how 'scientific' Marxism saw society as developing. Stalin, the CCP, the CPSU aspired towards fully-fledged communism, but recognised that they were at present in the socialist phase of revolution. they were communists, but did not claim that the states they ruled were communist. Hence the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics. True communism, according to their belief, would not come about until the dictatorship of the proletariat had vanquished counterrevolutionary bourgeois tendencies. Mao refined this view to see the Party itself becoming spiritually bourgeois and foresaw repeated revolutions of the people against an embourgeoisified party - of which the Cultural Revolution was the first. <br />
<br />
To lump the British Labour Party in with the others is plain silly.[[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 14:49, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I've confused nothing. ''The Epoch Times'' reports, <br />
<br />
::"The Communist Party’s evolving principles have largely contradicted one another. From the idea of a global integration transcending the nation-state to today’s extreme nationalism, from eliminating all private ownership and all exploitative classes to today’s notion of promoting capitalists to join the party, yesterday’s principles have become reversed in today’s politics, with further change expected tomorrow. No matter how often the CCP changes its principles, the goal remains clear: gaining and maintaining power, and sustaining absolute control of the society."<br />
<br />
::Again, blown about with "every wind of doctrine." <br />
<br />
:I'm firmly grounded, rooted, and established, unlike all the various ever-changing socialist doctrines, which includes [[National Socialism]]. We do not need graphics deliniations as to what pornography is to be able to explain it to our readers; all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:16, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
"...all we need to do is cite the record of what it has done to society. Communism is little different."<br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
*Exactly so. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 21:00, 10 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: You are confusing the notions of 'a communist state' and 'a state run by communists'. The two are not neccessarily synonymous, and the former has never existed in terms of Marxist-Leninist theory. [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 09:22, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::Who gives a rip. This is getting close to trolling now. Everyone has been warned several times. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:58, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: ''Everyone has been warned several times.''When and by whom? I thought this was a mature debate (until I read 'who gives a rip', that is). [[User:Pachyderm|Pachyderm]] 11:25, 11 September 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Does this article need a section discussing the theoretical advantages of private property? ==<br />
<br />
Of course, the problem with theoretical economics is that it can wander far from the real world. Hense, the invention of experimental economics was one of the sharpest of blows to communism/socialism as political movements. On the other hand, merely observing that communism and socialism have a bad historical track record isn't really a satisfying treatment of the question. If it's true that free markets are systematically more efficient (and I think it is), then it should be possible to offer a theoretical defense of them more satisfying than Churchill's formula regarding democracy.<br />
<br />
Alternatively, perhaps what is needed is a good article on private property and free market microeconomic theory, which can be linked.<br />
<br />
Off the top of my head, the key points that ought to be addressed are: (1) the improved efficiency that comes from the reduction in rent seeking when assets are privately owned; (2) the improved efficiency that results from the internalization of externalities that results when assets are privately owned; and (3) the tremendous advantage in computational power of distributed decisionmaking systems over central processing systems, as specifically applied to to the economic decisionmaking systems of a democratic free market, on the one hand, and the central planning body in a command economy, on the other. <br />
<br />
Does anyone have any thoughts on what would be the most helpful approach?<br />
:Interesting question; sort of like, "Which would you prefer, shooting or hanging?" Given a choice, I'd take shooting, I suppose. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:59, 4 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::What a peculiar response. Do you mean to suggest that an article discussing the shortcomings of Communism should not bother to consider its theoretical shortcomings, or are you simply suggesting that it doesn't have any?<br />
<br />
:::I'm merely suggesting your longwinded apologies like this, "a society in which the supply of all material goods exceeds the demand for them...no society or state has ever actually done so" does not get away from '''''the fact''''' that this perverted, sick, warped, ideology is responsible for the systematic [[murder]] of 135,000,000 [[human being]]s in recent memory. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:11, 10 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Nor is it supposed to "get away" from that fact. It's simply another aspect of Communism that deserves to be addressed. Personally, I think it's far more important to do so, because it has more relevance to the economic policy debate today in our country. "We should not enact Communist policies because past Communists were evil people" is not really a rational argument. "We should not enact Communist policies because they are predicated on false assumptions, and Communist economic systems are inherently less capable of meeting the material needs and desires of the public" is a rational argument.<br />
::::*(a) ''not really a rational argument''<br />
::::*(b) confusing "communism" with "communists"<br />
:::::Comment: this is commie trolling. I feel the banhammer calling my right hand....[[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:10, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
(re-indent) I'm not sure what "commie trolling" means, but if the suggestion is that I'm acting as an apologist for communism, then I'm shocked at the suggestion. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say that the problem, as I see it, is that the article fails to address the most fundamental failure of Communism--namely, that the underlying theory is simply wrong. I understand that some apologists have tried to preserve the reputation of communism-the-theory by distinguishing it from the putative communism actually implemented, but we should not draw the fallacious conclusion that everyone who points out this distinction is a communist apologist. Personally, I think it's important to understand why it is that self-described communist regimes did not, in fact, implement "real" communism precisely because it illustrates the futility of attempting to implement communist policies: Even regimes whole-heartedly committed to bringing about a communist utopia could not do so! They had to settle for various half-measures they hoped would bring about the communist utopia incrementally (such as socialism, in which, supposedly, resources are distributed "from each, according to his <b>work</b>, to each according to his need"). Those half measures failed, and the international revolution of the proletariat never materialized. In the end, the communist block lost the Cold War because, contrary to the claims of communist theorists, in practice, communist countries simply could not keep up with the material wealth produced by private property. That would have been true even if communist countries had been run by an unbroken chain of saints. [[User:QBeam]] 4:46 EDT, 11 Oct. 2007<br />
:So "real" communism, or communism in practice (I don't see the difference) does not belong on the ash heap of history? If not, why are we having this discussion? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::No, I'd say exactly the opposite. Both "real" communism and the various attempts to implement it very much belong on the ash heap of history, because the theory is just plain wrong. Because the theory is wrong, no effort to implement it can ever work. Consider an analogy to perpetual motion machines. At some point, it makes sense to become suspicious of someone's claim to have made one, purely from the fact that everyone who's ever claimed to make one has turned out to be wrong. However, by itself, no matter how many frauds and failures you see, that can never prove that no one will ever figure out how to make one. (Maybe it's just like breaking the sound barrier--hard, but possible.) But once you understand the underlying theoretical problem with them--they violate the Law of Conservation of Energy--then you can stop saying they're "probably" a fool's errand, and say "We know they're a fool's errand." My point is that there is an underlying theory that explains why private property produces wealth, and why the absence of private property rights produces shorages and misery. We don't have to settle for "communism is probably wrong"--it can be demonstrated to be wrong from first principles. Therefore, any comprehensive article discussing communism should do so, in my opinion. [[User:QBeam]]<br />
:::P.S. The distinction between "real" communism and "communism-in-practice," for want of a better term, is straitforward. "Real" communism refers to to communist ideology, or theory. "Real" is perhaps an inapt term for something characterized by its existence only in some people's minds. But why quibble? "Communism-in-practice," on the other hand, is meant to refer to the systems that actually existed behind the Iron Curtain. They differ from one another profoundly. In "real" communism, there is no private property of any kind--it has been made obsolete, because, as a result of making the means of production publicly held, productivity has been increased to the point where the supply of everything exceeds the demand. In a world where everything you might want is free (even in the strict economic sense), you don't need private property. Obviously, no communist regime ever tried to completely abolish private property, though they took a variety of steps in that direction. Even more obviously, no communist country ever managed to improve its productively beyond that of free market economies in which private property rights are respected. The distinctions between "real" communism and communism-as-actually-practiced go on, but these are, in my opinion, the most crucial distinctions. [[User:QBeam]]<br />
<br />
