Talk:Main Page/archive69

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Breaking news suggestion: Romania

The nation of Romania has pulled evolution from its official curriculum, and students will be taught creationism!-AlexanderM 11:40, 6 December 2008 (EST)

Wow! That's amazing! I've added it to the top of the main page. Thanks for the insight.--Aschlafly 12:10, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Doesn't this go a little too far, though? From suppressing the religious POV to suppressing the evolutionary POV? And what about this (italics mine):
"But there are new proposals to make all religious classes compulsory for the education system, regardless of the parents' wishes. All children who do not want to attend Religion classes would attend a Moral and Religious Education class. But there is no one qualified to teach Moral and Religious Education."
What do people think of that part?--Frey 12:54, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Sour grapes by the atheists. There is nothing wrong with requiring students to take religion classes, which would not require anyone to accept a particular religion as their own. But there is something wrong with requiring students to believe in evolution, as public schools do in the U.S.--Aschlafly 13:02, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Religion in school correlates with happier kids who stay away from drugs. It's about time.-AlexanderM 13:04, 6 December 2008 (EST)
Am I the only person who hears hypocrisy? Every time creationism is denied entry into the US curriculum you all complain about censorship. This is no different, and I understand that you're happy about it cos it's what you believe in but even so, it's no different.--Bolly 18:51, 6 December 2008 (EST)
You are right Bolly. But I'm surprised you haven't realized that already by being on here. Real truth and justice doesn't reach the people here, nor does it emit from them. As long as they get their way, anything goes.--GStoner 17:16, 7 December 2008
I agree with Bolly also. Mr. Schlafly, where did you hear that kids are required to believe in evolution in public schools? Sure, it is true that evolution is taught in schools, but answering questions about material in a biology class is different than believing in the material. -- JArneal 18:35, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Nice try, Bolly, GStoner and JArneal, but you're not fooling anyone here. Students are forced to believe in evolution in American public schools, or they receive poor marks and lose out on recommendations. The questions are asked as though evolution is true, not as though it is a belief system (which it is). I recall one instance of a college professor holding a key position refusing to write letters of recommendation unless he was convinced that the student believed in evolution. None of this indoctrination is true about Romania's curriculum.--Aschlafly 18:40, 7 December 2008 (EST)
No it's exactly the same. The Romanian professors would hardly write letters of recommendation for a student who was an atheist or agnostic. It's just the same, and I'm not going to get into the argument about it being a 'belief system' because we both know that it's a pointless exercise. Bolly 19:49, 7 December 2008 (EST)
You're wrong, Bolly. I'm confident the Romanian professors would write letters of recommendation for an atheist or agnostic. You seem to justify bigotry by evolutionists by claiming that those having faith are bigoted. They aren't.--Aschlafly 21:18, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Really? Well I'm definately not confident about that. And I'm not justifying bigotry by claiming that, I'm saying they're just as bad as each other, in the cases you quote. That above professor? Well if he was truly refusing to write the letters because the students didn't believe in evolution rather then that they failed to understand the theory then yes, that's bigotry and that's wrong. I'm asking for a bit of evenhandedness here, the censorship of evolutionary teaching in Romania is just as bad as the censorship of ID in the USA. Bolly 21:29, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Oh please. There's no similarity between the two cases. The Romanians have simply stopped teaching Evolution because of its logical and scientific failings. This is not censorship of any sort. In the United States, liberal groups like the ACLU sue to have information censored from the curriculum. - Rod Weathers 22:10, 7 December 2008 (EST)
There aren't any significant "logical or scientific failings" with evolution. If there were, the theory would be discarded just like any other. And it is censorship to not teach it, because they are refusing to show a scientific point of view in an important part of biology. I'm not sure if anyone has noticed, but science is very important in today's society. Depriving students of scientific thought is detrimental to their progression. -- JArneal 22:22, 7 December 2008 (EST)
And creationism doesn't have significant scientific failings?--Frey 22:54, 7 December 2008 (EST)

(unindent) That's irrelevant, Frey. Creationism isn't supposed to be scientific. It's faith based, so don't try to apply scientific principles to it. -- JArneal 22:57, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I started an article on scientific evidence for creationism so that hopefully you can see that science does, in fact, support creationism.-AlexanderM 00:15, 8 December 2008 (EST)
The Theory of Evolution is a 'belief system' in the same way that the Germ Theory of Disease is a 'belief system'. People need to learn what constitutes a "theory".--420Time 08:19, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Just to clarify, I did not suggest that Creationism lacks scientific support. Rather, I was exempting Creationism from scientific criteria, which Frey was erroneously trying to apply. My comments were not anti-creationist. -- JArneal 23:58, 15 December 2008 (EST)

Pearl Harbor

I appreciate you taking the time to Remember Pearl Harbor but I find it a bit offensive that while you do so you use it to make an attack on the future President of the United States. I would appreciate it if you would remove the part about Obama's error as it dishonors those who lost their lives protecting America and insults the President-Elect. --Rcollins03 20:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Nice try but Obama's "error" is what was offensive and I don't think he's apologized. If and when he does, then we'll post it. The insult is from Obama, not us.--Aschlafly 21:17, 7 December 2008 (EST)
He's supposed to apologize for what was obviously a slip of the tongue? I don't think he even knew he'd said "bomb" until he heard the replay. You're using what should be a moment of remembrance to take a potshot at a political opponent.--Frey 21:32, 7 December 2008 (EST)
It's a display of ignorance about a military sacrifice. People should apologize for a "slip of the tongue" that is racist, and people should also apologize for a gaffe that reveals a lack of respect for the military. Don't tell us that you insist on a double standard for the two types of gaffes.--Aschlafly 21:40, 7 December 2008 (EST)
(re-edited)I completely agree with Mr. Schlafly, Esq. The president-elect of the United States has a team of speech writers and he knows every word will be scrutinized. For Obama to say "the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor" immediately brings up a confusing mixture of images from Obama as he is known as "O-bomb-a" himself to the powerful World War II memory of the automic bomb. Obama is a gifted speaker, the bar is pretty high. There is no reason for any rational being not to be dissappointed and appalled by Obama and his "error". --RickD 21:55, 7 December 2008 (EST)
How is that particular slip of the tongue disrespectful to the military? Perhaps he meant "the bombs"? FernoKlumpLook at this petition! 22:31, 7 December 2008 (EST)
So he never ever ever makes a mistake? I thought it was liberal Democrats who worshipped Obama as divine. Besides, even if the statement was said on purpose due to a lack of knowledge, that seems like a very low bar for offense. He didn't make an awful joke about troops being stupid, he didn't insult them with faint praise, he didn't denigrate their mission or say what they did was pointless. At worst, he didn't know a basic fact about the attack, which would be disappointing, but not what I'd call offensive.--Frey 22:51, 7 December 2008 (EST)
Everyone seems to be forgetting that it is perfectly acceptable to refer to things in singular terms if you're trying to be poetic or make a point. Do you really think the person who sculpted the memorial of 'The Unknown Soldier' really thought there was only ever one unknown soldier? If you do, feel free to leave the Obama reference in. If not, I suggest changing it.--420Time 08:15, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Remember when George H. W. Bush commemorated Pearl Harbor day...in September? We all make mistakes. http://www.anecdotage.com/index.php?aid=7421 CraigC 23:29, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Wikipedia blocked in the UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7770456.stm (also can the website please get a better CAPTCHA? it took me five tries to get a legible one). SandraO 09:25, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Only one page has been blocked and it's still being debated, so I hardly think this spells the end of wikipedia. Also, I'm not sure what "A large percentage of Wikipedia users are teenagers and its ####ual content is a key part of web traffic" means. What are you basing this on? --420Time 10:06, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Future web traffic growth of Conservapedia

