Talk:Main Page/archive68

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Evil Concealed By Money?

- - One of the news articles on the mainpage declear: " It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends " Yes, it's called taxes, goverment taxes it's citicens and uses that money for common good, roads, schooling, medical care, social welfare and so on... Is it Conservapedias official view that taxes are evil? and if people in here could decide there would be no taxes? Do you think that society could really survive without taxes by letting people just give money to good causes as they see fit? Personally i think that just as utopistic as communism was. HeikkiL 14:55, 20 November 2008 (EST) - - *Can you not see the difference between taxation to provide for the common good (like schools, roads, bridges) and income redistribution by force, wherein the government decides how much is enough income, and takes what it decides is "excessive" and puts it into a pool of like money and "gives" this confiscated money to others? And I would remind you that a news item by virtue of being on CP's front page, doesn't necessarily make it Conservapedia's view. --₮K/Talk 15:25, 20 November 2008 (EST) - - ::I'm confused; what are you arguing against? What government puts excessive income into a pool? That suggests a 100% taxation level above a certain point. All progressive taxation, whether for public good or otherwise, is a form of redistribution. Moreover, many argue that redistribution is for the common good, as it (supposedly) alleviates costs related to crime and poor education (underutilisation of workforce). RodWeathers 15:33, 20 November 2008 (EST) - ::: No, it isn't all redistribution. Taxes to pay for defence, for example, go to paying the people doing the defending (soldiers, equipment suppliers, etc.), regardless of their existing wealth. Taxes that are levied for the purpose of redistribution are another thing entirely. ~~ - - ::*That is quite typical of fuzzy Euro-speak. A "pool" is merely illustrative. "Some" might argue redistribution is for the common good. Those doing so would be wrong, deceitful liberals or socialists. Your linguistic maneuver's are but a fraud, like your socialist opinions. God's speed to you! --₮K/Talk 15:48, 20 November 2008 (EST) - - :::: TK, knock off the cultural/national stereotyping and other ad hominem arguments and simply address the issues. Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 20 November 2008 (EST) - ::::::Philip, sorry, but this is a discussion page. If someone's free and candid comments distrurb you, then don't read them. Anything liberals dislike or disagree with is "ad hominem" and stereotyping, I have found. It gets tiresome, you projecting your world-view, wikipedia type sensibilities here. Block me, as I know you are itching to do, if that is what this, yet another threat from you is. --₮K/Talk 15:25, 21 November 2008 (EST) - - ::: I'm actually a supporter of graduated tax brackets, but not really because of income redistribution. I feel that the more wealthy you are, the more you make, the greater stake you have in the security of the nation, the economy, and the government. But that's pure opinion. EternalCritic 15:51, 20 November 2008 (EST) - - :::*Graduated taxation for necessary public services, and the idea of letting the government decide what portion of your income is "excessive" are two different things. --₮K/Talk 16:02, 20 November 2008 (EST) - :::: What linguistic maneuvers? What socialist opinions? I merely ask you to clarify what opinions you're arguing against, and you resort to ad hominem attacks? You might have a bit of an anger problem there. RodWeathers 16:04, 20 November 2008 (EST) - - :Can i see the difrence between common good and income redistribution? No i can't. I think it's in everyones best intrest that we take care of our poor and sick. There is offcourse limit to how much we can take from the rich and share to the poor, and that can be debated, but i do think we should provide them with enough income in hard times to survive without commiting crimes etc. Personally i think we could never trust something as important as basic needs of people just to charity. And i definetly don't see how raising money thro taxes for this purpose would be somehow " employing evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person " and at same time to use taxes to provide roads, schools and healthcare would be suddenly ok HeikkiL 19:41, 20 November 2008 (EST) - - ::Well, there you go....all boiled down neatly as to the danger of liberal policies! --₮K/Talk 20:13, 20 November 2008 (EST) - - :: I think we should never trust something as important as basic needs of people to government! When governments get involved, typically wastage goes up (more of the taxpayer money is spent on wages, office-refits, red tape, etc. than otherwise) and the welfare payments become a right that recipients can demand. This leads to a welfare mentality, where some would rather bludge than work, because they know that the government will support them. Charities, on the other hand, will be distributing money as a gift, not a right. - :: Also, committing crimes has far more to do with morals than lack of income. - :: Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 20 November 2008 (EST) - :::So the fact that crime rates mirror income levels very closely means that the more money you have the more moral you tend to be? How Calvinist of you. Boomcoach 09:20, 21 November 2008 (EST) - - - - ==The God Delusion Suicide== - - What a horrible story on the main page. Richard Dawkins must be somewhere laughing that he managed to lead at least one young soul from Christ to an eternity in hell. Is there anyway he can be charged with murder or a similar crime? This should be a Conservapeda project to bring Richard Dawkins to justice.--Saxplayer 19:38, 21 November 2008 (EST) - :Quite possibly, if he was American. Counselling suicide is a crime in most (all?) jurisdictions, and the God Delusion does just that. However, as a Brit., he's largely untouchable. RodWeathers 19:41, 21 November 2008 (EST) - ::What about the personal responsibility of the young man at the center of this? I mean it is a horrible tragedy but in the end he is responsible for his own actions and to blame this entirely on one book seems to be a very strange idea to me. --WillB 19:47, 21 November 2008 (EST) - :::Yes, blame the victim in typical liberal fashion. His values were corrupted by an atheistic school. He was deceived. RodWeathers 19:54, 21 November 2008 (EST) - ::::My heart goes out to that kid's family. JY23 19:54, 21 November 2008 (EST) - :::::My heart also goes out to his family since they are just as much the victim here if not more so then the kid as they will have to live with the pain of his loss. But I do not see how my idea of personal responsibility is in anyway "typical liberal fashion" since most fellow libertarians I have meet as well as most conservatives feel that it is the growing liberal welfare state and the resultant loss of people accepting responsibility for their actions that are causing most of the problems this country currently faces. --WillB 21:56, 21 November 2008 (EST) - :::::: a troubled young person, described by himself and his father as a Republican, christian, conservative, participating in debates since age 5 , and a recent Active duty member of the US air force, apparently thinking of suicide for a while (photobucket images), who used a blog