::So we agree [[private property]] is a fundemental [[human rights|human right]]. This leaves aside the question that Communism, in good faith, ever sought to abolish this fundemental human right for some greater good. It rather seems to be more of the spiritual wickedness in high places we wrestle against, i.e. the [[envy]] and [[hate]] that possessed Cain to [[murder]] his brother. In the final analysis, the gospel of Communism did not then, nor does it now, nor many of its subsidiary offshoots and progeny, amount to anything more. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 11 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:::I'd think any real conservative would be tired of attempts by liberals to shut down rational objections to their cause-du-jour by labeling them "human rights," so I'll presume that wasn't your intent. Private property is a valuable instrumental right, because it produces good results (namely greater material prosperity and social harmony), but that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right. It is at least theoretically possible to organize a society without the concept of private property that provides even better results. So far, we've yet to discover one, though Communism purports to be one. A thorough, rational response to Communism should specifally address the mechanisms by which private property works to improve prosperity and harmony, because the loss of those mechanisms is part of the opportunity costs of any Communist system, however sincere or well-meaning its organizers and rulers. (Furthermore, I think it helps to explain why persistent efforts to implement Communism tend to result in mass murder and misery. Once it becomes apparent that human nature, contrary to Communist prophesies, does not naturally bring about a Communist utopia, they begin to resort to attempts to alter human nature to make it compatible to their Communist vision, as with Stalin's deliberate starvation of Ukrainian farmers to implement collective farming.) Which brings me back to my original point: does it make more sense for them to be addressed in section on private property, or in a separate article on private property to which this one can refer?{{unsigned|QBeam}}<br />
*''Private property is a valuable instrumental right...but '''''that doesn't mean it is an absolute or moral right'''.<br />
:*Warning: You, personally, are advocating [[slavery]]. I feel the [[User:RobSmith|banhammer]] coming down very quickly if you wish to continue with this line of discussion. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:41, 18 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::Firstly, I most certainly do not advocate slavery, and I object to your slanderous accusation. If what you meant to say is that one might think it possible to justify slavery from what I've said, then you ought to explain how you believe that is so (so that I will understand your error, and be able to explain it to you). Secondly, this is twice now that you've threatened the "banhammer," and on both occassions based on a grotesque misunderstanding of my position.{{unsigned|QBeam}}<br />
:::Please begin signing your comments. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:45, 22 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
::::Wilco. [[User:QBeam]] 2:54, 25 Oct. 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*QBeam: [[Image:deadhorse.gif]] <br /><br /><br />
--<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 15:14, 25 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::As amusing as I found the "dead horse" icon, I have to say I found it confusing, as well. Generally, whipping a dead horse is understood to mean arguing an issue in circles or without the prospect of making progress. I don't see how that's applicable either to me or to RobSmith, since the discussion to this point has involved several misapprehensions on his part which I've cleared up. Surely that's fair progress? <br />
<br />
::On the other hand, what I haven't seen yet is any helpful advice on how the additional content I'm suggesting would be best implemented. After reviewing the sliver of an article on the subject of property, I've decided to try to write an article on private property which includes this material. I've been trying, without success, to determine how new articles are submitted for review, so any hints would be appreciated. [[User:QBeam]] 11:04pm 28 Oct. 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Capital Letters==<br />
I think that communism shouldn't be have capital letters as it hasn't earned that right yet, being the worst form of government ever thought of. {{unsigned|jesusbushcheney}}<br />
:Capitalization is not "earned," it is dictated by the rules of grammar. If you have to earn the right to capitalization then all babies would have lower case names, no? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:36, 28 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Let's nominate this Talk page for Featured article==<br />
I'd like to nominate this Talk page for Featured article status. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:28, 28 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
<br />
[[Image:lol.gif]]<br />
--<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 03:32, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br />
:The only talk page I've seen to rival this one in User:Essjay's after the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay scandal]] broke. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 20:40, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
*LOL! Rob, Rob, Rob.....this page is like living in a mental institution! I have put it on watch, because it is obvious to me it is full or parodists. Or escapee's from mental institutions. --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 00:29, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:*I'm trying to capture Community reaction to the [[Wikipedia#Second_casualty:_the_role_of_.22experts.22_called_into_question.2C_the_Essjay_Scandal|Essjay Scandal]] right now; it can be a real challenge trying not to depart from sense and flavor of the written record. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Essjay&direction=prev&oldid=112282995#There.27s_a_special_circle_of_Hell_reserved_for_duplicitous_sacks_of_shit_like_you.] [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Am I, y'know… ==<br />
<br />
…''allowed'' to edit this page? --[[User:AngryCommunist|<font color="#ff0000">Angry</font><font color="#000000">Communist</font>]] 12:01, 1 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== I think the wikipedians are better in this case. ==<br />
<br />
Well, you have to dig through pages of criticism, and it doesn't even tell you what Communism aims for. Could someone edit this article?<br />
[[User:Bias|Bias]] 16:02, 22 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Discuss on talk page? ==<br />
<br />
I don't see why I must discuss changes on the talk page before making them when no one else does. However, in accordance with the directive, I hereby propose that I revert to my version, which is much superior, IMHO. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 19:53, 13 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Communism&diff=386720Communism2008-02-11T18:18:18Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Removed propaganda and bloat.</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Captive-nations-01b----07-19-06.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|A monument to the Captive Nations stands at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation .]]'''Communism''' is [[Karl Marx]]'s proposed establishment of a "classless society" by means of eliminating [[private property]]. According to some sources, in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have claimed between 65 million and 110 million lives.<ref>[http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/finalconflict/fcrevb102.html The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>[http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/lelivrenoir.htm The Black Book of Communism]</ref><ref>http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM</ref><ref>[http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm Source List and Detailed Death Tolls for the Twentieth Century Hemoclysm]</ref><ref>[http://www.sarasotamagazine.com/blog/template_permalink.asp?id=365 Memory and Ideology]</ref><ref>[http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=2526 The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression]</ref> Today, it continues to oppress one-fifth of the world's people.<ref>[http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/history_communism.php Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation], Documenting Communism's Crimes Against Humanity.</ref> It is worth noting that no states of any magnitude have existed that strictly fulfilled the definition of "communist", although they have approached it with varying degrees of accuracy. Many states have, however, proclaimed themselves as communist, presumably for propaganda purposes.<br />
<br />
==Theory==<br />
[[Image:HammerAndSickle.png|thumb|right|300px|The [[hammer and sickle]], the international symbol of communism, stand for the uprising of the peasants (the sickle) and the workers (the hammer). In certain countries, it is considered to be offensive in the same manner as the [[swastika]] is.]] <br />
Communism is based upon a [[socialist]] economy in which the public, whether the state or other group, owns the "[[means of production]]" and in which the wealth of the nation is rationed among the Party's beneficiaries. In many cases, members of the ruling party have special stores in which ordinary people are barred, stores which are immune to the shortages which the lower class must endure (see [[queuing]]). <br />
<br />
Various communist or quasi-communist doctrines have evolved or been adapted to the time and place they have been implemented. Marxism, developed by [[Karl Marx]], and its modifications under [[Vladimir Ilyich Lenin| Vladimir Lenin]], [[Joseph Stalin]], and [[Mao Zedong]], advocates the overthrow of the existing order by a revolution of the proletariat, the social group which does not control the means of production. The goal of Marxism is supposedly to create a classless society which would result in no longer the need for any [[government]].<br />
<br />
The most famous government to label itself "communist" is the former [[USSR]] or the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; the Communist Party controlled its government from 1922 to 1991. This government was officially [[atheist]] and attempted to suppress all religion. Like many authoritarian regimes, it tried to cultivate reverence for the state as a psychological substitute for religion. Left-wing critics of the USSR charged that it was communist in name only, and had betrayed the revolution which founded it. George Orwell expressed this viewpoint eloquently in his 1945 fable ''[[Animal Farm]]''. <br />
<br />
Marxist theory is intended to appeal to its adherents with the phrase, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs", which essentially states point blank a worker does not get paid according to his abilities, and there is no [[incentive]] within the economic theory. Another quote by Marx was, "The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."<br />
<br />
==Communists cite scripture==<br />
<br />
Some Communist ideology has made its way into the Church as a [[Social Gospel]], interpreting the Gospel as less redemptive of sin and more of a public works campaign and activism. The often cite Jesus feeding the masses and warnings to the wealthy who believed self-seeking is all this world has to offer. Communists often cite the Acts of the Apostles, as early Christians practicing some form of sharing for the common good. Many anti-communist apologists have various responses to the viewpoints, of varying validity.<br />
<br />