From time to time, I speculate about the future of Conservapedia. I now take the position that Conservapedia is likely going to start growing and growing in terms of web traffic. Why? I just found evidence yesterday that Conservapedia ranks #6 for a pretty popular search engine search (2,183 searches a day on the top 3 search engines ) for a pretty non-ideological entry that has almost a near zero value on the radar in terms of the Culture war. The article is Conservapedia's French Revolution article and I decided to feature it in our popular articles at Conservapedia section on our main page today.

This tells me that various liberals campaigns against Conservapedia have likely utterly failed. It appears as if Conservapedia is beginning to rank high for everyday searches on fairly non-controversial subjects.

Here is the latest Alexa data of Conservapedia's web traffic and it appears as if Conservapedia has had a significant increase in web traffic since August of 2009: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/conservapedia.com

I know I have taken a critical view of a few Conservapedia entries and this has sometimes not made me the most popular person at Conservapedia. However, I do like many Conservapedia articles a heck of a lot better than many entries at other wikis - especially some of the articles I contributed to. :)

I have a message to those people who do nothing but harp against Conservapedia but never seem to create much good content on the web that people are interested in! Nobody ever built a monument to a critic! conservative 16:45, 8 December 2008 (EST)

This is good news. It has taken a lot of work from a lot of people to deal with the endless stream of liberal vandals while continuing to build the encyclopedia, and it continually pays off. The resource is growing in size, quality, and popularity. Well done to all. - Rod Weathers 17:16, 8 December 2008 (EST)
While more visitors to CP indeed is good news, it seems that while the number of unique visitors is increasing, they don't keep around for very long as the number of unique page views is down by 34%. CP will never become a real alternative to WP unless these fleeting visitors stick around long enough to sign up and start contributing. MarkD1 17:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Is Conservapedia down 3 months from today in page views? No, it is not. It is in fact up. Today's average number of page views for a visitor was 3.0 The 3 month average was 2.58 However, if you compare our recent page view average (Not sure how Alexa calculates this) to our 3 month page view average it has gone down. Regardless, as Conservapedia has less stub articles the number of average page views for a visitor is bound to go up. conservative 20:49, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Congratulations to everyone who's made it a success.-AlexanderM 20:57, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Obama's Cabinet Selections

Thought this was interesting. Perhaps its worth a read.

[[5]]

--TheEconomist 18:18, 8 December 2008 (EST)

The Yale Daily News

The Yale Daily News cites Conservapedia as an example a of "user-generated content" that "needs to be taken more seriously by the regular media in order to remain relevant."[13] In other words, the students see the regular media as losing their its relevance. (Note my grammar corrections.)

I'm concerned that Conservapedia's front page article is not quite right about what the article is saying. (I'm not discussing the *accuracy* of the article's claims or the opinions expressed therein, just whether our article accurately reflects the content of the article.) Here's part of the article, followed by my concerns:

But user-generated content needs to be taken more seriously by the regular media in order to remain relevant. It is common to see news broadcasts making use of blogs or YouTube videos, but it seems their primary intent is to establish themselves as technologically savvy, rather than to use the technology effectively to better their reporting. Likewise, recent contests to create commercials made use of user-generated content as a gimmick. Few people remember the commercials themselves, though the contests succeeded in getting the names of the companies out there. And while large sites like YouTube display ads from which they receive revenue, the creators of YouTube videos themselves receive no payment. For user-generated content to transcend the category of a fad, it must be treated as more than a moneymaking gambit.

Another problem with user-generated content (and social networking in general) is the tendency toward groupthink. This is easy to see on political Web sites like Huffington Post or Conservapedia that are largely ideologically homogenous. But this tendency is problematic on nonpolitical sites, such as Digg, too. Even though the sites espouse free speech and refrain from endorsing a particular opinion, it’s common to see a poster that goes against the general consensus instantly disregarded. This happens regardless of how well-thought out or valid an argument is. [1]

  1. Yale Daily News, Mejia: User-generated content: A fad, or here to stay?, by Chris Mejia, E-volution, Published Wednesday, December 3, 2008 [1]
  • Note that Conservapedia was not cited as an example of content that "needs to be taken more seriously by the regular media in order to remain relevant." (The article is discussing whether user-generated content in general is "a fad" or "here to stay".)
  • Conservapedia was cited as an example of a site that "is largely ideologically homogeneous", and has a "tendency toward groupthink". Conservapedia is criticized because (in the opinion of the author), "it’s common to see a poster that goes against the general consensus instantly disregarded...regardless of how well-thought out or valid [their] argument is". This is frankly not a compliment. The author sees this as a problem, and an impediment to user-generated content being taken more seriously by the regular media.
  • The author was not saying he saw the "regular media as losing their relevance". He was saying that user-generated content may be losing its relevance (unless the regular media begins to take it more seriously).