name of JKRapture (suggests to me a bit of a preoccupation with the end ) kills himself after reading a not terribly good book suggested by a Community College professor. I dont remember anything in the book that actively recommends suicide - its been a while since I read it though. Does anyone have a quote ? His death is a person tradgedy for his friends and parents. It seems doubtful that the full story will ever be known. The police case is likely closed by now. Markr 00:20, 22 November 2008 (EST) - :::::::Just having read the article, I agree this is tragic, but it doesn't seem like it was the atheist views in The God Delusion that drove him to sucide. He agreed with TGD, it opened his eyes! From what I can tell, it was the realisation that everything he believed was founded on such shaky principles. That kind of revelation can be devestating, but surely the problem was with the absolute certainty the boy had in his faith. There was no room for doubt, for criticism, for any kind of free thought in his head, and so when his faith went.... it took everything with it. "A domination of faith wrecks lives" is the lesson we should take from this tragic story. KarlJaeger 13:25, 22 November 2008 (EST) - ::::::::Karl, your whole post is absurd and reflects liberal and atheistic views we refute on this site. The lesson you should have learned is that faith enhances life and atheism is the path to hell. --DeanStalk 13:33, 22 November 2008 (EST) - :::::::::Wow, watching you guys exploit this tragedy to score cheap ideological points is truly sickening. --transResident Transfanform! 23:09, 22 November 2008 (EST) - - :::::::::I suppose Karl and Transfan should read the latest main page entry on Dawkins. We can't be sure if Hitler was wrong? It is time for conservatives to retake the academy. Evil men like Dawkins are corrupting the minds of students, and in the long run, all of western civilization. Conservatives should be hired as professors. In time, perhaps we can open the minds of the young to conservative principles and reverse the damage that Dawkins and his ilk have done.--Saxplayer 11:40, 23 November 2008 (EST) - :::::::::::What's this nonsense about it being a "liberal thing" to blame the victim? I was under the impression it was a liberal thing to blame the crime upon society and/or outside influences, versus the conservative idea of personal responsibility. It is not Dawkins' fault that this boy killed himself, any more that its the fault of his parents for failing to prevent it. --Lester 18:25, 1 December 2008 (EST) - “I’m actually rather interested in the shifting zeitgeist. If you travel anywhere in the Western world, you find a consensus of opinion which is recognizably different from what it was only a matter of a decade or two ago. You and I are both a part of that same zeitgeist, and [as to where] we get our moral outlook, one can almost use phrases like ‘it’s in the air.’” - - At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Zeitgeist is a German word meaning “spirit of the age.” Dawkins here refers to the prevailing moral climate or mood of a given place or time. We may observe that what constitutes moral or ethical behavior differs from one culture to another; indeed, it may even differ within a given culture. This is not in dispute. The question, rather, is this: should moral standards be based on the societal zeitgeist or should they look beyond it to something else? - - I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?” - - “Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.” - - Full representation of Dawkins' words.--JKoliner 20:35, 8 December 2008 (EST) - - == Dems? Repubs? == - - This is a question for the sysops, and is for my own peace of mind. - Are their any Republicans out there that you guys (who are running Conservapedia) don't like? Or Democrats you do like? - - I'm trying to maintain faith in this site, and I need to know that you guys don't just blindly follow whoever has the same values as you. - - If you could toss me some examples that would be fantastic. --Totallytravis 20:21, 21 November 2008 (EST) - - - *Anyone that is serious, reading this wiki, would see dozens of examples of Republicans who conservatives are not enamored of. Even your question is provocative, as it seems to say Democrats do not blindly follow. If you are a Christian, your faith wouldn't be so easily shaken, that I do know. --₮K/Talk 22:14, 21 November 2008 (EST) - - == Washington Post Admits Bias == - - I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, so apologies if it has: - Washington Post admits it has a liberal bias - RodWeathers 17:34, 22 November 2008 (EST) - - == Is the news section a news ticker or a blog? == - - It reads like a blog, with largely opinion and interpretation and very little to offer in the way of news. Thoughts? --Brendanw 19:13, 22 November 2008 (EST) - :It looks like a blog. HenryS 19:14, 22 November 2008 (EST) - ::Quite the contrary, the news section presents stories the liberal media tries to cover up or outright ignores. RodWeathers 19:15, 22 November 2008 (EST) - :::No, that's not what I see. HenryS 19:25, 22 November 2008 (EST) - : Gentlemen , how about a specific example ? easier to debate than generalities. For my education who approves these to appear on the main page ? that should be the filter point Markr 19:54, 22 November 2008 (EST) - ::The Dawkins thing isn't news, months ago maybe, but I think its part of his page on here. Same thing with analysis stories like "where did the Regan votes go in 2008?" they aren't events coming to light now, they are just analysis that has recently been done by contributors. --Brendanw 20:48, 22 November 2008 (EST) - ::: I can see that reasoning , I would view though that news on an encyclopedia site , should perhaps be more topical than current if you follow. It is perhaps more educational to raise topics that induce thoughtful research than be extremely current. Perhaps the page could have a Breaking News section at the top , then items of interest maybe not quite as current. The suicide was in early october but I dont think it broke on the blogs until late october/early november so its not that old. Just my opinion though Markr 22:35, 22 November 2008 (EST) - - *Conservapedia is a Conservative-friendly encyclopedia. Since it is beyond doubt the MSM is overwhelmingly full of liberal deceit surely you liberals will reflect and understand our right to point out those news items of interest to the vast majority of our readers and editors! I see comments above holding CP to some standard set by another well-known online encyclopedia, and would like to point out that what is done there is by no means the standard of the world by virtue of them doing or not doing something, and it is not logical to make the comparison. We set our own standards, and blaze new trails here. We reject the liberal, revisionist, POV. It is a public service to present items never mentioned in the Mainstream Media and give the sources for our users to follow-up on. IMO, the introduction of the news section, and its expansion and refinement under the watch of DeanS, ranks among the foremost improvements to this encyclopedia. Is there no end to the complaints liberals will trot out to make an issue of, just to stir the pot? --₮K/Talk 23:17, 22 November 2008 (EST) - :Terry, Thank you for this great post and your support. I don't expect liberals to like the news section and that's fine with me. In fact, if these liberals are upset with the