==Demise of Communism==<br />
Between 1989 and 1991, many communist governments fell. The [[Berlin Wall]] in [[Germany]], which had become a symbol for the division between the West and communist states, was torn down largely in response to Ronald Reagan in 1989, and there was also a large revolution against Romanian dictator [[Nicolaie Ceausescu]]. In 1991, the USSR broke up into several countries - each which reformed to capitalism. Some of these remained under autocratic governments, but some have embraced [[democracy]].<br />
<br />
Although Communism's influence has decreased dramatically in Europe, it still has a strong presence in Asia, where the most famous country governed by a communist one-party system is [[China]], but others (such as [[North Korea]], [[Laos]], and [[Vietnam]]) remain. There is considerable debate as to the extent to which these governments actually implement communist policies. China has not democratized (note especially the crushing of the [[Tiananmen Square protests of 1989]]), but its economic policies have been called "red capitalism" by some commentators, as there is a growing sector that behaves in a less-regulated, free market style. China's economy manufactures a wide variety of products that are sold to non-communist countries, and there is quite obvious tolerance of economic inequality, with some provinces struggling with poverty while others prosper. One of the only remaining Modern communist countries, [[Cuba]], is still kept under economic sanctions by the USA.<br />
<br />
President Ronald Reagan speaking to the British House of Commons at the Palace of Westminster said, <br />
{{Cquote|What I am describing now is a plan and hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave [[Marxism-Leninism]] on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people.<ref>President Ronald Reagan [http://www.iri.org/history_ReaganSpeech.asp Speech to the British Parliament], June 8, 1982. Retrieved from International Republican Institute 05/24/07. </ref>}}<br />
<br />
==Notable communists==<br />
<br />
Notable communists include [[Joseph Stalin]], [[Friedrich Engels]], [[Vladimir Lenin]], [[Karl Marx]], [[Che Guevara]], and [[Fidel Castro]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Capitalism]]<br />
*[[Socialism]]<br />
*[[Nazism]]<br />
*[[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] for the connection of the shootdown by the Soviets of KAL 007, with 269 people aboard, on Sept. 1, 1983 with the heightened U.S./Soviet confrontations of 1983-4.<br />
<br />
==Notes and references==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
*[http://www.memorialsighet.ro/en/colectie.asp?id=3 Memorial to the Victims of Communism and the Resistance]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]<br />
[[Category:History]]<br />
[[Category:Communism]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Iduan&diff=386344User talk:Iduan2008-02-10T04:13:35Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Guard dog */ Don't worry about it.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{User talk:Iduan/header}}<br />
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"<br />
|-<br />
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal"><br />
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]<br />
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]<br />
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]<br />
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]<br />
*[[/Archive5|(December)]]<br/><br />
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]<br />
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]<br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==NFL Templates==<br />
Thanks for making those NFL Templates. I noticed some of them weren't being used in the articles, so I inserted them. I hope you continue making those templates. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Ahh, thank you, yeah there was a question of what namespace they should go in for a while - but I think it's pretty much been resolved that the template namespace is adequate; and I certainly do plan on continuing soon! Thanks for putting them in consistently (I like the fact that you put it in its own section - that makes it a lot more clear and it also makes the pages nicer)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:31, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Those templates were originally in template namespace, and I suggested (months ago) that they shouldn't be. My reasons were as follows:<br />
::* If they are only used on one page, there's little point in making templates for them.<br />
::* Current policy is for templates to be locked, so if the roster changes (as I expect would happen reasonably often) then a sysop needs to change (or at least unlock) them.<br />
::* If you don't want complex tables cluttering up the article, then they could be put into a sub-page and linked into the article as a template.<br />
:: Now, if something has changed, such as them now being used on multiple pages, then that changes things, but otherwise I think they should not be in template namespace. I've not seen any other discussion on this, so if there is one somewhere, and particularly if it mentions factors that I haven't considered, could you point me to it please? I'm not laying this down as law, but I think it's pertinent to consider.<br />
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::The only reason I said I thought they should be in the template namespace is because when I started transferring them to the mainspace others started telling me to stop ... I mean frankly I'm fine with you moving them, I'll even go back and fix all the links - because I actually believe that they should be in the mainspace (since they're only being used on one page) - but ultimately it's your call - just give me the heads up whatever you decide and I'll go in and change the links.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 10:20, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Guard dog ==<br />
<br />
What's the deal with that? --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 17:27, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:From what I've heard, and I'm not going to give away everything because I don't know what's final and what's not, it's an experimental program meant to more easily block vandals without the presence of admins - I was mistakenly blocked by it; but luckily Philip was there to explain.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:30, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Sweet! That will be awesome...except then we don't get to block them ourselves. :/ [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 17:34, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: It won't pick up all types of vandalism, so there will still be plenty of opportunities for you to block editors! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Ah...Okay...still it's really awesome(genius). :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 18:16, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Haha - it does sound pretty awesome - Philip = amazingness--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:36, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
Very true![[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 17:37, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Wow, sounds like a very useful system. --[[User:Liam Spencer|'''<span style="background:#7BA05B;color:turquoise">&nbsp;L.S.&nbsp;</span>''']] 17:44, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Looks pretty lame to me, but that may have just been the beta… --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 10:30, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Sorry about that latest block. Rather than it needing a bit more fine tuning, in this case it appears to be a bug. I've turned it right off for now, until I can find and fix the bug. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 16:59, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::It's fine, don't worry about it. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 23:13, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== [[Template:USState]] ==<br />
<br />
Congratulations. Looks good.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 17:28, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks - I'm actually kind of nervous about the looks ... but I appreciate your support (oh and by the way - good thinking to use switch!)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:31, 9 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Guard_dog&diff=386193Conservapedia talk:Guard dog2008-02-09T23:16:04Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Sig.</p>
<hr />
<div>Needs to be a bit "smarter", methinks. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:02, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:You made 9 edits in 1 minute. It's probably pretty hard to program a system smart enough to tell when you are simply testing its limits and not, in fact, a botspammer... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::To the contrary, it need only look at the kind of changes that are being made. Significantly harder to write, admittedly, but that's a price that must be paid. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:25, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::In fact, I would see if a copy of the AVB from Wikipedia could be procured. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:26, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Regardless, in no normal circumstances should users make that many edits in a short period of time. In fact, I'm not sure I could find a page, make decide what edit needs to be made, make said edit, and save the page all in under 6 seconds. Even when you go through and fix categories you can't go that fast. I would say that anyone who makes that many edits in 1 minute should be slowed down. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:32, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::One word: Tabs. [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 17:35, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::I know how it's done, but there's no practical reason to do it that way. If you are going to open up the tabs beforehand, why not just make the edit right then? At my very fastest and most efficient I've ever been able to be (and I've done a lot of routine "maintenance" work) is maybe a third of that rate. Maybe if the pages loaded instantly I could go twice as fast, but that's still only 6 edits a minute. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:06, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::::To tell the truth, I was testing it… --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 18:16, 9 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Guard_dog&diff=386191Conservapedia talk:Guard dog2008-02-09T23:14:48Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Well, you see…</p>
<hr />