Again - I'm not trying to debate the issues raised by the Yale article, I'm just saying that Conservapedia's article does not, IMHO, accurately reflect what the Yale author is saying in his article. --Hsmom 21:00, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Well the largely liberal media (regular media) is losing their relevance because as their profitability shrinks (and it definitely is shrinking) they have cut back on staff. Unless they are largely cutting liberal staff and retaining their conservative staff, I don't see how cutting their staff is going to increase the quality of their reporting. :) If memory serves, the foreign bureaus of these liberal media outlets have experienced a particularly high amount of cuts. I don't see how cutting foreign bureau staff in a increasingly global economy is going to raise your relevance. Due to the growing options that the internet provides conservatives (and liberals for that matter) do not have to be captive audiences to the liberal "regular media"'s advertisers.conservative 21:12, 8 December 2008 (EST)
However, the Yale author didn't say any of that, and its not quite genuine to imply that he did.--IanG 07:42, 9 December 2008 (EST)
HSMom, I disagree with your grammatical correction of "the regular media losing their relevance" to "losing its relevance". Media is a plural word (the singular form being medium). News can be disseminated through the medium of print, or the medium of television, or the medium of the internet, and so on. Collectively, these are the media, and "their relevance" is the correct term. And speaking of taking the specks out of our neighbour's eye, that should be "compliment" above, not "complement". --Eoinc 07:49, 9 December 2008 (EST)
I think Hsmom raised a valid point - articles like these can provide insight and should certainly not be censored, but in order to be trustworthy CP needs to ensure that the summaries listed in the Main Page News section accurately reflect the content of those articles, and avoid inferences that do not exist in the sourced material. --DinsdaleP 09:10, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Eoinc is correct about two grammatical mistakes in Hsmom's posting. I wouldn't complain except one of those mistakes is an erroneous claim that the Main Page has a grammatical mistake in its use of "media"! It doesn't.
The substantive complaints above are likewise misplaced. The Yale Daily News plainly says that user-generated content should be taken more seriously by the regular media if the media want to remain relevant, and then clearly gives several examples of what the author means by user-generated content, including Conservapedia. The logic is undeniable, though I am fully aware of how liberals try to censor recognition of anything conservative. Perhaps liberals should complain to the Yale Daily News for letting that recognition through!--Aschlafly 09:26, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Liberal censorship of conservative ideas is the very thing that brought me here from Wikipedia. I started over one thousand articles there, but I'm banned from some of them because I want to add viewpoints that others want to leave out. Liberals say they are for free thought, but even the word "freethinker" just means "an atheist"; they are not really for freedom of thought in the sense of letting each person make up his own mind about things.
If liberals had any confidence that their ideas would survive in the "marketplace of ideas", they would gladly debate with conservatives. They would relish the opportunity to showcase their ideas in contrast with competing ideas. Instead, they rely on character assassination and speech codes; they engage in censorship; they shout down speakers; etc. --Ed Poor Talk 10:08, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Hello. Nice to meet you all. I really think that the Yale Daily News article is saying that user-generated content needs to be taken more seriously by the regular media in order for user-generated content to remain relevant; that the regular media does utilize user generated content, but that it uses it in a gimmicky or show-offy way rather than treating it as a legitimate source/format. The article then goes on to criticize Conservapedia in the next paragraph as website where it is easy to spot "groupthink." I agree with HSMom in thinking that CP's news ticker is misunderstanding the article's point. I believe that if you read the article again, you may agree. Thanks! BenOdelle 13:11, 9 December 2008 (EST)

  • First let me make it clear that I'm not claiming to be a grammar expert. I know the basics, but not much beyond that. While I try to use correct grammar and spelling in my own writing, I'm far from perfect and I appreciate corrections from others. When I make grammar edits, it's in the spirit of trying to improve the site, and should not be taken as criticism of someone else's writing. (Most of the time I don't even look at who wrote the original.) So Eoinc, thanks for the spelling correction (compliment/complement)- I never would have discovered that one on my own! --Hsmom 13:16, 9 December 2008 (EST)
  • Eoinc, thanks for the grammar info on "media". You're quite right that "media" is a plural noun, but I've seen it used as if it was singular, so after reading your post I wasn't sure which approach was actually the correct one. After puzzling over it for a bit, I decided to look it up, and it turns out it's actually one of those complicated situations. No wonder! Here's what I found; I'll leave it to others to decide which usage is correct in this case. --Hsmom 13:16, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Usage Note: The etymologically plural form media is often used as a singular to refer to a particular means of communication, as in The Internet is the most exciting new media since television. Many people regard this usage as incorrect, preferring medium in such contexts. · People also use media with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like "the press." Like other collective nouns, it may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended meaning. If the point is to emphasize the multifaceted nature of the press, a plural verb may be more appropriate: The media have covered the trial in a variety of formats. Frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters: The media has not shown much interest in covering the trial. This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning. · The singular medium cannot be used as a collective noun for the press. The sentence No medium has shown much interest in covering the issue, would suggest that the lack of interest is in the means of communication itself rather than in its practitioners.[1]
  1. Dictionary.com, "media", The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 09 Dec. 2008. [2]
  • When I read the sentence "But user-generated content needs to be taken more seriously by the regular media in order to remain relevant.", I thought it meant "But user-generated content needs to be taken more seriously by the regular media in order for user-generated content to remain relevant." Others seem to have read it to mean "But user-generated content needs to be taken more seriously by the regular media in order for the regular media to remain relevant." The concluding paragraph seems to support my interpretation of what the author meant: User-generated content stands to become an important part of media if it can overcome these hurdles. There have been many incredible examples of user-generated content in recent years and it seems that these will only become more commonplace in upcoming years, taking their place alongside traditional media. My interpretation is also supported by the title of the article: User-generated content: A fad, or here to stay?. Again - I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the ideas expressed in the article, I'm merely concerned that Consevapedia's front page item about this article does not accurately reflect the content of the article. --Hsmom 13:29, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I added, "tendency toward groupthink". We do have that problem here, although to be fair we are under siege by ideologically motivated opponents who also have a tendency toward groupthink. There is not much debate whether the Groupthink problem is worse in democratic countries than in dictatorships - primarily because the latter don't allow any press freedom or free speech. Perhaps the real question is whether liberals or conservatives are more open minded. --Ed Poor Talk 10:02, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I'm the author of the Yale Daily News article linked. Hsmom and others are correct in that my intended meaning was that user-generated content needs to be taken more seriously by traditional media in order for user-generated content to remain relevant. Although I do think that traditional media (particularly print media) need to adapt to changes brought about by online publishing, I think their survival depends more on ways to find revenue due to loss of advertisers rather than adopting "social media". The focus of the article was to highlight problems with user-generated content rather than to examine why traditional media are struggling. --CMejia 17:35, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Hi Mr. Mejia. Thank you for taking the time to come to Conservapedia to clear this up. Hopefully it will be reflected on the front page soon. --Countryforchrist 17:51, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Neutrality