news section, that's even better, because us conservatives are even more upset with what liberals are doing to our country. We will continue to post negative articles about liberals and positive articles about conservatives. We will post negative articles about public schools and positive articles about homeschooling. We will post negative articles about abortion and homosexuality and positive articles about pro-life issues and ex-homosexuals. In summary, we will continue to post news and issues of interest to conservatives. - :No, there is no end to the complaints of liberals to the news section or Conservapedia in general. It's part of their nature and something Alinsky taught them to do. I used to be a liberal (a long time ago when I was a student), but when I got a job and started seeing capitalism in action, I realized that liberals are wrong and conservatives are right. I even edited on Wikipedia a while, until they started censoring my contributions. I found a home on Conservapedia, and never looked back. --DeanStalk 05:23, 23 November 2008 (EST) - - It's not a blog. Dean runs our news column because of all the sysops and other contributors, he's simply the best at it. I can write a new capsule, and I sometimes do. But Dean has the discipline to keep at every day. --Ed Poor Talk 16:42, 25 November 2008 (EST) - :Thanks Ed. Some of us here at Conservapedia appreciate the news section because it highlights what's good about conservatives and what's wrong with liberals. These news articles are meant to be thought provoking, both from the conservative and liberal perspective. We wikilink the news to Conservapedia's articles to add knowledge from our encyclopedia. We also incorporate these news articles into our Conservapedia articles for more conservative insight. We have input from several members of the news project who have been contributing news suggestions and completed wanted pages. The end result is very beneficial to Conservapedia. --DeanStalk 17:27, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - == Obama and Church == - - I kind of find it a bit hypocritical that you have a link to an article mentioning Obama not attending church regularly while in said article it mentions the current president, a Republican, George W. Bush having not regularly attended church while in Washinton. -User:Rcollins 13:27, 23 November 2008 (EST) - - *So you are complaining that both received equal treatment? That lacks logic. The truth will set you free, Rcollins! --₮K/Talk 16:48, 23 November 2008 (EST) - ::No i am saying the attack on Obama lacks logic considering Bush has not regularly attended church so why does it matter -User:Rcollins 14:44, 23 November 2008 (PST) - :::No, it is perfectly logical. No one questions Bush's active faith, and goodness knows it's extremely difficult for a sitting president to attend given the extraordinary demands of his job and the security involved. Obama's faith, however, is questionable to the point of rejection, and thus his lack of attendance is of keen importance. - Rod Weathers 18:00, 23 November 2008 (EST) - ::::Obviously, fallaciously, liberals even though mostly lacking faith, do question Bush's faith. However this was just another lame attempt to create a problem where there is none. --₮K/Talk 18:32, 23 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::Today's posted news item renders disproves the comment that started this thread, noting Obama's "departure from the example of his two immediate predecessors" in his failure to attend church after the election.--Aschlafly 19:41, 24 November 2008 (EST) - - :::::That's an interesting tidbit. And yet the liberals keep protesting the religious information in the Obama article. I wonder if any amount of evidence can convince the lot of them. - Rod Weathers 19:44, 24 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::::Liberals get mad when their deceit does not fool conservatives. What fun is deceit when it doesn't fool the targets of the deceit???--Aschlafly 20:09, 24 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::::: Mathew 7:3 --AdmiralNelson 09:31, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - :::::::: Liberals just love to misapply selected passages of the Bible, while ignoring or rejecting others that prohibit liberal activities or beliefs.--Aschlafly 10:00, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::::::: Yeah, like the Adultress Story. HDCase 15:29, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - I think the contents of this topic are a textbook example of liberal deceit, and should be added to that page as an example (by someone who's better at this than I). Patriot1505 15:46, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - :I'm curious about Obama's religion, but I guess we'll never know. Anyway, he seems to be more of a politician than a religious man. And he got elected president during his first senate term. Is there a precedent for that? - - :I wonder who's pulling his strings. --Ed Poor Talk 16:40, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - ==Twilight== - You all realize this is a vampire movie, not some moralistic abstinence movie, right? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robertlilly (talk) - - :Especially since in the book series the main female character doesn't want to wait for marriage. But whatever, I thought hollywood culture promoted 'liberal' values. --Bolly 19:38, 24 November 2008 (EST) - - :Don't the books consist of the two main characters becoming intimate and inexplicably sparkling and occasionally talking about how awesome they are? HDCase 15:26, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - No. I don't think they are pro-abstinence. The only reason they don't become intimate is because Edward would kill her. ~BethTalk2ME 15:52, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - In terms of her immortal soul, isn't that the same thing?GloriaL 10:36, 9 December 2008 (EST) - - == New Here == - - Are there specific areas that need work? I am new to this site and am wondering what topics are high-interest or high-priority that I could help with? Thanks! BradJohnson 14:22, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - :The beauty of the site is that you can pick whatever interests you. We have a preference for substance over talk. Insightful analysis of history or other academic topics is particularly appreciated! Welcome.--Aschlafly 14:29, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - ::Thank you, and if there is a particular project that needs an editor assigned to it, feel free to ask. Thanks! BradJohnson 14:32, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - :::I recommend you join the news project, and we can use your help creating wanted pages. --DeanStalk 15:23, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - :Welcome to the Wiki. You seem like the sort who'll do well here. HDCase 15:25, 25 November 2008 (EST) - ::I hope you meant that earnestly, but by your edits, I suspect otherwise. Respectfully, BradJohnson 15:35, 25 November 2008 (EST) - :::Eh? HDCase 15:36, 25 November 2008 (EST) - - == Captcha == - - Please, change the captcha for New User Account creation. It took me 8 tries! --Saatana 07:24, 26 November 2008 (EST) - if you have trouble with it, try sitting back from the screen and try to read the two words rather than focus on the letters. Markr 16:40, 26 November 2008 (EST) - :Someone complained about Captcha and it was reverted. It says much, doesn't it? Why don't you revert Saatana's contribution too, he too is a blocked filthy liberal. --PoorMoon 09:12, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - == Robert Gates staying at the Pentagon == - - How do people feel about this? I've heard a number of opinions from the left side, but not that many from the right side.