<div>Needs to be a bit "smarter", methinks. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:02, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:You made 9 edits in 1 minute. It's probably pretty hard to program a system smart enough to tell when you are simply testing its limits and not, in fact, a botspammer... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::To the contrary, it need only look at the kind of changes that are being made. Significantly harder to write, admittedly, but that's a price that must be paid. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:25, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::In fact, I would see if a copy of the AVB from Wikipedia could be procured. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:26, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Regardless, in no normal circumstances should users make that many edits in a short period of time. In fact, I'm not sure I could find a page, make decide what edit needs to be made, make said edit, and save the page all in under 6 seconds. Even when you go through and fix categories you can't go that fast. I would say that anyone who makes that many edits in 1 minute should be slowed down. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:32, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::One word: Tabs. [[User:Absentismens|Absentismens]] 17:35, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::::I know how it's done, but there's no practical reason to do it that way. If you are going to open up the tabs beforehand, why not just make the edit right then? At my very fastest and most efficient I've ever been able to be (and I've done a lot of routine "maintenance" work) is maybe a third of that rate. Maybe if the pages loaded instantly I could go twice as fast, but that's still only 6 edits a minute. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:06, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::::To tell the truth, I was testing it…</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Guard_dog&diff=386008Conservapedia talk:Guard dog2008-02-09T18:26:09Z<p>MakeTomorrow: AVB?</p>
<hr />
<div>Needs to be a bit "smarter", methinks. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:02, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:You made 9 edits in 1 minute. It's probably pretty hard to program a system smart enough to tell when you are simply testing its limits and not, in fact, a botspammer... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::To the contrary, it need only look at the kind of changes that are being made. Significantly harder to write, admittedly, but that's a price that must be paid. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:25, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::In fact, I would see if a copy of the AVB from Wikipedia could be procured. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:26, 9 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Guard_dog&diff=386007Conservapedia talk:Guard dog2008-02-09T18:25:26Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Well…</p>
<hr />
<div>Needs to be a bit "smarter", methinks. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:02, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:You made 9 edits in 1 minute. It's probably pretty hard to program a system smart enough to tell when you are simply testing its limits and not, in fact, a botspammer... [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:22, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::To the contrary, it need only look at the kind of changes that are being made. Significantly harder to write, admittedly, but that's a price that must be paid. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:25, 9 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Guard_dog&diff=386004Conservapedia talk:Guard dog2008-02-09T18:02:46Z<p>MakeTomorrow: New page: Needs to be a bit "smarter", methinks. --~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>Needs to be a bit "smarter", methinks. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 13:02, 9 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Cultural_Landscapes&diff=386001Cultural Landscapes2008-02-09T17:51:11Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Un-deadend</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Cultural Landscapes''' have been created by man's domestication and exploitation of the natural [[environment]], particularly through agro-pastoral activity. They may include [[garden|gardens]] and [[park|parks]] designed purely for [[aesthetics|aesthetic]] reasons as well as spaces cultivated for utilitarian purposes.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Culture]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dave_Ramsey&diff=386000Dave Ramsey2008-02-09T17:50:15Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Un-deadend</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Dave Ramsey''' is a [[talk-show host]] of ''[[The Dave Ramsey Show]]''. He is the author of ''More Than Enough'', ''Financial Peace'', and ''The Total Money Makeover''.<br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
*[http://www.daveramsey.com Dave Ramsey's Website]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT: Ramsey, Dave}}<br />
[[category:Authors]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chordophone&diff=385999Chordophone2008-02-09T17:50:01Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Un-deadend</p>
<hr />
<div>A '''chordophone''' can be described as any [[musical instrument|instrument]]the sound of which is produced by the [[vibration]] of a stretched [[string]].<br />
<br />
The following instruments are all chordophones: banjo, cello, clavichord, double bass, fiddle, guitar, harp, harpsichord, lute, mandolin, piano, ukelele, viol, viola, violin.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Music]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Back-bencher&diff=385996Back-bencher2008-02-09T17:48:08Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Un-deadend</p>
<hr />
<div>Back-benchers are Members of [[Parliament]], or other elected representatives, who do not have ministerial/executive responsibilities (or act as official spokespersons in the case of parties in opposition).<br />
<br />
[[Category:Politics]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ars_disputandi&diff=385994Ars disputandi2008-02-09T17:48:05Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Un-deadend</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Ars disputandi''' is an [[online]] journal of theological [[philosophy]].<ref>http://www.arsdisputandi.org/</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/></div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Aerophone&diff=385989Aerophone2008-02-09T17:47:59Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Un-deadend</p>
<hr />
<div>An '''aerophone''' may be described as any [[instrument]] whose [[sound]] is produced by the vibration of a column of air. Aerophonic instruments may be further classified as to the way in which the vibrations are generated. These different methods include:<br />
<br />
*blowing across a hole ([[flute]]);<br />
*through a reed ([[oboe]], [[clarinet]]);<br />
*into a cup-shaped mouthpiece ([[trumpet]], [[tuba]]).<br />
<br />
Instruments that are classed as aerophones include: accordion, bagpipe, bassoon, clarinet, consertina, crumhorn, euphonium, flute, harmonium, horn, mouth organ, oboe, recorder, saxophone, trombone, trumpet and tuba.<br />
<br />
[[Category:Music]]</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Carnival_glass&diff=385988Carnival glass2008-02-09T17:47:58Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Un-deadend</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Carnival glass''' is a pressed [[glass]] that was sprayed with [[metal oxide]]s and then reheated. The oxides make the glass [[iridescence|iridescent]] which gave it the appearance of being multicolored when viewed in sunlight or other bright light.<br />
<br />
While still made today, carnival glass enjoyed its biggest heyday in the early 1900's. Major US manufacturers were Fenton, Northwood, Imperial, Millersburg, Dugan and US Glass. Carnival glass was also made in [[Great Britain]], [[Europe]], [[Australia]], [[Mexico]] and [[South America]].</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Eragon_(character)&diff=385976Talk:Eragon (character)2008-02-09T15:38:09Z<p>MakeTomorrow: New page: What is the deal with the title? It should be Eragon (character). --~~~~</p>
<hr />
<div>What is the deal with the title? It should be [[Eragon (character)]]. --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 10:38, 9 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Iduan&diff=385975User talk:Iduan2008-02-09T15:30:49Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Guard dog */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{User talk:Iduan/header}}<br />
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"<br />
|-<br />
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal"><br />
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]<br />
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]<br />
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]<br />
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]<br />
*[[/Archive5|(December)]]<br/><br />
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]<br />
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]<br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==NFL Templates==<br />
Thanks for making those NFL Templates. I noticed some of them weren't being used in the articles, so I inserted them. I hope you continue making those templates. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Ahh, thank you, yeah there was a question of what namespace they should go in for a while - but I think it's pretty much been resolved that the template namespace is adequate; and I certainly do plan on continuing soon! Thanks for putting them in consistently (I like the fact that you put it in its own section - that makes it a lot more clear and it also makes the pages nicer)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:31, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:: Those templates were originally in template namespace, and I suggested (months ago) that they shouldn't be. My reasons were as follows:<br />
::* If they are only used on one page, there's little point in making templates for them.<br />
::* Current policy is for templates to be locked, so if the roster changes (as I expect would happen reasonably often) then a sysop needs to change (or at least unlock) them.<br />
::* If you don't want complex tables cluttering up the article, then they could be put into a sub-page and linked into the article as a template.<br />
:: Now, if something has changed, such as them now being used on multiple pages, then that changes things, but otherwise I think they should not be in template namespace. I've not seen any other discussion on this, so if there is one somewhere, and particularly if it mentions factors that I haven't considered, could you point me to it please? I'm not laying this down as law, but I think it's pertinent to consider.<br />
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:58, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::The only reason I said I thought they should be in the template namespace is because when I started transferring them to the mainspace others started telling me to stop ... I mean frankly I'm fine with you moving them, I'll even go back and fix all the links - because I actually believe that they should be in the mainspace (since they're only being used on one page) - but ultimately it's your call - just give me the heads up whatever you decide and I'll go in and change the links.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 10:20, 9 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Guard dog ==<br />