Are there no standards on Conservapedia as regards article neutrality? I can find no evidence that controversial subjects are treated fairly and equitably. Virtually every user here appears to be on a personal mission to promote Christianity and suppress discussion of religious alternatives. Is it not possible that users and contributors who are political and ideological conservatives may not adhere to the same standards of religious belief, and ought not be marginalized? SamG 21:45, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Unlike Wikipedia, articles are continually treated in a neutral fashion here. The only standard is truth. The only one trying to suppress discussion is you, by marginalizing conservative views, just like the liberal media. - Rod Weathers 21:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
I'm sorry, I don't follow your line of attack. I am a conservative, I've campaigned for the Republican party, supported their candidates, debated on behalf of conservative ideology. Do I pass the litmus test yet? I ask the question again, what of objectivity and neutrality in articles? Using truth as a standard is a good idea, but truth is viewed differently by different individuals, even within conservative circles. Is it impossible that a percentage of conservatives do not, in fact, agree with religion or certain religions, and are not being treated equitably in the articles on Conservapedia? SamG 21:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Truth is relative, now, is it? And you attack the site and its editors for the neutrality of its articles, without providing any examples? You are clearly a liberal, and to paraphrase the bard, you protest too much. I hope you will contribute substantively to the encyclopedia, rather than bringing up absurd arguments. - Rod Weathers 22:20, 8 December 2008 (EST)
If this is the functioning policy of Conservapedia -- ad hominem attacks, distortion, denial -- then I cannot contribute here. Congratulations, Conservapedia has lived up to its reputation, one which I hoped would be false. Please delete my account. SamG 22:41, 8 December 2008 (EST)
Behold the liberal modus operandi. When your deception is revealed, fire a parthian shot and flee for the hills. - Rod Weathers 22:44, 8 December 2008 (EST)

The way I understand it, Conservapedia exists to fill a void left by the liberal media. Conservapedia covers the stories they won't cover, from the angle they refuse to open their eyes and see. Given that mission, I don't see how being "neutral" - i.e., equal time to viewpoints covered adequately anywhere else on the internet - is at all productive.-AlexanderM 22:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

  • We have one mission, one of an American encyclopedia, reflecting Conservative and Christian friendly values. Users constantly arguing, day after day, contrary to our values waste time, and disrupt. This is an encyclopedia project, not a political forum for debate. Users who remember our reason for being, and refrain from constantly arguing against American conservative and Christian values even on talk pages, are valued, even if they disagree with those values. No one likes to hear, even from the best of friends, the same arguments every day. Those who keep trying to change articles to NPOV, to a world view and support the merits of anti-Christian/Conservative values inserted into articles, to make this place more like Wikipedia, are not welcomed so much. --₮K/Talk! 00:57, 9 December 2008 (EST)
I'd like to offer one thought in support of SamG's point. Great things can be accomplished when people focus on the values they hold in common instead of fighting over their differences. As TK pointed out, this site represents Christian-friendly values, and focusing on the values held in common by all Christians (respect for life, morals, etc.) instead of the differences between specific Christian faiths (Catholic doctrine vs. Protestant vs. Eastern Orthodox), promotes constructive progress instead of internal conflict. The original 13 colonies prospered far more by setting aside some very important differences and organizing under a single overriding leadership, and one of the keys to that success was the respect the leadership still held for differences that mattered to the states (which is why "states rights" is important to conservatives). SamG may have had some valuable insights to offer, but jumping all over him by dismissing his respectfully-phrased concerns as absurd liberal protests just drove him away. My suggestion is that when the next SamG inevitably comes along, one of the leading editors/sysops takes the time to engage that person in a conversation (maybe via email to keep the Talk traffic down), and answer legitimate questions respectfully. Who knows what great contributions may come from someone who's encouraged like that instead of being discouraged? Thanks. --DinsdaleP 09:28, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Rod Weathers, I feel I must say that for a website that's supposed to be for the open-minded, you're remarkably close-minded. There is no such thing as a neutral article, particularly on a website such as this which encourages debate. Humans are not perfect; we are all biased in one way or another, and as such the writing of a neutral article is impossible. If humans were perfect, we would be gods, and as such would need neither God nor Christianity. nd if you believe that, I would suggest that this is not the website for you. Open your mind to the limits of our pathetic race. NeilEG 14:24, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Here at CP, we do not tolerate negative personal comments, nor do we pander to demands for liberal moral relativism. Biblically-guided, absolute truth is our guide, and the imperfection of people is no excuse. - Rod Weathers 14:47, 9 December 2008 (EST)
  • Neil G, debate, not endless. And there is a big difference between debate and arguing, endlessly over arcane points. Dinsdale, you make some good points, but I know you are wrong in assuming we don't contact them. We do. But if one is contacting the 20th sock of a previously blocked (usually Liberal as opposed to apolitical) troll or vandal, and they don't reply, or leave the well-known parthian shot how would you know if a person is encouraged or not, of pure intent or not? I see lots of assumptions about how we operate here every day. Most of them are wrong. --₮K/Talk! 15:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Apologies for any incorrect assumptions. I'd have no way, of course, of knowing about the offline efforts of others, and I'm glad to hear that those efforts were made. --DinsdaleP 15:40, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Illinois Governor Indicted on Corruption Charges

The charges apparently involve an allegation that he conspired to profit from his authority to appoint President-elect Barack Obama’s successor in the United States Senate. Here's the news link. --DinsdaleP 11:03, 9 December 2008 (EST)

I was going to mention this too. Typical liberal. Illinois has so much corruption in it's politics, it makes you wonder how even liberals could vote for Obama. Sulli 14:08, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Interestingly the liberal Chicago Tribune was criticizing the governor for his actions, and he tries to have their editors fired.SandraO 14:16, 9 December 2008 (EST)
If the allegations are true, good riddance to a dirtbag like that. Hopefully the Lt. Governor is clean. --DinsdaleP 14:39, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Since he's a democrat, he would have had to have done something particullarly egregious. If so, then wow! Renewed respect for the American legal system. --RickD 15:26, 9 December 2008 (EST)

When the press began asking probing, detailed questions of the President-elect about his dealings with the Governor and those associated with him, this morning, his handlers quickly herded them from the room. Just saying....--₮K/Talk! 15:30, 9 December 2008 (EST)

The headline should read "Obama's Senate Seat", not "Obama Senate Seat". --DinsdaleP 15:37, 9 December 2008 (EST)
I came here to say what Dinsey said. Also, "to sell Obama Senate seat." is not a quote, so doesn't need quotation marks. Either way, Blagojevich is a s####bag and should be bleached. Human 19:35, 9 December 2008 (EST)
Interesting, though not surprising, the commonality of financial supporters Obama and Blagojevich share. And the indictment assures the re-appointment of the U.S. Attorney Obama least wanted to keep on. Look for even more trouble for Obama & Company during the next four years. --₮K/Talk! 19:45, 9 December 2008 (EST)

Here's another link for this issue: [6] --Ṣ₮ёVeN 07:57, 11 December 2008 (EST)