--Frey 07:58, 26 November 2008 (EST) - :(Sees updated news article) OK. Now how did I not see that coming?--Frey 11:33, 26 November 2008 (EST) - - == Civics Quiz == - - I thought this was pretty interesting. A group of U.S. elected officials recently took this quiz about some basic U.S. history, government, and economics questions, and scored an average of 44%. I got 90.91 % (30/33). Apparently, liberals scored 49% average while conservatives scored 48%. In terms of party affiliation it was reversed, however, as Republicans scored 52% while Democrats scored 45%. - - http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/resources/quiz.aspx - - FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 21:16, 26 November 2008 (EST) - - I'm British and got 30/33. I didn't know who Susan B Anthony was or the Anti-Federalists, which is a cultural mistake really. Those democrats and republicans sure need to wise up on their own country. JHanson 11:31, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - Got lucky: 33/33. I have criticisms of several questions. Were there multiple letters (plural) by Jefferson mentioning a "wall of separation of church and state"? I though it was only one letter to the Danbury Baptists. The question about international trade has a political bias in favor of hurtful "free trade"; the question about reducing taxes and increasing spending is biased in favor of liberal Keynesian economics. The question about Socrates and Aquinas has nothing to do with American civics.--Aschlafly 11:48, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - :32/33, didn't know Jefferson's letters. How can anyone get 50%? - Rod Weathers 11:56, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - :30/33 --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:59, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - ::30/33 - though it would have been a lot lower had I not been a member here! Bugler 12:05, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - 30/33 for me. It has been a year or so since I took AP USII and 2 years since AP USI. With European history in my mind, I have not focused on US history for a while! Though I do think a few of those questions were quite biased and could be argued. Happy Thanksgiving!--AndrasK 12:51, 27 November 2008 (EST) - ::31/33 - I endorse Bugler's comment! BrianCo 12:38, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - Superb scores, everyone! Knowledge creates opportunity.--Aschlafly 16:54, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - 32/33 - dang Gettysburg Address. Rockthecasbah 23:07, 28 November 2008 (EST) - - == Myths Conservatives believe about Liberals == - - Talking Turkey: Ten Myths Conservatives Believe About Progressives - - Please read this. - - DLerner 19:51, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - : What a bunch of strawmen arguments. No mention of how liberals censor classroom prayer; in fact, your site does not mention "prayer" or "censor" at all. No mention of taxpayer-funded abortion; in fact, no mention of abortion at all in your site. No mention of higher taxes until way down the list, and then it falsely pretends that the impact of the higher taxes won't hurt all Americans. - - : Instead, in characteristic fashion, the liberal rant greats the reader with an obscene analogy and race-baiting in the same sentence. If your reference can't express its ideas in a clean way -- and often liberals can't -- then put it in your own words.--Aschlafly 20:03, 27 November 2008 (EST) - ::See User_talk:RodWeathers#Excuse Me? for discussion of its bias and removal. - Rod Weathers 20:06, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - ::Hold up Schlafly... The linked piece is a list of claimed myths Conservatives believe about Progressives... and you're complaining that censorship, prayer, and taxpayer-funded abortion aren't mentioned in the article, which lists myths. So what you're saying is, if you were writing a list of myths Conservatives believe about Liberals, you would have included censorship of classroom prayer, taxpayer-funded abortion, and higher taxes hurting all Americans? So you're saying that those things are all myths, right? Because I was seriously under the impression that before today, you thought they weren't myths. DRussthegreat 08:12, 28 November 2008 (EST) - - ::: Nice try, Russ "the great" (sounds like another self-centered liberal, like Obama). In fact, there are no myths that conservatives believe about liberals. The article's list is of strawmen that duck and avoid the real problems with liberals: they censor prayer, they force taxpayer-funded abortion (which hurts the women misled to have them), they lead our youth down an ideological road of despair, and they hurt everyone by raising taxes.--Aschlafly 10:03, 28 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::Hey, if I'm going to create an obvious throwaway sockpuppet account, I can at least point it out with an obvious throwaway sockpuppet name, right? But anyway, you're missing my point. This is a list of supposed (in the view of the article's author) myths, right? And you're complaining that they don't mention these things in their article. Surely if they were mentioned in their article, then they would be suggesting they were myths, and then you would have something to complain about? DRussthegreat 11:18, 28 November 2008 (EST) - - ==Phony internet account news item== - What you failed to mention here is that her harrassment led to the victim killing herself. it was carried out maliciously against a personal target. you couldn't have missed that reading the article. why did you leave it out? - - : I doubt it mattered legally. At one point I think it was unclear if the jury would even be told that.--Aschlafly 23:36, 27 November 2008 (EST) - - == "New" "Left" or "New Left"? == - - I noticed that in the news section, the links on "shadow world" point to two articles, new and left. Shouldn't that be new left? Who should I contact about this?--JackH 18:19, 28 November 2008 (EST) - - :If you write the article on the "new left", I will change the wikilink. --DeanStalk 18:28, 28 November 2008 (EST) - ::How about linking to the article on liberals?? Camus 13:27, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ==Professions== - - I have always thought of professions as means to ends - not as ends in themselves. What is the essential philosophic difference between me and y'all who think professions are ends in themselves? For me, it seems the positive effects of what one does (even if its just providing for oneself) are far more important than the job itself. Rockthecasbah 23:12, 28 November 2008 (EST) - - :The relationship of "means" and "ends" was not clear from the headline. For example, what does ars gratia artis ("art for its own sake") mean? --Ed Poor Talk 09:22, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - == A quick point == - - I saw your article on the arrest of Conservative MP Green, and thought I should point something out; it's not really because Labour are particularly malicious and totalitarian, it's because they're heavily incompetent and tired of being backed into corners (but I still hate them, and