<br />
What's the deal with that? --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 17:27, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:From what I've heard, and I'm not going to give away everything because I don't know what's final and what's not, it's an experimental program meant to more easily block vandals without the presence of admins - I was mistakenly blocked by it; but luckily Philip was there to explain.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:30, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Sweet! That will be awesome...except then we don't get to block them ourselves. :/ [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 17:34, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::: It won't pick up all types of vandalism, so there will still be plenty of opportunities for you to block editors! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 18:07, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Ah...Okay...still it's really awesome(genius). :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 18:16, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Haha - it does sound pretty awesome - Philip = amazingness--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 17:36, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
Very true![[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 17:37, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Wow, sounds like a very useful system. --[[User:Liam Spencer|'''<span style="background:#7BA05B;color:turquoise">&nbsp;L.S.&nbsp;</span>''']] 17:44, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Looks pretty lame to me, but that may have just been the beta… --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 10:30, 9 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Iduan&diff=385859User talk:Iduan2008-02-08T22:27:43Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Guard dog</p>
<hr />
<div>{{User talk:Iduan/header}}<br />
{| style="background:navy;text-align:center" width="100%"<br />
|-<br />
|style="background:white; border: 2px solid maroon; font-weight:bold; font-variant:small-caps"|<div class="horizontal"><br />
*[[/Archive1|(August)]]<br />
*[[/Archive2|(September)]]<br />
*[[/Archive3|(October)]]<br />
*[[/Archive4|(November)]]<br />
*[[/Archive5|(December)]]<br/><br />
*[[/Archive6|(January)]]<br />
*[[/Archive7|(February)]]<br />
</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==NFL Templates==<br />
Thanks for making those NFL Templates. I noticed some of them weren't being used in the articles, so I inserted them. I hope you continue making those templates. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:29, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Ahh, thank you, yeah there was a question of what namespace they should go in for a while - but I think it's pretty much been resolved that the template namespace is adequate; and I certainly do plan on continuing soon! Thanks for putting them in consistently (I like the fact that you put it in its own section - that makes it a lot more clear and it also makes the pages nicer)--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 16:31, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Guard dog ==<br />
<br />
What's the deal with that? --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 17:27, 8 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=385793User talk:DeanS2008-02-08T21:03:25Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Wow, Crocoite… */</p>
<hr />
<div><blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;"><br />
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list] <br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"<br />
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#302020>No Ping-ponging Conversations!</font><br />
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#202020>Archive Policy</font><br />
|-<br />
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#202020>Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.</font><br />
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#202020>Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.</font><br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Team ==<br />
<br />
Hi there<br />
<br />
I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Learn_together and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agreee? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 8 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Excellent my friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:16, 8 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:<br />
<br />
''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.'' <br />
<br />
First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now. <br />
<br />
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Good. How about if you make a team page where we can collaborate on our efforts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Good idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Please use:<br />
<br />
[[Featured articles]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:10, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Any suggestion to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Any comment about the actual list? Which do you think could be next one? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: [[Jesus Christ]] would be my choice. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:50, 18 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==[[Genocide]]==<br />
<br />
This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Present ==<br />
<br />
Have a present:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Crocoite.jpg]]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Gracias Joaquín y Feliz Navidad a ti. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:50, 24 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Image==<br />
Great link to the 360º image from Everest! Incredible view. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Fox! Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:32, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Webcam links ==<br />
<br />
These webcam links are very interesting! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Dan! I found a link on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318306,00.html Fox News - Links to Webcams Around the World] that has other great links we can add to our articles. I'm going to be taking a break from editing soon, so feel free to peruse the views and add some to Conservapedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:29, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: Excellent material. Good work! Have a happy new year, too! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Fantastic blocks ==<br />
<br />
Fantastic blocks, Crocoite! God bless you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thank you Andy :) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Contest4 ==<br />
<br />
Crocoite, we need you in Contest4. Can you join it? In particular, your front-page edits and archiving are terrific. Please add your name at [[Conservapedia:Contest4]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:40, 12 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Andy, thanks for the invite. Due to work commitments seven days a week now, I will have limited participation. Good luck with the contest! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good work with our team page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks Brian. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::I will get around to tallying my running total today; twice I've done it and neglected to remove a certain four letter word from one of the blocks I did, causing the spam filter to block my score page edit :D I am always a bit busier on Shabbat, but I will try to do more shortly. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:14, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Thanks Fox. I also asked the judges - [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Contest4&curid=56045&diff=374556&oldid=370777 How many points for adding categories to images] since I know we both added cats yesterday. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Yeah, I saw; I think that 2 is justified, as they are getting two or three cats added, and it can be slightly harder to figure exactly where - as an image - they belong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Mine were really easy, since I just added 1 cat each + I just used the cat from the article the image links to; of course 2 pts each would be nice ;-). I'll leave it to the judges to decide before I score the pts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:27, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Great work in the contest :) Much appreciated [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 04:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks Fox!. I wanted to do more, but that's all I could do considering I've been working seven days a week. Thanks to you and the rest of our team, we won again! Of course, in the end, Conservapedia is a much better place due to the efforts from both teams. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:07, 21 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Vote ==<br />
<br />
Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I voted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 11:22, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
==Wow==<br />
Lol - usually, after I put a delete tag on an article, at least a few seconds go by before it's deleted - but you got it in a split second! Great job!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks Iduan. You're making a lot of positive contributions to this site. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:59, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for the welcome ==<br />
<br />
While I realize its bot driven and has all the sincerity of a mass mailing I would like to say thanks. I just discovered this site and I'm almost ecstatic to be here. Finally an internet community that gets it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 15:31, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Actually, my welcome notices are ''not'' bot driven, though I do use a template. I saw your one edit, and gave you the welcome. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:53, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
==Contest 5==<br />
Hey Crocoite, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the [[Conservapedia:Contest5|draft of the point system for contest 5]] has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have. Thanks, --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:23, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
==Great Job==<br />
Nice job on [[CREDO Mobile]] Crocoite!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:11, 3 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:More on this, just so your aware - due to some [[Talk:CREDO_Mobile|a question Fox brought up]] as to whether all the organizations were liberal or not, I redid the phrasing a bit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=CREDO_Mobile&diff=next&oldid=384002] --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:38, 3 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Iduan. Your edit is appropriate. Since a liberal company has identified all their favorite groups, it is fair enough to identify them here on Conservapedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Thanks for those recent blocks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Your welcome Andy. I'm not in the mood for their liberal games. ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 06:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Delete Notice ==<br />