In the news

Something for the broken news section? "Bible probably not true, says George Bush"[7] SimonD 09:21, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Good example of headline bias by the liberal British press. But other than that, the article isn't worth wasting time on.--Aschlafly 09:26, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Is that an example of the groupthink at Conservapedia as described in the Yale Article [8] you spent a lot of time fawning over? SimonD 09:32, 10 December 2008 (EST)
This article is clearly a hatchet job. A full viewing of the interview with Bush shows that he says nothing of the sort, but only questions literal interpretations of Biblical text. Cutting out quotes in a deceitful fashion isn't surprising from the British media, who love to hate Bush. - Rod Weathers 11:27, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Interestingly the Conservapedia link to that Yale article also contained what could be described as "headline bias". GillianP 09:48, 10 December 2008 (EST)

The Telegraph is a very conservative paper, often referred to as the 'Torygraph' due to it fawning over the conservative party and conservatism in general. It is hardly a bastion of the 'Liberal British press'.Nik77uk 16:40, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

You can deny the truth all you want. Their routine misquoting and hatchet jobs of President Bush are clear evidence that they are liberal in their approach. - Rod Weathers 11:47, 10 December 2008 (EST)
It is routine for liberals to claim that a person, paper, or group is closer to the center of the political spectrum than it really is. US liberals even have described themselves as "middle of the road". --Ed Poor Talk 11:52, 10 December 2008 (EST)
And then, amusingly, they use those claims to excuse bad journalism. "Oh, it's not liberal bias. We're a conservative paper." - Rod Weathers 11:58, 10 December 2008 (EST)

If the Telegraph is a liberal paper then why did Conservapedia use it a source for two recent news stories?

  • Barack Obama is set to deliver a kooky global warming videotaped speech tomorrow, as lampooned by this British editorial.[50] ([9])
  • 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. [15] ([10])AGrath 14:31, 10 December 2008 (EST)

The Telegraph is a conservative paper. It proudly supports conservatism and waves the flag for Thatcher and Thatcherism. This is a typical conservative diversionary tactic, shoot the messenger if you don't like what he is saying. The real question is - Did President Bush say the things that the Telegraph (and Fox News) said he did? SpinnyDizzy 19:51, 10 December 2008 (GMT)

He didn't say what the Telegraph headline claims. But what's your point? Nobody thinks Bush is perfect, or right about everything. He takes liberal positions on several issues, and was defeated on them. You seem to think that conservatives deify people the way liberals do. We don't.--Aschlafly 16:04, 10 December 2008 (EST)
Hear, hear. And I'd also add, from a cross-pond perspective, that while the Telegraph might think itself a conservative paper, this is 'conservative' in a European context - that is, 'right social democrat' or centrist rather than Conservative, and much of what it promotes is definitely Liberal. Bugler 16:12, 10 December 2008 (EST)
While I generally support that comment Andy, I have to say alot of conservatives come pretty close to Reagan worship. PeytonJ 18:06, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Regardless of whether the Telegraph is liberal or not, here's Bush's exact quote (taken directly from http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Politics/story?id=6418908&page=1):

MCFADDEN: Is it literally true, the Bible? 

BUSH: You know. Probably not ... No, I'm not a literalist, but I think you can learn a lot from it, but I do think that the New Testament, for example is ... has got ... You know, the important lesson is "God sent a son."

i think that's as clear as it gets.

Robertlily, are you saying that changes your view? Liberal "reasoning" is so irrational.--Aschlafly 09:32, 11 December 2008 (EST)
I have no idea what you mean by that Andy.
  • It appears to be yet another "quote" taken out of context or not fully quoted. The full and complete statement by President Bush, I added to our article on him the other day:
  • Asked about creation and evolution, Bush said:
    "I think you can have both. I think evolution can -- you're getting me way out of my lane here. I'm just a simple president. But it's, I think that God created the earth, created the world; I think the creation of the world is so mysterious it requires something as large as an almighty and I don't think it's incompatible with the scientific proof that there is evolution." He added: "I happen to believe that evolution doesn't fully explain the mystery of life."

--₮K/Talk! 09:44, 11 December 2008 (EST)


I certainly concur. Regardless of the paper's affiliation, the headline is downright deceptive; many Christians believe the Bible is revealed truth without believing that it's literal revealed truth. President Bush, evidently, is one such Christian; there's nothing particularly newsworthy about that, and he certainly never said the Bible was "not true." --Benp 16:46, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Christian Christmas vs. Secular Christmas

I`ve been thinking about this a lot lately seeing as how its the holidays, as a Christian I find that the fact that, in America especially, Christmas is a national holiday about buying things and comericialism, not about the birth of Christ and I would like it so that at least one season, it would all be a little less commercialized, you know not making it all about going shopping and compulsively buying things and making sure that the national retailers make a profit, I would like at least one season to be about the true meaning of the season, and I`d like you to keep in mind that this is all a hypothetical, now you may do one of three things, you may call me a Socialist (though I don`t think that`ll fit,) you may call me a radical right winger (though I doubt that`ll happen,) or you may take some middle ground, anyways I`d like to hear your two cents.


Bring Christ back to Christmas!!

Keep the business running in Christmas time is fine, it is still a job that glories God.

The problem now a day is, people start to think that Christmas shouldn't be about Jesus for some reason, as some say that "I am tired of this Jesus crap". Then what is a CHRISTmas without CHRIST? No one seems to ask this simple question. What are they celebrate for if it is not for the birth of Christ?

This is the setting of people try to kick God out of His two days, Easter and Christmas, and replace with Easter eggs, bunnies, and Santa.

I mean, it is sad that when people talk about the most important figure in Christmas, people right away think of Santa, and often forget that it is the birth of Christ that worth to celebrate.

There is no such thing as a "secular Christmas", as Christmas itself is Christian in nature. People want to exclude Christ in Christmas is one thing, but there is nothing secular about it, same as Easter.Kmcheng 16:30, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Recession and Alaska

It's good that Alaska is one of the few states not facing budget shortfalls in 2008 or 2009, but without taking anything away from Governor Palin, it's not fair to compare Alaska's revenue base to that of the other 49 states. Alaska is unique (and fortunate) in deriving most of its income royalties and taxes from its oil & natural gas resources. That's also why the Alaska Permanent Fund is able to send a check to every one of its citizens for a few thousand dollars annually, regardless of their age, ability or willingness to work. --DinsdaleP 09:46, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Other states have stronger revenue streams, but were run into the ground by Democrats.--aschlafly 14:10, 12 December 2008 (EST)
And note that Alaska is doing fine despite massive drops in oil prices? Their revenue has been slashed as a result, yet they're still afloat. Good management if I've ever known it. - Rod Weathers 14:14, 12 December 2008 (EST)