will be voting Conservative in the next election). Also, over in America, our (British) conservative party would be closer to the Democrats than Republicans (just though I would point it out as a matter of interest). NeilEG 13:01, 29 November 2008 (EST) - :NeilEG, open your eyes to the real nature of Labour: lies, hypocrisy, arrogance, power mania, an attempt to use any method - bribery, intimidation, slander - to get their own way. Have you forgotten their treatment of Dr Kelly? Have you forgotten Blair's acceptance of bribes from Bernie Ecclestone, then blatantly lying about it with his "I'm a pretty straight kind of guy" line? Have you forgotten how they sold 'honours' to the highest bidder, then planted a party stooge in charge of the so-called 'independent' inquiry into th matter? Hev you forgotted the roughing-up and subsequent arrest of 82-year-old Walter Wolfgang for the crime of calling out 'nonsense' to the socialist Home Secretary? They have got away with it every step of the way, which is why these criminals now think they can get away with having opposition MPs arrested. When the Telegraph says it is like Mugabe's Zimbabwe, it is spot-on. Open your eyes, NeilEG, open your eyes. Bugler 13:40, 29 November 2008 (EST) - ::Did I ever say I like Labour? No, I hate them. But I accept that the natural position of a politician is to lie; I don't like it, but I accept it. I read the Zimbabwe letter in the Telegraph today, and though I can see the similarity, I don't think we're anywhere near that yet. Do we have the death penalty? No (unlike America). And let us not forget that Dr Kelly was put under stress by an inquest into the illegality of the Iraq War - a war which George Bush and America started. And don't forget, over in Britain politicians don't have the celebrity status politicians in America have; we don't have massive rallies full of screaming and cheering zealots (apart from the BNP, but we don't like them); we don't have fights or deaththreats based on a persons political standing. We know what to expect from our politicians; they are the lesser of two evils, the other being anarchy. Cash for honours? I was screaming for blood, but alas, none came. It seems to me that American politicians are more to be feared than British ones. Sorry if it seems like I'm arguing with you; I assure you, nothing would please me more than the whole of the Labour cabinet being shown as the utter incompetents and scumbags they are. I just resent the idea that America's government is so much better; let us not forget Richard Nixon (and I consider the article here to show him in a flattering light), and everyone on here seems to already be mourning for America under Barack Obama. It's not just New Labour; it's politicians all around the world. They're not the paragons we wish they were. I don't really notice; I consider myself to be in a civilized and democratic country; and lucky to be in it, considering I could have been born in Russia, China, the Middle East etc. NeilEG 14:09, 29 November 2008 (EST) - - == Internal Linking within news posts == - - I think some of the internal linking in recent news posts has been unnecessary. For example, in the recent "Conservative MP..." news post, there were internal links to pages like reveal and arrest, and in the post on Citigroup links to bank and company - short pages which often just contain the definition of the word. I think our readers know what words like arrest mean. JHanson 12:32, 29 November 2008 (EST) - - :This is true. I think there was a sysop who said that Conservapedia needs to limit its articles mainly to those subjects where liberal bias can be found on other sites, because CP does not yet have the resources to surpass Wikipedia. It's impossible to put a liberal spin on the definition of "bank," so why have it? I would go one step further and say that the whole dictionary category should be deleted, but I know a lot of work went into it, and I suppose there might be some words that have different meanings to conservatives. -- JArneal 17:02, 30 November 2008 (EST) I have since noticed that definition articles, such as company, are not necessarily in the dictionary category.-- JArneal 17:07, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ::*JArneal, quotations given from another, without knowledge of the person who recited them, and the accurate context, are as dry, parched of meaning, as the sands of the Gobi. --₮K/Talk 18:58, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - :: Liberal bias does crop up in unexpected places, and our Bias in Wikipedia entry demonstrates that. Can there be a bias in defining "bank"? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. But even if you disagree, it is impossible to clearly define limits on the extent of liberal bias.--Aschlafly 17:21, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ::: "... I think there was a sysop who said that Conservapedia needs to limit its articles mainly to those subjects where liberal bias can be found on other sites, because CP does not yet have the resources to surpass Wikipedia..." I am very surprised to hear this. I was under the impression that articles on all subjects were allowed and welcomed. I have been editing here for almost 2 years, and during that time we have been encouraged to create pages from the "wanted pages" list which includes all types of topics. My own contributions include articles on agriculture and geography. Are pages supposed to be limited to certain subjects? If so, I should stop writing articles that do not conform to the desired topics. Thanks, Taj 17:40, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - :::: Taj, you're absolutely correct. All your entries are most welcome. The very purpose and value of a wiki is to be able to write and learn about anything and everything.--Aschlafly 17:51, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::: Thank you for clarifying, that's a relief to hear! Taj 18:01, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - I wasn't really criticising what kind of articles are being created. And that debate has already been had on this page (see "27.focus?"). - What I was talking about was the fact that sometimes internal linking to these articles is unnecessary, particularly when the article is simply a definition of the term. For example, take a post on the main page right now: "Phyllis Schlafly: Time to Follow Reagan's Example." Obviously "Phyllis Schlafly" and "Reagan" should have internal links. "Time" on the other hand shouldn't. Even if the "Time" page were more than a simple definition, it would be hard to see how a complex, scientific explanation of "Time" would help somebody gain a proper understanding of the news post. "Example" could be internal linked, but it would be much better if it linked to an article specifically assessing Reagan's presidency and its impact on the United States (so along with the link to the Reagan page, the news post would sorta say "This is who Reagan was, and this was the example he set" rather than "this is who Reagan was, and this is what an example is" as it reads right now.)JHanson 19:13, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - : Sorry, everyone. didn't mean to make this argument something it's not, but I'm still pretty sure that a sysop said the articles need more focus... if that sysop is reading this, could you say something? -- JArneal 19:02, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - == Obama caliphate? == -

-