<br />
The way that delete notices work is that you discuss the matter on the appropriate page. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:03, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm not discussing this with you. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:06, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::WHy not? THe delete notice was a genuine attempt to improve the site. I cannot understand why you would not discuss. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Would you discuss it with me? --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 19:13, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::No. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Aw, shoot... :( --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 19:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:How about me? Just kidding.(thought I'd put in my two cents) :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:21, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:: ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:23, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Was blocking him for a week ''really'' the best way to handle that situation? It certainly doesn't inspire me to offer constructive criticism in the future. --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 19:36, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm not discussing this with you. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:39, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::It wasn't ''constructive'' criticism; it was ''destructive'' criticism. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:40, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wow, Crocoite… ==<br />
<br />
…getting a bit unpleasant there, aren't you? --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:59, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm not in the mood for liberal distractions. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:02, 8 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::Case in point. Distractions from what, might I ask? --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 16:03, 8 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=385790User talk:DeanS2008-02-08T20:59:50Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Wow, Crocoite…</p>
<hr />
<div><blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;"><br />
'''IF YOU NEED IMMEDIATE HELP AND I AM NOT HERE PLEASE GO HERE FOR A LIST OF Administrators/Sysops''': [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Listusers%26group%3Dsysop Sysop list] <br />
</blockquote><br />
<br />
{| align=center border=3 cellspacing=0 style="border-width: 5px; border-color: #f0c0c0; background: #e0e0e1; margin: 2em;"<br />
! width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#302020>No Ping-ponging Conversations!</font><br />
! style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#202020>Archive Policy</font><br />
|-<br />
| width=40% style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#202020>Conversations are easier to read if they stay on one page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please respond there; I'm watching it. If you start a conversation here, I'll reply here, so please watch this page.</font><br />
| style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | <font color=#202020>Conversations which have not had additions in 14 days ''may'' be archived. Or just deleted and recreation prohibited. My "castle", my rules. A 'conversation' is a group of messages delimited by a heading. Hopefully this will allow conversations to stay in one place long enough for people who are interested to read the whole thing, without leading to an overly long page. Make sure you sign your posts, please.</font><br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[User talk:Crocoite/Archive1|Archive1]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Team ==<br />
<br />
Hi there<br />
<br />
I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Learn_together and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agreee? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:41, 8 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, I agree. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Excellent my friend. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:16, 8 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:<br />
<br />
''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.'' <br />
<br />
First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now. <br />
<br />
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:19, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Good. How about if you make a team page where we can collaborate on our efforts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:45, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::Good idea. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Please use:<br />
<br />
[[Featured articles]] --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:10, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Any suggestion to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:38, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::[[Ronald Wilson Reagan]] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:41, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
Done. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 21:52, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
: Any comment about the actual list? Which do you think could be next one? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: [[Jesus Christ]] would be my choice. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 00:50, 18 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==[[Genocide]]==<br />
<br />
This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Present ==<br />
<br />
Have a present:<br />
<br />
[[Image:Crocoite.jpg]]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:14, 24 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Gracias Joaquín y Feliz Navidad a ti. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:50, 24 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Image==<br />
Great link to the 360º image from Everest! Incredible view. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 14:24, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Fox! Congratulations on your promotion to Sysop ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:32, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Webcam links ==<br />
<br />
These webcam links are very interesting! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:23, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Dan! I found a link on [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318306,00.html Fox News - Links to Webcams Around the World] that has other great links we can add to our articles. I'm going to be taking a break from editing soon, so feel free to peruse the views and add some to Conservapedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 15:29, 27 December 2007 (EST)<br />
:: Excellent material. Good work! Have a happy new year, too! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:11, 28 December 2007 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Fantastic blocks ==<br />
<br />
Fantastic blocks, Crocoite! God bless you!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thank you Andy :) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:54, 6 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Contest4 ==<br />
<br />
Crocoite, we need you in Contest4. Can you join it? In particular, your front-page edits and archiving are terrific. Please add your name at [[Conservapedia:Contest4]]!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:40, 12 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Andy, thanks for the invite. Due to work commitments seven days a week now, I will have limited participation. Good luck with the contest! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Good work with our team page. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:05, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks Brian. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:03, 14 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::I will get around to tallying my running total today; twice I've done it and neglected to remove a certain four letter word from one of the blocks I did, causing the spam filter to block my score page edit :D I am always a bit busier on Shabbat, but I will try to do more shortly. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:14, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Thanks Fox. I also asked the judges - [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Contest4&curid=56045&diff=374556&oldid=370777 How many points for adding categories to images] since I know we both added cats yesterday. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:22, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
::::Yeah, I saw; I think that 2 is justified, as they are getting two or three cats added, and it can be slightly harder to figure exactly where - as an image - they belong. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 10:24, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Mine were really easy, since I just added 1 cat each + I just used the cat from the article the image links to; of course 2 pts each would be nice ;-). I'll leave it to the judges to decide before I score the pts. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 10:27, 18 January 2008 (EST)<br />
Great work in the contest :) Much appreciated [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] <small>([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]])</small> 04:29, 21 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks Fox!. I wanted to do more, but that's all I could do considering I've been working seven days a week. Thanks to you and the rest of our team, we won again! Of course, in the end, Conservapedia is a much better place due to the efforts from both teams. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:07, 21 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Vote ==<br />
<br />
Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim <small>(CPAdmin1)</small>]]<sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:I voted. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 11:22, 24 January 2008 (EST)<br />
==Wow==<br />
Lol - usually, after I put a delete tag on an article, at least a few seconds go by before it's deleted - but you got it in a split second! Great job!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 12:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Thanks Iduan. You're making a lot of positive contributions to this site. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 12:59, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Thanks for the welcome ==<br />
<br />
While I realize its bot driven and has all the sincerity of a mass mailing I would like to say thanks. I just discovered this site and I'm almost ecstatic to be here. Finally an internet community that gets it.--[[User:Mitrebox|Mitrebox]] 15:31, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