Am I the only one that is concerned about the concept of the Alaska Permanent Fund? Once you remove funding of a government away from direct taxation of it's citizen, then it loses accountability (i.e. Oil rich Arab rulers and Chavez as good examples). Government borrowing is just as bad because it removes responsibility of the government from the current generation to future generations. Sorry to go a bit off topic. Nik77uk 16:14, 15 December 2008 (GMT)

Interesting article on what "Buying American" means

This is an interesting story from CNN which examines the ambiguity that "buying American" can have when referring to cars. Some excerpts:

  • Fewer than half of the parts on some Big Three vehicles are made in the U.S.
  • The Ford Fusion is assembled in Mexico
  • The Chrysler 300C is assembled in Canada, but its transmission is from Indiana
  • Chrysler's V-8 engine is made in Mexico
  • Engines in the Chevrolet Equinox are from China
  • 80% of the Toyota Camry's parts are made in the U.S.
  • 56% of Toyota's vehicles sold in the U.S. also are made here

It makes one realize that while the survival of the Big Three is important to this economy, competitors like Toyota are managing to do well while basing jobs and manufacturing in the U.S. Any bailout has to be serious in focusing on reforming the fundamentals of the Big Three, not just buying more time for a bad business model. --DinsdaleP 14:04, 12 December 2008 (EST)

In one word: "unions". The Big Three have them and are not competitive; Toyota does not have them and is competitive.--aschlafly 14:09, 12 December 2008 (EST)
Exactly. People with no more than grade 12s are getting 6-figure salaries and ridiculous benefits packages thanks to their iron-willed unions. And we're to be surprised that they can't compete and want our money? - Rod Weathers 14:12, 12 December 2008 (EST)
I'd agree that the most important of those reforms would be reworking corporate overhead & union contracts to a comparable level with firms like Toyota, and dropping the redundant/under-performing brands. Why does GM need Buick, Pontiac and Saturn brands anyway, let alone Hummer? --DinsdaleP 14:28, 12 December 2008 (EST)
People with no more than grade 12s are getting 6-figure salaries and ridiculous benefits packages ... - - Rod Weathers ; You say that like that's a bad thing. I'm mystified. I smell a hint of elitism. Implication is that if all you have is a high school education, you don't deserve a good income. So, someone who goes to law school and learns, um, how to do pretty much nothing productive, deserves more money? I'm confused. Please, explain. Don't expect a response. The 90/10 rule prohibits me from engaging in discussion. Thus spaketh the boss. --AdmiralNelson 18:39, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Arson at the Wasilla Church

There are two factual issues in the headline that should be addressed, based on the article it links to. First, the headline states "women and children", while the article mention a "handful of people" that included two children. Second, the article does not mention any suspects, or groups claiming responsibility, so it's premature to claim that this crime was carried out by atheists until more facts are gathered. It may turn out to be the case, but a trustworthy encyclopedia has to rely on facts over assumptions where news stories are concerned. --DinsdaleP 13:37, 14 December 2008 (EST)

The article mentions a women's craft group being present as well as the children. And do you imagine the Wasilla Police Department are investigating the local branch of the Knights of St. Columba over responsibility for this crime? Bugler 13:55, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Since people are innocent until proven guilty in this country perhaps we should not say who is responsible until at least the police are willing to say who the suspects are. --WillB 14:01, 14 December 2008 (EST)
It's absurd to deny that atheists are the heart of this. Who would torch a church but unfaithful, god-hating people? This is no assumption, but an overwhelming statistical fact. - Rod Weathers 14:08, 14 December 2008 (EST)
I'm sure the police are looking into all the possibles such as someone with other religious believes (such as Muslims or Hindus) or a few angry former members of the church or any of what could be dozens of possible suspects. --WillB 14:26, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Some of those are not possibilities. Who ever heard of a Hindu torching a Christian church, or a Christian torching a Hindu temple? Angry former members who have renounced God is certainly a possibility. - Rod Weathers 14:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)
I'm sure there's a proper investigation underway, and the culprits will be identified soon enough. As to this News headline, there's a huge difference between saying a group of people is likely to be responsible, and saying that they are responsible. As for assumptions, you can never tell - this story from 2006 looks at how three Alabama college students, all from upscale families and students at a private, religious-based college, were arrested for setting nine rural Baptist churches on fire. TK reminded me below of the importance of letting justice run its proper course. In the case of this headline we should withhold judgment as well. --DinsdaleP 14:32, 14 December 2008 (EST)
All religions have their bad apples Rod --WillB 14:36, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Note how none of those cases are in the United States, where we have a culture of religious tolerance? - Rod Weathers 14:38, 14 December 2008 (EST)
I'm not saying it is likely just that it is possible and we should not jump to any conclusions --WillB 14:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

(unindent) The Alabama case I mentioned above took place in the U.S. --DinsdaleP 14:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

DinsdaleP, I was curious so I did some looking.

  • According to the Anchorage Daily News, "five women, and possibly a couple of children, were inside the church..."[1] CNN reported the church's pastor as saying "They were all adults, and they all got out." [2]
  • I read a couple of different articles, some of which talked about arson as only one of several possibilities; however the ADN article quotes the fire chief as saying, "We are definitely treating it as suspicious and as potential arson at this point..."
  • I could find absolutely nothing about who might have set the fire. I could find no support for the speculation that "Atheistic arsonists set fire to the church", as stated in Conservapedia's front page item. The ADN article states Nothing thus far suggests any political motivation for the fire, the [fire] chief said. "Right now there's no indication that we have that there's any connection there. We just don't have any leads at all as far as the intent or motive in this," [fire chief] Steele said. CNN quotes the pastor, Rev. Larry Kroon, as saying, "We have no idea what caused it."
  1. Anchorage Daily News, Arson suspected in fire at Palin's church, FRIDAY NIGHT BLAZE: As many as 40 volunteer firefighters helped out; single service scheduled today, by WESLEY LOY and RINDI WHITE, Published December 14th, 2008 [3]
  2. CNN, Fire hits Palin's church in Alaska, by Monte Plott, Sat December 13, 2008 [4]

I think, in order to be as Trustworthy as possible, we should not state that this was done by "atheistic arsonists" until we can point to some supporting evidence. Here's some possible alternative wording for our front page item:

Anchorage Daily News: "A Friday night fire at Gov. Sarah Palin's church caused an estimated $1 million in damage, and investigators say it could be the work of an arsonist." Five women mercifully escaped the blaze unharmed. So far, the fire chief has no leads as to intent or motive. [1][2]
That's a lot better - it captures the facts as available, and like all the journalistic sources your checked, avoids assumptions about the people alleged to have set it until more facts come to light. --DinsdaleP 15:02, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks. --Hsmom 15:09, 14 December 2008 (EST)
  • An arsonist would not, could not, be a "Christian". So who else but an atheist? Someone following Christ's teaching would never do arson. So, logically, one would assume it is a Godless person. --₮K/Talk! 15:11, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Thank you Dean --WillB 15:19, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Just thought I'd remind CP of what happened the last time it jumped to conclusions regarding someone's guilt: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/24/mccain.sticker/ --RonAbdul 15:22, 14 December 2008 (EST)