- "Conservative Party MP and Shadow Minister Damian Green embarrassed Britain's Socialist government by revealing its lies and blunders over immigration policy once too often - so they had him arrested and held incommunicado for nine hours. So much for the respect of liberals and leftists for freedom and democracy. Americans can look forward to this kind of thing as the Obama caliphate takes hold. [1]" -

- - Goodness! Why would anyone be "touchy" over that? It has to be a readily known fact for most people that liberals are only for free speech when it agrees with them......no? --₮K/Talk 02:16, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - :Is that so? I suppose I'm not "most people", and neither are any of my friends and family. But that Damian Green is not the greatest of people.--JackH 09:15, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ::Do we need more separation between hard news reporting and value-drive editorializing? --Ed Poor Talk 09:20, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - :::You mean at Conservapedia, Ed?JHanson 13:35, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - Just to let you know that "liberals and leftists" in Britain are equally embarrassed about the behaviour of the New Labour government (which is definitely not Socialist, by the way). The Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, and the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, (the most senior member of the government after the P.M.) pretty much disowned the Home Secretary's (in)actions in radio and TV interviews over the weekend. HSpalding 11:51, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - == Self-centered Obama == - - Maybe he's busy with the transition? We are in the midst of a financial crisis. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 19:35, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - :Wow! If you think that's the reason, you're really naive about political decisions. Obama is only an hour's flight away from Georgia, and has a full office on the plane. And you can bet the Georgia election is on the mind of every Democrat right now.--Aschlafly 19:57, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ::I'd like to think that the man responsible for dealing with the unprecedented challenges facing the entire nation is using each precious day between now and the inauguration to focus on building a team and addressing those challenges. To take time away from that for the sake of a single Senate seat would show a poor choice of priorities. --DinsdaleP 20:53, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - :::That is the beauty of a blog like this. If Obama spent time in Georgia, Andy can run a news article about Obama trying to sway voters in Georgia rather than prepare to run the country! Boomcoach 21:30, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::Another beauty of a place like this, evidently, is that it has allowed the participation of a self-confessed liberal atheist like yourself, and even offered you praise for when you helped it, right "Boomcoach"? So here you stand, proclaiming it a "blog" and denigrating and trivializing the valuable academic contributions of hundreds of other editors in your obviously liberal smugness. Looking over your so-called "contributions" here at CP is to have a sense of wonder as to just why you have been allowed to stay, given your confessed reason for doing so is laugh at us, and get some smug sense of superiority, some "entertainment value" at doing so. Count yourself lucky indeed that I missed the opportunity to remove you when I could have, and can no longer do so. --₮K/Talk 21:55, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - ::::: Well put, TK. "Boomcoach" may be easily amused but he is clueless about what the role of a president even is. Obama doesn't "run the country" any more than a senator or congressmen does, and they don't run the country either. Moreover, congressmen are not term-limited the way a president is. Liberals are still trying to exaggerate Obama's power, when what they should be doing is reading the Constitution.--Aschlafly 22:44, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - This is a job for our Resident Intellectual/Professor, Ed Poor. Given that it is most likely past his bed-time in NYC, I will take a stab at it. Presidents, no matter who, no matter what party, are akin to corporate CEO's. Decisions are made in their name, with their broad approval. They rely upon their hand-picked experts to convert masses of jargon-speak down to a typical 1-2 page memo. They trust their advisors to do the right thing, give both sides accurately, and they make a decision. I doubt President-elect Obama will be making any decisions on his own about the economy, given the last trained Economist to inhabit the Oval Office was Ronald Reagan. - - Dinsdale, the "challenges" Obama is facing (the entire country is facing) are mainly those of the Democrats own making, allowing Barney Fife and Christopher Dodd to bully the banks and hand-picking the Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac boards and goading them into backing loans for hundreds of thousands of the poor, without a credit history or employment record to support giving them a home loan! There is nothing more politically important for the President-elect then to secure the Georgia seat for the socialist liberals, in order to ensure unimpeded legislation to buy more votes from the constituency groups of the Democratic Party. - --₮K/Talk 23:04, 30 November 2008 (EST) - - :A small point- George H. W. Bush actually majored in economics as well. FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 09:44, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - *President George Bush took a Masters in Business Administration, not Economics, I believe. --₮K/Talk 17:33, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - ::Yes, but his father George H.W. Bush graduated with a degree in economic from Yale in 1948. JDHolcombe 17:44, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - ::TK, did you mean Barney Frank? Barney Fife was the deputy played by Don Knotts on the old Andy Griffith Show. Also, Congress does not appoint the board members of GSE's like Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. There's also a lot more to the root causes of the current financial crisis than the greed and mismanagement that took place at Fannie and Freddie - the lack of regulation around the use of credit default swaps is a good example. I'll start to put together an some article content on these, since it's a broad and complex topic. Anyway, Obama's priority now has to be building the team of experts and advisers that you refer to, and to begin developing an agenda with them now for policies and proposed legislation that can be acted on immediately after January 20th. --DinsdaleP 10:02, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - ::*Barney Fife's Frank's Gay lover is an executive at one of them, right, DinsdaleP? The boards of both, you are wrong about Congress, or at least their influence. I think perhaps your liberal bent might be too strong for you to write an objective article on this matter. --₮K/Talk 17:33, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - Can I say that, as a British person, I'd be astonished if Mr Obama spent his time campaigning in a by-election rather than putting together his Government. Please could CP readers stop whingeing about things that really don't matter or, as in this case, they ought to support. HSpalding 11:12, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - : Well, you're wrong about America, where "putting together" a government depends on electing allies in Congress. Obama's self-centered nature results in an underlying dislike and distrust by members of his own party, and that does not bode well for a functioning government.