:Actually, my welcome notices are ''not'' bot driven, though I do use a template. I saw your one edit, and gave you the welcome. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 18:53, 26 January 2008 (EST)<br />
==Contest 5==<br />
Hey Crocoite, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the [[Conservapedia:Contest5|draft of the point system for contest 5]] has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have. Thanks, --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:23, 2 February 2008 (EST)<br />
==Great Job==<br />
Nice job on [[CREDO Mobile]] Crocoite!--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:11, 3 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:More on this, just so your aware - due to some [[Talk:CREDO_Mobile|a question Fox brought up]] as to whether all the organizations were liberal or not, I redid the phrasing a bit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=CREDO_Mobile&diff=next&oldid=384002] --<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 13:38, 3 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Thanks Iduan. Your edit is appropriate. Since a liberal company has identified all their favorite groups, it is fair enough to identify them here on Conservapedia. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:41, 3 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Thanks for those recent blocks!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Your welcome Andy. I'm not in the mood for their liberal games. ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 06:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Delete Notice ==<br />
<br />
The way that delete notices work is that you discuss the matter on the appropriate page. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:03, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm not discussing this with you. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:06, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::WHy not? THe delete notice was a genuine attempt to improve the site. I cannot understand why you would not discuss. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 19:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Would you discuss it with me? --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 19:13, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::::No. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:14, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::::Aw, shoot... :( --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 19:19, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
:How about me? Just kidding.(thought I'd put in my two cents) :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:21, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:: ;-) --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:23, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
Was blocking him for a week ''really'' the best way to handle that situation? It certainly doesn't inspire me to offer constructive criticism in the future. --[[User:RedFive|RedFive]] 19:36, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:I'm not discussing this with you. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 19:39, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::It wasn't ''constructive'' criticism; it was ''destructive'' criticism. [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:40, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Wow, Crocoite… ==<br />
<br />
…getting a bit unpleasant there, aren't you? --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 15:59, 8 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fred_Phelps&diff=385626Fred Phelps2008-02-08T03:02:35Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Outside links */ rmv nonsense</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organisation not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behaviour. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.<br />
<br />
Phelps has openly denounced the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. His views are rejected by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut".<br />
<br />
Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is being represented by the [[ACLU]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
Phelps has been an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for President in 1988.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., also served as a delegate for Gore. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref> <br />
<br />
Phelps has since changed his opinion about Gore when he joined Bill Clinton on the 1992 presidential ticket. Phelps turned on him and claimed Gore was a conservative icon of the Democratic Party that sold out on some critical social issues. Phelps also demonstrated against Clinton and Gore during the 1997 inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref> <br />
<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref> <br />
<br />
== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==<br />
<br />
Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against homosexuality and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the Bible and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.<br />
<br />
== Phelps and the Democratic Party ==<br />
<br />
Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name="ref4">[http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/05/kansas.results/ 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. and 1997. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==<br />
<br />
In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read, in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Hussein to protest in Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref><br />
<br />
== Phelps and the anti-war movement ==<br />
<br />
== Lawsuits and Litigation ==<br />
<br />
*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father sued for defamation over Phelps' statement: "Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell," during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. A federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against the church; Mr. Snyder won on every count of his complaint, receiving $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.<br />
<br />
*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.<br />
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredTimGore1.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Former [[Vice President]] and [[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Al Gore]] with Fred and Timothy Phelps.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>]]<br />
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Criticism of Phelps==<br />
Phelps has been criticized by a great number of individuals, both conservative and liberal. For example, [[Jerry Falwell]] has referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref><br />
<br />
== Recent Activities ==<br />
<br />
Phelps has recently announced that he and his group will picket the service of actor Heath Ledger.<br />
<br />
== Outside links ==<br />
* [http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]<br />
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413388146858417528&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church+BBC&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]The Most Hated Family In America<br />
*[http://toiletpaperonline.typepad.com/the_blog/2006/03/how_much_do_you.htmlOh yeah, and he used to be tight with Al Gore]<br />
*[http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/rev_fred_phelps.htmlRev. Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]<br />
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07. <br />
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religious people|Phelps, Fred]]<br />
[[Category:liberal activists]]<br />
[[category:anti-war movement]]<br />
[[Category: Democratic Party]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fred_Phelps&diff=385624Fred Phelps2008-02-08T03:01:33Z<p>MakeTomorrow: /* Criticism of Phelps */ NPOV</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Phelps.jpg|right|thumb|Fred Phelps giving an interview in 2000]]'''Fred Phelps''' is [[pastor]] of the independent [[Westboro Baptist Church]], an extremist organisation not affiliated with mainstream [[Baptist]] churches, and is a controversial activist against [[homosexual]] behaviour. Phelps is noted for rallies displaying signs with highly inflammatory and [[extremist]] statements. He is said to hold a "[[Hyper-Calvinism|hyper-Calvinistic]] viewpoint" generally regarded as far outside of mainstream Christianity by most Christian scholars. Most of the congregants of the Westboro Baptist Church, which is located in [[Topeka]], [[Kansas]], are related to Phelps either by blood or marriage.<br />
<br />
Phelps has openly denounced the Catholic Church and Episcopal Church and has made claims these religious organizations tolerate and harbor homosexuals and pedophiles. He has also referred to a variety of political figures as "fag-enablers", ranging from Republican Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and [[George W. Bush]] to Democrats such as [[Howard Dean]]. His views are rejected by the majority of [[conservative]] [[Christian]]s; [[evangelical]] leader [[Jerry Falwell]] referred to him as a "first-class nut".<br />
<br />
Phelps has led protests at military funerals based on his belief that America is a country that harbors homosexuals and is thus evil. As a result, President [[George W. Bush]] signed the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes act, which places limitations on protests at military funerals. These demonstrations led to the formation of the [[Patriot Guard]], an organization of motorcyclists who attend military funerals in order to shield the families of the deceased from the protests by members of Phelps's Westboro Baptist Church.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-13-funeral-protests_x.htm Funeral protesters say laws can't silence them], By Charlie Riedel, Associated Press, July 2006. Retrieved from USA Today October 14, 2007.</ref> Phelps is being represented by the [[ACLU]].<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/22/AR2006072200643.html ACLU Sues for Anti-Gay Group That Pickets at Troops' Burials], By Garance Burke, Associated Press, July 23, 2006; Page A02. Retrieved from the ''[[Washington Post]]'' October 14, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
Phelps has been an active contributor to the [[Democratic Party]] and was enthusiastic supporter of [[Al Gore]] for President in 1988.<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1999/03/lauerman.html</ref> Phelps's son, Fred Phelps, Jr., also served as a delegate for Gore. <ref>http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559</ref> <br />
<br />
Phelps has since changed his opinion about Gore when he joined Bill Clinton on the 1992 presidential ticket. Phelps turned on him and claimed Gore was a conservative icon of the Democratic Party that sold out on some critical social issues. Phelps also demonstrated against Clinton and Gore during the 1997 inaugural. <ref> http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC} </ref> <br />
<ref> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20001104/ai_n11753681 </ref> <br />