(unindent)

There's a problem with the principle that a person cannot be a Christian if their actions indicate otherwise, regardless of what they profess to believe. People can certainly claim to be something without even trying to act accordingly, but what about people who consider themselves Christian, but then lapse into sin, repent and do good afterward? Christians can be fallible despite having a strong faith in God. Also, the terrorists of 9/11 were not Christian, but not atheists either. --DinsdaleP 15:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)

So, as it regards "forgiveness", you feel that a person can commit murder, or arson, repeatedly, and each time they will be forgiven, escape all punishment in death? Doesn't work that way, sorry! --₮K/Talk! 15:37, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Good point, DinsdaleP. In response to TK, I believe God will look into the heart of the individual. Most likely, one who repeatedly kills and then "repents" only to continue their terrible actions over and over is not sincere in his repentance. But it is definitely possible for Christians, weak and strong, to have lapses in judgment. The sincerity behind their repentance is something I'll leave to God to judge in most cases. Anyway, I'm glad the headline was changed. Good for CP.--SJames 18:33, 14 December 2008 (EST)


I do think there are possibilities other than "atheists." Satanists, for example, aren't atheists, but might conceivably attack a church. While it may not be politically correct to say it, radical Islamofascists could certainly do the same. It's not prudent to focus on one likely suspect to the exclusion of all others, I think. --Benp 19:07, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks and minor quibble

This section moved to [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#Thanks_and_minor_quibble]] so Hsmom gets a revised news suggestion credit. --DeanStalk 12:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Judicial Activism in Illinois

I'd like to better understand why the the action of the Illinois Attorney General is considered to be a request for judicial activism. Part the of the rationale for a separation of powers and checks-and-balances in government is that when corruption takes place in one division, the others can act in the interest of the people and force the removal of the corrupt individuals. Is the conservative position that the Governor should be allowed to remain in office until formally convicted? That would make sense, but it seems that with the taped evidence of his own self-implicating statements made public, he's lost the credibility to govern effectively. Since he won't resign voluntarily, asking the court to intervene seems the responsible thing to do, but I want to understand the perspective of the person who considers this judicial activism before jumping to conclusions. --DinsdaleP 13:48, 14 December 2008 (EST)

The will of the people, DinsdaleP, is not to be overturned by judges, or another branch of government. The elected representatives of the people, the Illinois State Legislature, have a legal remedy available, impeachment. The Illinois Attorney General, she is the daughter of yet another powerful machine politician, and is bringing the action, some think, to hasten the process so she can get a powerful enemy out of the way. And of course, there is that one, final, and all-important Constitutional problem: Innocent until proved guilty! This is not the same as a family trying to commit a crazy uncle to the insane asylum, you know. We have a Democratic process, and those clamoring for The Courts to short-circuit it, do a disservice to the Republic. --₮K/Talk! 14:13, 14 December 2008 (EST)
That's a good argument, and I'm inclined to agree. I don't know anything about the Illinois constitution, but impeachment would be the most undeniably proper way to deal with the situation, rather than having him forced out through a legal maneuver via the courts. I'm convinced. --DinsdaleP 14:25, 14 December 2008 (EST)
D Political scandals always whips people into a frenzy. The AG's maneuver is risky, and someone would have to be asking what the rush is? Some compelling public emergency? I mean a crooked politician isn't exactly rare in Illinois! --₮K/Talk! 15:08, 14 December 2008 (EST)
The more difficult question, though, is this: what happens when the proper mechanisms are subverted by career politicians? With both the Illinois House and Senate firmly controlled by Democrats, what are the odds of a successful impeachment? --Benp 19:02, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Pretty good, actually. The head of the state's Democratic Party is the one launching the impeachment process. This seems to be a rare case of a political party giving one of its own what he deserves. Thecount 14:10, 15 December 2008 (EST)
"Innocent until proved guilty" holds only for criminal trials. It does not hold in impeachment or removal cases. The will of the people is clear--the legislature passed a law signed by the governor that calls for the attorney general to go to the state supreme court in cases like this. (There is nothing corresponding in federal law). Conservatives ought to be very eager to get rid of that joker because so many official actions depend on his signature and now they are all tainted. -- the politics: if there is an election for the Senate seat the GOP has a very good chance to win. RJJensen 18:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Which law are you referencing, RJJensen? I'd like to take a look at it. Have the judiciary decide who may remain governor and who may not, even in the absence of a conviction, seems contrary to the constitutional requirement that each state have a republican form of government.--aschlafly 19:01, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Re the Illinois law see the legal brief online. I can comment on republicanism (the ideology of the Founding fathers). (I did the Wikipedia article on Republicanism in the United States). Republicanism does not require popular elections (the US in 1789 for example had an electoral college selected by legislatures, and you can have legislatures elect governors) Republicanism does emphasize the fear and danger of corruption, and that is what's driving the issue in Illinois. (corruption in the sense of using state power for one's private benefit). RJJensen 19:16, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Like the calls from Obama supporters who are now saying 2.5 months is too long to wait for Inauguration, liberals always find justification to subvert laws they dislike at the moment, like the call to have the Courts remove a duly elected official, one supported by them, even! I doubt he came to his crooked ways only recently, and they were all (Obama, Daley, etc.) firmly supportive of him last election. They want him out, and quickly, so as not to hog the news cycle, and possibly embarrass the Chicago Machine, and possibly the President-elect, and some of those he has appointed. --₮K/Talk! 19:21, 16 December 2008 (EST)