--Aschlafly 11:16, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - :: Mr Schlafly, please could you state clearly here that, if Mr Obama had gone to campaign in Georgia, you wouldn't have whinged about him neglecting his duties in Washington? HSpalding 11:48, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - ::: Obama has no "duties in Washington"! Look, if you won't open your mind at this point, don't continue to belabor it. Democrats campaign for each other all the time. So do Republicans. Obama campaigns for himself.--Aschlafly 11:53, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - :::: "No duties in Washingon"!? We heard yesterday that Mr Obama had made the top foreign affairs appointments in his cabinet. Do you mean he's already made all his domestic appointments and all his junior foreign appointments? If so, the news hasn't reached Britain yet. HSpalding 11:57, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - There is always the possibility that Obama stayed away because, since this state went for McCain, he would actually be a liability for the candidate rather than an asset. --Hsmom 15:26, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - : Still, it's interesting that Aschlafly hasn't taken the opportunity to make an unambiguous statement that, if Mr Obama had gone to Georgia, he wouldn't have criticised him for neglecting his job in Washington. It would be good to know that CP is a principled source of information, not one that just makes opportunistic attacks on political opponents whether or not they're doing the right thing. HSpalding 20:19, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - ==Formatting/Attribution Suggestion== - I've noticed that we've gotten out of the habit of stating where our news stories come from. Of course, we have the link, but I think it is even better to mention it up-front. For example:

- American Thinker: Why Rush Limbaugh is a leading American intellectual [9]
- "The words 'intellect' and 'intellectual' deserve to be rescued from the myth-makers of the Left, which has decided in its amazing arrogance that it really owns those words."

- I think this kind of approach is important, especially when we are linking to an opinion piece, which is the case for many of the main page news articles. It gives readers an idea of where the information or opinion is coming from, right up-front, plus showcases the variety of conservative sources from which we get our news. It's not a good fit for every item, but especially in the case of the opinion pieces, I think it should be considered. Thanks. --Hsmom 09:58, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - :Good thoughts, Hsmom. What would be ideal is to have distinct main-page sections for "News" and "Op-Ed" - both are important, but they should be categorized appropriately. --DinsdaleP 10:04, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - ::What a brilliant idea DinsdaleP! I love it! That way we could showcase various conservative points of view, while making it clear that they are of an "op/ed" nature rather than a factual item. (For example, the WalMart Black Friday death story is factual, whereas the Rush Limbaugh = Intellectual essay is an op/ed.). --Hsmom 10:27, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - :::Liberal attempts to water down factual, conservative news items by dismissing them as "opinions" is not going to fly. Making the main page effectively say that some people think Limbaugh in one of Americans greatest intellectuals is an attempt to deny that his is indisputably one of our nation's greatest minds. There is no reason to take anything he says as any less factual than any article by the AP. In fact, just the opposite if true. AlbertW 10:57, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - ::::I don't see how it's watering anything down to label news as news, and opinion as opinion - that's just being accurate and truthful, which is what CP is supposed to stand for. If anything, defining a main-page section for conservative Op-Ed pieces makes CP a portal to conservative opinion pieces the leadership here would want people to be reading - how is that a bad thing? --DinsdaleP 11:33, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - I like both ideas (Hsmom & Dinsdale), although I also understand Albert's objection. Let us discuss further how distinguish 'fact' from 'opinion' can help provide the public with trustworthy information. - - By the way, it is IMHO a conservative virtue to put one's own actions (or that of one's 'side') under rigorous ethical scrutiny. How can I repent, unless I realize what I did wrong and why it's wrong? I only want to make sure that we don't accuse anyone falsely. Let's not trick ourselves into "repenting" of good deeds. - - We need to do soul-searching, but we'd better reach the right conclusions as a result. --Ed Poor Talk 11:41, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - :To address AlbertW's point, "news" would be the reporting of factual events in a who/what/where/when/why context, where the reporting can be fact-checked and corroborated. "Opinion-Editorial", or "Op-Ed" items, are essay-like pieces written to offer perspective, but which are not bound to journalistic standards for fact-checking and the like. Reporting Rush Limbaugh's I.Q. or industry awards would be news - these are factual events that can be verified by others. An essay on why he's a leading American intellectual is an Op-Ed piece, because "leading intellectual" is still a subjective measure regardless of how many people on CP agree with the essay. Op-Ed pieces are not strictly "news" stories, but they can offer valuable insights and should be given a prominent showcase on a site like CP. That doesn't make them "news" stories, though, which is why newspapers publish them in a clearly-defined Op-Ed section. --DinsdaleP 13:25, 1 December 2008 (EST) - - == Nuclear neighbor == - - I am somewhat concerned that the news headline only targets Pakistan as having nuclear weapons. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons so surely it would be more accurate if the headline read "...as a neutral broker between the nuclear armed countries of India and Pakistan."