<br />
== Phelps' Criticism of Religious Leaders ==<br />
<br />
Phelps runs several websites on the internet which preach against homosexuality and immoral living. Phelps espouses a skewed version of his own "literal" interpretation of the Bible and the holy scriptures, and speaks against mainstream religious and Christian leaders who in his view, distort or twist the literal interpretation of the Bible. Phelps also speaks for greater accountability for religious organizations, such as the Catholic Church, and has been vocal in the press and media concerning the abuse of young boys by Catholic Priests and Church Leaders, and practicing homosexuals in the Episcopal Church.<br />
<br />
== Phelps and the Democratic Party ==<br />
<br />
Phelps ran for governor of [[Kansas]] as a [[Democrat]] in 1990, 1994, and 1998.<ref name="ref4">[http://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/05/kansas.results/ 1998 Kansas Primary Results. Compiled by Congressional Quarterly.]</ref> Phelps received 31% of the vote in Kansas's 1992 Democratic Party primary for [[U.S. Senate]].<ref>[http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html State of Kansas Secretary of State Website]</ref> In 1993 Phelps ran for mayor of [[Topeka]]. and 1997. <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21229 The "God Hates Fags" [[Left]]], By Mark D. Tooley, FrontPageMagazine.com, February 09, 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.religionnewsblog.com/1128/kansas-anti-gay-church-embarrasses-topekans Kansas anti-gay church embarrasses Topekans], November 7, 2002. Retrieved from ReligionNewsBlog.com, October 11, 2007.</ref><br />
<br />
== Phelps and Saddam Hussein ==<br />
<br />
In 1997, upset about [[United States]] sanctions on [[Iraq]], Phelps wrote a letter to [[Saddam Hussein]] that read, in part, ''We understand that Iraq is the only Muslim state that allows the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ to be freely and openly preached on the streets without fear of arrest and prosecution. Alas, the United States no longer allows the Gospel to be freely and openly preached on the streets, because militant sodomites now control our government, and they violently object to the Bible message.'' <ref>http://www.adl.org/special_reports/wbc/wbc_on_america.asp</ref> He requested, and received, permission from Hussein to protest in Iraq. <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={91058469-F6DE-4615-8B2A-73CDF3E8FCAC}</ref><br />
<br />
== Phelps and the anti-war movement ==<br />
<br />
== Lawsuits and Litigation ==<br />
<br />
*Phelps and his congregation were recently sued by Albert Snyder, the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. Phelps and his congregation protested the Iraq War at his son's funeral. The father sued for defamation over Phelps' statement: "Mr. Snyder raised his son for the devil and hell," during the funeral protest and in statements on his website. A federal jury in Baltimore awarded him nearly $11 million in a verdict against the church; Mr. Snyder won on every count of his complaint, receiving $2.9 million for compensatory damages and $8 million for punitive damages.<br />
<br />
*Phelps has also been threatened with prosecution by the Canadian Government for alleged hate speech in Canada for preaching what he has stated are the literal teachings of the Bible against homosexuality.<br />
[[Image:20001025 xnjdo FredTimGore1.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Former [[Vice President]] and [[Nobel Peace Prize]] winner [[Al Gore]] with Fred and Timothy Phelps.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15559 Gore sought help from anti-homosexual group], 'God hates fags' creator preaches 'hate because the Bible preaches hate', By Jon E. Dougherty, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', October 25, 2000.</ref>]]<br />
*Already picketing daily in Topeka, the Phelpses began to shower faxes on the community, targeting business and political leaders they disagreed with. After Topeka councilwoman Beth Mechler publicly doubted Phelps' claims that wild [[gay sex]] was occurring in Gage Park, Phelps responded with an insulting fax. {{fact}}<br />
<br />
==Criticism of Phelps==<br />
Phelps has been criticized by a great number of individuals, both conservative and liberal. For example, [[Jerry Falwell]] has referred to Phelps as "a first class nut". <ref>http://cjonline.com/webindepth/phelps/stories/102498_protests.shtml</ref><br />
<br />
== Recent Activities ==<br />
<br />
Phelps has recently announced that he and his group will picket the service of actor Heath Ledger.<br />
<br />
== Outside links ==<br />
* [http://blank.org/addict/ Addicted to Hate: the story of Fred Phelps]<br />
*[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4413388146858417528&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church+BBC&total=2&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0]The Most Hated Family In America<br />
*[http://toiletpaperonline.typepad.com/the_blog/2006/03/how_much_do_you.htmlOh yeah, and he used to be tight with Al Gore]<br />
*[http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/rev_fred_phelps.htmlRev. Fred Phelps' Unhinged Video Message to the Cheneys]<br />
*[http://www.charmaineyoest.com/2007/05/media_alert_chamaine_on_fox_on.php Fred Phelps a closet...liberal]<br />
*[http://www.adl.org/poisoning_web/homophobia.asp Homophobia Online: The Westboro Baptist Church], Anti-Defamation League (2001). Retrieved 05/23/07. <br />
*[http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ God Hates Fred Phelps], Retrieved from http://www.godhatesfredphelps.com/ October 25, 2007.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
{{reflist|2}}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:Religious people|Phelps, Fred]]<br />
[[Category:liberal activists]]<br />
[[category:anti-war movement]]<br />
[[Category: Democratic Party]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{DEFAULTSORT:Phelps, Fred}}</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Lutefisk&diff=385611Talk:Lutefisk2008-02-08T02:05:44Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Sorry, it's casu marzu, not casa marzu.</p>
<hr />
<div>It's disgusting to me. --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:54, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Have you ever tried it? :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:02, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I can't eat fish. It makes me throw up. I think that fish is disgusting. Lutefisk is fish. Therefore Lutefisk is disgusting. Nice syllogism, eh? [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:04, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Well, technically it would be "I think lutefisk is disgusting", but… :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:07, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
True, true. You caught me on that one. :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
My grandmother used a dishwasher to make it. She doesn't make it anymore though. --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>gapes* --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:27, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::I would eat a rat before my tongue touched lutefisk. [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 20:36, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Eh, I might eat lutefisk. It sounds interesting, and I can think of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu much more horrific foods…] --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 21:05, 7 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Lutefisk&diff=385610Talk:Lutefisk2008-02-08T02:05:03Z<p>MakeTomorrow: Casa marzu, anyone?</p>
<hr />
<div>It's disgusting to me. --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:54, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Have you ever tried it? :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:02, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I can't eat fish. It makes me throw up. I think that fish is disgusting. Lutefisk is fish. Therefore Lutefisk is disgusting. Nice syllogism, eh? [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:04, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Well, technically it would be "I think lutefisk is disgusting", but… :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:07, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
True, true. You caught me on that one. :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
My grandmother used a dishwasher to make it. She doesn't make it anymore though. --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>gapes* --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:27, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
::I would eat a rat before my tongue touched lutefisk. [[User:JoeManga|JoeManga]] 20:36, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Eh, I might eat lutefisk. It sounds interesting, and I can think of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_marzu much more horrific foods…] --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 21:05, 7 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Lutefisk&diff=385604Talk:Lutefisk2008-02-08T01:27:38Z<p>MakeTomorrow: </p>
<hr />
<div>It's disgusting to me. --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:54, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Have you ever tried it? :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:02, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I can't eat fish. It makes me throw up. I think that fish is disgusting. Lutefisk is fish. Therefore Lutefisk is disgusting. Nice syllogism, eh? [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:04, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Well, technically it would be "I think lutefisk is disgusting", but… :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:07, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
True, true. You caught me on that one. :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:08, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
My grandmother used a dishwasher to make it. She doesn't make it anymore though. --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:11, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:<nowiki>*</nowiki>gapes* --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:27, 7 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrowhttps://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Lutefisk&diff=385589Talk:Lutefisk2008-02-08T01:07:33Z<p>MakeTomorrow: </p>
<hr />
<div>It's disgusting to me. --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 19:54, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:Have you ever tried it? :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:02, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
<br />
::I can't eat fish. It makes me throw up. I think that fish is disgusting. Lutefisk is fish. Therefore Lutefisk is disgusting. Nice syllogism, eh? [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]]<sup>[[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']]</sup> 20:04, 7 February 2008 (EST)<br />
:::Well, technically it would be "I think lutefisk is disgusting", but… :) --[[User:MakeTomorrow|<font color="#00ff00">Make</font><font color="#0000ff">Tomorrow</font>]] 20:07, 7 February 2008 (EST)</div>MakeTomorrow