The Illinois State Constitution (article 5 section 6d) is explicit, esp last sentence: The General Assembly by law shall specify by whom and by what procedures the ability of the Governor to serve or to resume office may be questioned and determined. The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction to review such a law and any such determination and, in the absence of such a law, shall make the determination under such rules as it may adopt. RJJensen 19:24, 16 December 2008 (EST)
But Jensen, that is for a "disability", or the intent was. Impeachment is the form used for crimes. I shouldn't have to point out to a historian that he hasn't been convicted of anything, merely charged. So far as I know, popularity has no bearing on his ability to affix his signature to bills, issue proclamations, or call out the National Guard in an emergency. --₮K/Talk! 19:36, 16 December 2008 (EST)
There is a general consensus among Democrats and Republicans alike that the governor can no longer perform the duties of office in a satisfactory manner. That inability is a "disability"--just as if he went insane (King George III) or left the state and didn't come back (King James II). Going to prison is a different issue-that will be decided in due course through a criminal trial in federal court; this is a state constitutional matter of very high priority. Please read the brief--it's quite interesting brief online. RJJensen 19:45, 16 December 2008 (EST)
I have, its hooey. It is a blatant attempt to undermine government and a duly elected official, to save them all from being embarrassed. Let them all go on record, in a Impeachment Trial, as is usual and customary, rather than invent new reasons to use a law intended for someone having a stroke or severe impairment. The Illinois Governor has not "gone missing" unheard of for months, there is no "emergency", no stopping of government here. Some elected officials, undoing the election of another, by declaring an inability, can set a horrible precedent, and I seriously doubt SCOTUS would uphold such a "back-door" play. --₮K/Talk! 19:52, 16 December 2008 (EST)
A republican form of government does not permit the judiciary to remove the highest elected official from office in the absence of any proof that he was not qualified to serve. The impeachment process exists where some elected officials can remove another based on misconduct, after a trial.--aschlafly 19:59, 16 December 2008 (EST)
The Illinois Constitution in question was approved by the voters in 1970 (I was there and I voted for it). I agree that the Illinois Supreme Court will require proof of disability. One example of the proof will be testimony that everything he signs from now on can be challenged. The state is currently in a state of paralysis in many ways--for example it is unable to float a $1.4 billion bond because it cannot certify the governor's status. So yes indeed, a republican constitution in Illinois voted on by the people permits the state Supreme Court to decide if there is enough proof the governor is disabled, and if there is enough proof it can remove him. (Furthermore at the federal level, the VP and a majority cabinet can make the determination, again without impeachment--25th amendment.) RJJensen 20:25, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Please provide proof as to why, "everything he signs can be challenged". Legally, up until the time of conviction, he has committed no crime. Even if convicted, it is a tall order to then say his signing a clean water bill would be tainted by trying to "sell" a senate seat. There have been many officials, including Federal Judges, Impeached. That did not invalidate all previous rulings. A California Governor was recently recalled, and there wasn't any invalidation of his actions. This is just hysterical lynch-mob mentality taking hold here. --₮K/Talk! 20:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

somebody have a problem with lynch law when it comes to distrusting governors? The state law is very clear and the legal forms are being followed. He is on tape as conspiring to sell access to state funds for the sale of the Cubs (owned by the Tribunbe) and for Children's hospital. Whether he is convicted of a crime several years from now is irrelevant to running the state government in 2008. as for proof: the Illinois state attorney general says "the legality of his future decisions are subject to challenge." (brief p 24 section 37) RJJensen 20:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
So, the prisoners at Gitmo, the ones we have on tape admitting what they did, can we execute them now, without trial? I mean we could have a trail later, nothing is going to change. At least before Obama turns them loose, we could get them in front of a firing squad. --₮K/Talk! 21:43, 16 December 2008 (EST)

RJJensen, being charged with a crime is not a "disability" within the ordinary meaning of that term, which refers to insanity or senility or health incapacitation. And, by the way, a majority vote would not legitimize a non-republican form of government by a state. The Constitution prohibits it. What limits, if any, would you place on your support for a power of removal by the judiciary of the highest elected official?--aschlafly 22:02, 16 December 2008 (EST)

the question for the state supreme court is whether or not the governor is "unable" or "unfit" to be governor. The people of Illinois voted to give the Court the authority, explicitly, to make that determination and the state official charged with legal affairs brought it to their attention. So "limits" on the power of the state supreme court are not at issue--the voters set no limits in 1970. How the state supreme court will rule I have no idea. I expect we'll hear in a couple days what they will do. Three jurisdictions overlap here. The disability/Court issue is distinct from criminal charges/federal, and both are distinct from impeachment/legislature. I think I hear an assumption that to have a republican form of government there have to be popular elections (not true; see President George Washington), and that elected officials have some exalted status (not true). The law requires the governor to "faithfully" perform his duties; a transcription (wiretap) of him conspiring to the violate his oath of office is on record.RJJensen 22:24, 16 December 2008 (EST)
RJJensen, you keep relying on the majority vote in Illinois to pass its constitution, but that is irrelevant because the US Constitution prohibits any state from adopting an anti-republican form of government. You seem to place no limits on the power of the judiciary to remove a Governor, and your view is both anti-republican and unconstitutional (under the US Constitution).--aschlafly 22:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Well, I for one am glad that we can duke it out without fear of Big Brother arresting us all. Imagine getting a front row seat to a debate between a lawyer and a historian. Wikipedia should have it so good. ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 22:41, 16 December 2008 (EST)
the Illinois Constitution is anti-republican, says Aschlafly. Well I taught Illinois history for 30 years and never hard of anyone anywhere ever making that argument before. Most conservatives, including myself, tend to be uncomfortable with constitutional novelties pulled out of thin air. Citations please? RJJensen 23:02, 16 December 2008 (EST)
No,that's not what I said. I said that your view of the Constitution is anti-republican. Unless you provide real limits on removal from office of the chief executive by the Illinois Supreme Court, then I don't see how you could claim that your proposed extraordinary power (which obviously the Constitution does not allow the US Supreme Court to do) would be republican in nature. [sig aschlafly]
The question of the “inability to serve” of the chief executive has a long history in the English Constitution; I mentioned two famous cases. It appears in the 1787 US constitution (“In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office…”). But there was a problem—it was not specific about WHO decided the president was unable to serve. The federal issue was solved after long national debate in 1965 by the 25th amendment, which involves a complicated mix of elected and appointed officials. Illinois had the same problem and solved it five years later in 1970 by making its Supreme Court the authority on the matter. Aschlafly seems to be saying the Illinois solution is unrepublican and violates the federal constitution. Neither route has ever been called “unrepublican” by anyone until now, and no one has cited anyone who agrees with this new position. With regards to Illinois I followed the new constitution closely at the time and have written about it, and I cannot recall anyone complaining about the provisions in question. The fallacy I think is assuming that republicanism gives great weight to popular elections. That seems to confuse republicanism and democracy. RJJensen 23:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)
RJJensen, you raise interesting history and arguments. Thanks for your provocative insights. For now, the Illinois Supreme Court has rejected the attempt to have it remove the Governor from office (see Main Page). But thanks much for your contributions.--aschlafly 23:35, 17 December 2008 (EST)
thanks, I appreciate that  :) RJJensen 23:45, 17 December 2008 (EST)

UK Prison

This section moved to [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions#UK_Prison]] so Hsmom gets a revised news suggestion credit. --DeanStalk 12:57, 16 December 2008 (EST)


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