--Ieuan 09:22, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - == Concerns == - - I'm very well aware that I'm not what most would consider an active editor. If you look at my contributions, however, you will see that I have taken an interest in truly improving this project. The majority of my edits have been to the mainspace, whether it be copyedit or creating new articles. I joined here because I have conservative tendencies, and I wanted to be part of a project that conveys those values to others. I think all of us need to remember why we first came here and why we remain here. - - That's not to say that I agree with every topic here, and I highly doubt that any editor here does, even Andrew Schlafly. However, that does not give us permission to go on tirades about aspects of this project that we do not agree on. Recently, I have observed a growing hostility between many of the senior editors—be they administrators or users with blocking rights. I have not been here long, but it worries me that this hostility has continued to grow. I've seen the words "liberal," "parodist," and "phoney" thrown around so many times in the past month that I cannot stay silent anymore. - - We need to learn when to disengage in a debate. We're raised in a culture that views disengagement as a weakness; it's not. If we are not getting our point across, move on. If it is a "hot button" topic in which our senior editors disagree, I believe some sort of system needs to be put into place. - - I hope that all of our admins and senior users will read this message as a plea from a less-experienced, less-worthy user. I want to see this project flourish, not fall into a civil war that will rip it apart from the inside out. - - Thank you for the opportunity to express myself. - - --Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 20:15, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - I think that all of us who have the interests of Conservapedia close at heart will endorse Jeffrey's wise words. Bugler 20:21, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - ::*The threshold for tolerating trolling and constant arguments and disputes, is very low these days. It will get lower. We have a mission, one of an American encyclopedia, reflecting Conservative and Christian friendly values. We will not be deterred or have our time wasted anymore. We always attempt to include all sides of an issue. We will continue to do so. I think the issues that some of us have been so publicly arguing over, what has been allowed to continue, will in a short amount of time be resolved. Thanks for your obvious caring, Jeffrey, and sticking with CP. Worry not! --₮K/Talk 23:41, 2 December 2008 (EST) - :::I concur with TK. We will resolve the issues that we have and we are making progress. Geoff PlourdeComplain! 23:43, 2 December 2008 (EST) - - ==Merry Christmas== - I thought [2]this was interesting. --Ṣ₮ёVeN 08:51, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - : Great catch! It's posted now.--Aschlafly 09:32, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - ==Crystal Dixon== - The bastion of free thought and tolerance, the modern American university, where someone can be fired for excercising exercising her First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion. - Those interested in this story may like to read the original letter to the Toledo Free Press, which I have posted below. (And can someone fix that typo? Thanks.) --Hsmom 15:09, 5 December 2008 (EST) - -

Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective [1]

- - By Crystal Dixon - - I read with great interest Michael Miller’s April 6 column, "Gay Rights and Wrongs." - - I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider. - - First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative. - - As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are "civil rights victims." Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded "to set people free… I finally obeyed God." - - Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor’s degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself. - - The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment. - - My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right. - - Crystal Dixon lives in Maumee.

- :Thanks Hsmom. The typo is fixed. --DeanStalk 20:08, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - == Cancelled embed in Iraq item... == - - Heads-up. This news item from today: - "More evidence that liberalism is a mental disorder: leftist, Bush-hating granny is suing the military for the cost of her plane ticket to Kuwait and other expenses, despite the fact that she bought and paid for everything after she was told her embeded position was cancelled.[3]"--is incorrect. Both the newsbusters link and the original Oakland tribune article say she bought her plane ticket before the army cancelled her trip. Someone should fix this. 15:31, 5 December 2008 (EST) - :Fixed. --DeanStalk 20:09, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - - ==Supreme Court/Obama Citizenship== - - Has anyone heard any details on this? I know they were supposed to consider whether to take up the case today, but details are (predictably) sparse. --Benp 22:30, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - : Even I'm amazed how the liberal media, and even the infamous "scotusblog", have generally ignored this story.--Aschlafly 22:46, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - ::I have to admit--I thought that once it reached the Supreme Court, they'd HAVE to acknowledge it. Surely there must be some reliable information somewhere, though? I'd very much like to know what, if anything, was decided. --Benp 23:11, 5 December 2008 (EST) - :::Cert denied, today. They listed the writs they granted, and Donofrio v. Wells wasn't among it. Politics Blog, Wall Street Journal Law Blog.-AlexanderM 23:13, 5 December 2008 (EST) - :::Also, the base of the case was the allegation that "natural born citizen" imports both parents(specifically, the father) being American: however, that's contrary to the long line of ius soli law, and contrary to traditional notions of the proximity between father and child, versus the proximity between mother and child. Nguyen v. U.S., 533 U.S. 53 (2001).-AlexanderM 23:15, 5 December 2008 (EST) - ::::I added an entry for Donofrio v. Wells, including the one notable source discussing the case's likely dismissal.-AlexanderM 23:21, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - *I am surprised, and not, especially given who referred it to the Court, Justice Thomas. --₮K/Talk! 23:26, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - ::You may well be right. But the conference was scheduled for today. They COULD postpone, so I added in the entry that it's only "possibly" dismissed, rather than likely (my personal feeling). I express no feeling as to whether that's good or bad. Oops, I responded to your old comment :). Do you think it was dismissed then? I'd give it an 80% chance but that's not certain enough to be encyclopedic yet.-AlexanderM 23:38, 5 December 2008 (EST) - - ::*Personally, I think they are loath to precipitate a Constitutional crisis. We don't have a mechanism for dealing with the contingency for something like this, a President-elect being disqualified by virtue of non-citizenship. The Constitution says the President-elect is sworn in @ Noon, 20 January. I suppose it would take yet another Court ruling to say the Vice-President-elect would be sworn in, and he would then appoint a VP, confirmed by the Senate, like Rockefeller was. --₮K/Talk! 00:51, 6 December 2008 (EST) - :::I would hope that they wouldn't turn a blind eye to a genuine issue simply to avoid such a crisis; there are a number of Justices with a great reverence for the Constitution, and I find it hard to believe that they would be willing to compromise their principles that way. --Benp 11:41, 6 December 2008 (EST) - ::::I would like to see Obama challenged as well, but keep in mind that it's the constitutional order itself that demands that not every right has a remedy (principles of standing-that's what killed Berg's case), and not it's also the constitutional order that prevents SCOTUS from taking review of state law claims (that's what might have killed Donofrio's suit).-AlexanderM 11:48, 6 December 2008 (EST)


Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools