Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

2008-06-18T03:04:19Z

AdenJ: /* Politics */

== This should be merged ==

Someone should move the actors "hypocrisy" to after the politicians. While the use of guns in a movie does illustrate their hypocrisy by the implication that they condone such behavior by playing a part. There are better "real life" arguments to be made, and a person reading this may see this comparison as follish and not read on.

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with [[deceit]], the [[occult]], etc. --[[User:LiteratiChamp|LiteratiChamp]] 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

:Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the ''characters they play'' a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in ''The Bunker'' he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)
:It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:
:''"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"''
That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

:It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

::The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, ''but it's still pollution''. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully ''reduce'' the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and ''certainly'' among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --[[User:9820|9820]] 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
::I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which ''broke'' those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

:The quotes were put back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::Why? [[User:Tesfan|Tesfan]] 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:::The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

==Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting==

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Explain carbon offsetting [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::[[Carbon offsetting]] is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.
::Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life ''and death'' of a tree shows that the net change in CO2 ''must'' be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.
::I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.
::Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.
::If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

:::Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

::::Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it ''tries'' to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::Your animosity towards scientists is blinding you from what is actually being said about global climate change. It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic, because if you had done so, then you'd know that the decently-well understood mechanism of solar energy fluctuation is almost ''always'' used as a baseline in calculate relative energy levels in the atmosphere. The sun's contribution is already well understood, with the exception of some funky stuff with the solar wind and the VA belts. I urge you to get out of the political editorials about the topic and pick up a copy of Natural or the journal of the AMS before you continue to spread misinformation on the global climate change debate (which, I should add, is over debate-wise; it's more than corroborated that global climate change is occuring, and the only 'debate' left is to the extent that human industrialization has catalyzed the process).
::::::I'd like to see how my edits prove I'm not conservative. One can be an environmentalist and still be a conservative. Was no one here ever a boy scout when they were younger? If someone was, don't you cherish your memories of the outdoors? Conservation should be a hallmark of Conservatism; it would please me very much if we could take it back. I think that there is a misconception that conservation is something that necessitates expanded government; really, it just requires education about the environment, which I've found will almost always spur people to take personal action to protect it, negating government intervention. As for defending Gore, he's been instrumental in bringing attention to the environment. I may sharply disagree with his political philosophy, but the man is accomplishing very important things - I daresay greater things than either I or you will ever accomplish in our lives. The man deserves respect. Being vile towards the opposition just out of contempt is a liberal characteristic, not a conservative one. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 10:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
<--
*''"It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic"''
*It's obvious you never read the granddaddy of climatology scholars who says this alleged "scholarship" is a bunch of huey,{{Cquote|There is a lot of money to be made in this....If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'}}
*[http://robertsteely.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=post&g=abc72f45-f361-42a9-b73c-c01a506f1437 Father of Climatology Throws Up at the Thought of Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'], Noel Sheppard, June 18, 2007. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:20, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:That's a strawman., and a terrible one as that. Reid Bryson isn't the "father of climatology;" he's really not even that famous. Sure, he's published some articles and some books (I've read ''Climate of Hunger''), but he hasn't published any new work in '''two decades.''' Once again, if we'd please stop reading internet blogs to get our science, we'd be well aware that the father of modern climatology is Alexander Humboldt, one of the most famous oceanographers of all time. Reid Bryson is not an authoritative source on the global warming debate. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::Right; he's just a senile old man outside of progressive thought. Typical response. Can't refute scholarship, so attack the source. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::The source is not credible and doesn't refute the initial data albeit for bald, unsupported assertions. On Edit: I'd like to point out that I've yet to make a change to the actual article pending the resolution of this argument. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 11:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::So you say the source is not credible. Big deal. Who are you? Just an anonymous internet crusader with a point of view to peddle, whom the evidence now shows, is willing to denigrate and impugn the established reputation of a scholarly source. What is the motive? Dr. Bryson gives us the motive, based upon his many years of experience in the academic sphere, in addition to debunking the so-called "scholarship" and science.

::::So, if you haven't noticed by now, this is not DailyKos, or any other site where anonymous crusaders invent and perpetrate legends to impugn and discredit people the don't like or disagree with. Thus far, you've offered nothing to further this discussion, or improve the mainspace article.

::::Basically what I am saying amounts to this: liberal pap can amount to trolling, once it's been established the purpose or point of it to waste Sysop's time. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 11:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::Right now, I may be just an anonymous internet crusader, but then what role do you play? I'm content to remain anonymous and have my credentials questioned; I could care less whether my credentials are respected on an internet site as long as they're respected in the real world.

:::::The simple matter of fact is that Bryson is just regurgitating the same anti-GW talking points; the fact that he used to be a source of authority doesn't in any way bolster the argument. I've heard the ''exact same talking points'' in nearly the same wording from a wide variety of non-scientific sources. If anything, it undermines the argument, because a professional is unable to even put a tiny bit of scientific spin on them. I laugh at any argument that tries to introduce motive; kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune.

:::::I'm not going to even touch the mainspace here until this argument is resolved because I already know I'll be banned for it; the 'motive' is apparent. However, I can't sit by without at least contesting this issue. My principles don't allow it. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

::::::In carrying forward this ''reductio ad absurdum,'' let's examine this claim,
::::::*''kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune''
::::::Very interesting premise. Ok, so they do not want to get rich. They must be driven by ideology then, huh? Hmmm, what ideology? Since "scientifically," there is no God, and they are not motived by money, what ideology drives these kids? Hmmm, is it to prove God wrong? Maybe scientists are smarter than God, huh? Maybe that is what drives them to be scientists since the are not motivated by money, to prove God wrong and to prove that to the rest of us, that they are smarter than God, huh? Very interesting premise. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:::::::RobS, I chose to be a scientist because I wanted to understand the world around me in a finer detail. I knew I would not make a "ton of money" (Scientific PhDs are the most underpaid for the amount of education than any other grad degree). I did not have a motive against god like you guessed in your paragraph above, in fact I attend a Presbyterian church like many of my colleagues at the NIH do. Perhaps this will shed some light on Stryker's response. Just to note, Bryson is a researcher who has been out of mainstream science discoveries in a decade to say the least. To put this in perspective perhaps you should look at what has been discovered in the past decade to see how that affects his creditability. Another point to make is the number of scientists who show evidence of climate change and causes, this is very important in the scientific community as well as any mathematician could explain the statistical relevance. Just because someone is not looking does not mean it is not there, this is the case of Bryson. He has yet to offer any scientifically viable evidence contrary to what modern climatologists have observed. As for Gore, it amazes me the number of people who complain about a man who is trying to make a change but are not willing to support the idea of the change. I have a son, I would like for him to enjoy the world as I have. I will do what I can to prevent the negative impact of my actions on the enviroment.--[[User:Tims|TimS]] 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the sun's influence on global warming - there was recently a study published on this. The paper can be found at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 13:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

== Couple of points/comments ==

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There ''are'' good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.
*Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
*The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
*If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
*Finally, a suggestion: could [[Greenpeace]]'s insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source ([[nuclear energy]]) be considered hypocritical?

:In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
::No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

=="Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"==

[[National Review]] had an article on Peter Schewizer's [http://www.amazon.com/Do-As-Say-Not-Hypocrisy/dp/0385513496 book], "''Do As I Say( Not As I Do)''", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on [[Nancy Pelosi]]'s union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like [[Michael Moore]], [[Hillary Rodham Clinton|Hillery Clinton]], [[Al Franken]], [[Ted Kennedy]], etc. You might want to check out this [http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp article]. Hope this helps, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
:Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled ''Pants on Fire''. Feel free to add in! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

== More on Clooney and Wahlberg ==

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie ''Three Kings'' where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --[[User:Bucklesman|Bucklesman]] 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. [[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

:I thought liberals opposed the death penalty. I guess you liberals only want the death penalty for conservatives.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 17:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd keep the Clooney and Wahlberg criticism in this list, because it make instantly clear that this list is just for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Conservatives can also be funny. [[User:Order]] 27 July

Yesserie, films are not reality, but real people play parts in those films, and that real-person Clooney could have had a stroke of reality on the set with the gun in his hands and simply lived up to his own word, and dropped the gun on the floor! But obviously he didn't. As to Denzo and his little rant, he proved his own hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech, specifically who he thinks should have it, and who should not. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting then that you blocked him right before you posted your reply, so that, even if he wanted, he will not be able to reply in kind. If actor's roles had much to do with their true natures and the substance of their beings then they wouldn't be such great actors; neither would a [[Ronald Wilson Reagan|certain]] actor wind up as POTUS. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 11:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::Interesting that you did not read what he said which led to the block. I don't think anyone has the right or the authority to state that someone ''"deserves the death penalty"'' for writing a piece that he disagrees with. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Am I to take it you've not heard of ''hyperbole''? While it can be difficult to "hear" humor in the written word one should note the context, which, in this case, was, "films are not reality" '''(another thing in the same "not in reality category")''', "Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty." The over-the-top measure (death) to deal with the complaint (shaky writing), should have indicated that the complainant was having a bit of fun at the expense of the writer. [[User_talk:U2| U2]] 12:53, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::If you can successfully prove that it was hyperbole, then I'll take you at your word. But then again, every time a lib always engages in such talk and gets caught, he's got to have a pass for it, an excuse, a loophole. They always come up with something like "Oh, it was just a slip of the tounge, didn't mean it, or maybe it was poor hyperbole" or something similar to that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Every time a lib always engages"? Kinda sounds like hyperbole :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Hyperbole is talking about a bomb with a smile. Hyperbole gone bad is talking about the bomb with a smile at the airport. :) [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Please! ==

I have to go...someone please archive this page! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 08:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Kyoto and Spain ==

The entry on the oil tanker prestige contains nonsense. First, the Kyoto has nothing to do with leaking oil tankers, and second, the Prime minister of Spain at that time was Aznar. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure if he was liberal or not. [[User:Order]]

*Mr. Literal? Isn't nonsense at all, if you look at it as another example of hypocrisy, in thinking. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

: Hypocrisy by whom? Aznar? The Kyoto protocol? In thinking what? [[User:Order]]

Since nobody was able to explain what the 'hypocrisy', nor why it concerns a Liberal, I removed the the corresponding bit. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 18:15

Why is the article blocked? [[User:Order]] 3 august. :30 (AET)
:So you couldn't remove the corresponding bit. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:50, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

No, I couldn't. It doesn't matter too much, because the quality of most entries isn't that great either. An entry on something that backfired isn't hypocrisy, and if it then done a conservative government, it isn't exactly liberal either, but as I said somewhere else, this entire list is for entertainment only. Sure, a real encyclopedia would include such poor work, but I guess it is for the sysops to decide if they want to be foremost entertaining. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:If it's for entertainment only, why are you and others so desperate to change it? Could it be that you can't stand it when liberal hypocrisy is exposed, and you instead palm it off as mere entertainment? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::I am not desperate to change it. I would however advise to have everybody sign their fun fact on liberal hypocrisy. I think, but call me picky, that it looks incompetent to call an action that backfired on a conservative prime minister, a liberal hypocrisy. I would suggest that each editor sign his fun fact, such that it would be at least obvious that the incompetence doesn't lie with CP in general, but with a particular editor. [[User:Order]] 6 august 9:50 (AET)
:Such as yourself, for instance? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:11, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
::For example. I don't want people to think that I read the entry, and didn't notice what it is obviously wrong. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:22 (AET)
:::In your opinion, of course. What you have obviously overlooked is the fact that libs love the Kyoto Treaty, and didn't raise much of a fuss here in this country when that ship was refused entry into harbor by Spain (a Kyoto signatory), to sink in the deep ocean whereby it spilled its entire cargo of oil to foul all the Atlantic coastal beaches on the Iberian Penninsula.
:::I personaly seen libs rant and whine about pollution and how we need to clean up our act, and these same libs don't seem to mind much when they pollute themselves with their cars, their cigarette butts, their chewing gum wrappers, their foul mouths, and I bet you're one of them. Don't come here and start correcting us for what we write when you do it yourself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:18, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
: No, not in my opinion. It is most peoples opinion that Aznar was conservative politician, and in addition the Prime Minister of Spain, and not some Liberal. And the Kyoto treaty still doesn't have anything to do with oil pollution. And comments on my personal hygiene doesn't make your position stronger. But I guess you did it in the heat of the moment, and wouldn't mind to apologize for this verbal slip. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 14:30
::Personal hygene means you have a problem with showering, clean clothes, and an overall smell about your person, something which I didn't cite and have no need to apologize for. The others I mentioned are personal habits which you may have at least one of...and even then I have no reason to apologize. Have a nice day. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 03:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: No need to be all defensive, a simple apology would have been sufficient. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 20:55
::Excuse me, Mr Order. You came to this site knowing it was a conservative site, and have every intention of pushing your liberal views on it. It is you who needs to apologize for that, and you will. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 07:01, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
: What liberal views? Sorry for pointing out that an action by the Aznar government that backfired on his government isn't a liberal hypocrisy. Pointing this out isn't liberal. And your insistence to stick to this story isn't conservative either. It isn't even advancing the conservative cause, to the contrary. Nor are personal insults. But, since you changed your tone, I will take it as an apology. [[User:Order]] 6 August, 22:25

== Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue ==

The entry in taxes on cigarettes in Tennessee contains nonsense. Increasing the price of a product, can increase the revenue even if the number of sold items decreases. The entry suggest otherwise. [[User:Order]]
:What you just said is nonsense. The Tennessee state government and anti-tobacco coalitions fully expected people to continue smoking; raise the price without hurting sales and the state gets that increase in revenue, which is exactly what's happening now. I've seen people walk into my store complaining about the high prices, but not once did these same people cut down their smoking as a result. The people who raised the taxes on cigarettes knew it too. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What I said is not nonsense. To paraphrase Andy, this is just basic economics. You can increase prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and still make a profit. Happens all the time. [[User:Order]]

To add a bit of math to this argument. If you increase prices by 7%, demand can drop up to 6.5% and you still make a profit. [[User:Order]]

:We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another. With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, ''while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates''. The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

::A possible explanation is that the proponents of anti-smoking legislation wish to acquire it because it will reduce smoking (provding the political and social impetus for the change), while at the same time, attempt to rationalize with opponents of the move by re-assuring them that it would not have a severely detrimental effect. It sounds like '''politics''', not hypocrisy. [[User:Stryker|Stryker]] 12:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What basic economics tells you is that both is possible. You can raise the taxes by 7%, and then make a windfall '''and''' have consumption drop by up to 6.5%. What is so difficult to understand about that. [[User:Order]]

Seems like I can make mistakes too. According to Chart the tax was increased by 7ct (not percent). Sorry for this mistake. It is currently 20ct in Tennessee. So, lets then assume that it was 13ct before the tax increase, and 20 ct after. This means an increase in tax of about 53%, which means that you make a windfall if consumption drops up to 35%. [[User:Order]]

== Ted Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms in Mass. ==

I think something should be added to the article about global warmist Ted Kennedy's opposition to putting wind farms off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. Even though it's one of the best sites for wind generation on the entire east coast, he opposes it because it might affect the view from his mansion. Total liberal hypocrisy. He only supports renewable energy if he doesn't have to see it.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:28, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:"Ted Kennedy" is not someone who comes to mind when one thinks of Global Warming activists or promoters. He may lean left on environmental issues, but he is definitely not a majro leader in the movement. '''[[User:Stryker|ΨtrykeЯ]]'''[[User_Talk:Stryker| eh?>]] 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::Try again. [http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?tg=articles&idx=Print&topics=189&article=1397]--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 11:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::It's a little weak. I don't think NIMBY is really an example of hypocrisy, it's an example of self interest overriding community interest. As I said [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Liberal_hypocrisy#Couple_of_points.2Fcomments before] (which seems to have been largely ignored :/) there are ''many'' examples of liberal hipocrisy, but you need to pick strong ones or you set yourself up for failure. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Clooney is an actor... erm, "actor" is the operative term. ==

I have to take issue with the statement "Clooney stared in the film The Peacemaker, in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."

I took the time to look up "acting" on Merriam-Webster online, and came across the definition "the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras". So I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a ''character'' (who is ''not'' real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğ''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|θαλκ]] 03:22, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

:Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. In fact, that's the only reason I looked at this page. Seems really... Well, it seems like somebody's been grasping at straws. Edit: Same thing for Wahlberg. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:54, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a cop in the movies can go around condemning them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a soldier in the movies can spit on them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that the anti-gun nut who thinks the average law-abiding American citizen shouldn't be owning a gun to defend himself from a criminal, yet the same anti-gun nut thinks it's ok for himself to play that law-abiding gun-owning American in a movie defending himself from a criminal. Sound's like you're upset that this bit of liberal hypocrisy is broadcast for the world to see. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:11, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::: 1. Deleting other people's comments is not cool.
::: 2. How? Is it also hypocritical for someone who plays a mad scientist bent on destroying the world in a movie to condemn that sort of thing in reality? They're freaking ACTORS! They don't '''have''' to agree with what their characters do, they just have to make them do it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:18, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Yes, they are actors in a movie, they play parts in a movies, but just as I refuse to accept medical advice from an actor who plays a doctor on TV, I will never listen to the anti-gun Clooneys or Wahlbergs as they try to take my guns away from me while they play the hero with them on film. Get it through your head. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:23, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Oh, and pushing your own liberalness on this website is not cool. You will respect CP. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:25, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::: I never claimed that you should take medical advice from, let's say, Hugh Laurie, but you seem to be slamming the use of guns to heroic ends if the person portraying that character does not believe that the average citizen should be "packing heat." If they played a character who didn't use guns, would you support their opinion more then? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:27, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::::: And I'm fine with your disagreement of my personal beliefs, but you're acting awfully hostile about the whole issue... And I sincerely hope that by CP, you mean conservapedia. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:28, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::You are the one who's hostile to this subject and this website. If you do not like conservapedia or conservatism or Christianity, then you should leave. This discussion between you and me is closed. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:31, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::: I have never, on this website, claimed to be hostile to any of these things. I'd appreciate it, sir or madam, if you'd not attempt to misrepresent me. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 22:33, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But you can misrepresent me as you did above? Last warning. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::::: Alright, let me rephrase what I said. In my non-expert [[opinion]] you seem to be acting rather [[hostile]] towards me on [[Liberal hypocrisy|this issue]]. I'm sorry if my comments were misinterpreted. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 20:37, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*<s>Kazmaru, since you (falsely) claimed on your user page I had blocked you, I have protected your honor and turned your public lie into truth.</s> --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)

*Kazmaru, I apologize! The block log showed no previous block for you! I have removed your block, and restored your pages. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

**No hard feelings, TK. We're all only human. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:12, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes, Thank God! So long as we don't become [[deceit|(sub)Human]], all is good! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 00:18, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

''Hoji said''
*I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a character (who is not real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical'', and quoted
*"scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."
Ok, so Clooney is a [[capitalist]] pig who exploited America's love affair with the Second Amendment for personal profit and then criticizes our God-given freedoms to pursue happiness and own a gun. That's not hypocritical? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

*To be fair, Rob, it is no more hypocritical than Michael Moore owning Haliburton stock, and keeping his money off-shore to avoid paying a rich man's taxes that would go to help all those without medical care! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

[[John Travolta]] is a [[heterosexual]] [[male]] [[Scientologist]]. In the [[movie]] Hairspray he plays the [[mother]] of an [[hedonism|hedonistic]] [[teenage]] [[girl]]. Another [[straw]] to grasp at? [[User:JohnMalin|JohnMalin]] 12:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

==Couric==
I already mentioned this once elsewhere, but now that the idiocy has premeated to other pages I feel I should mention it again. The Couric quote is ridiculous. First of all, while Couric may be liberal, I don't see how commenting on how gas prices are at historic highs is a liberal comment. Nor do I really see any hypocrisy. As for the "I need a loan," is it possible, just ''possible'' that she ''might'' have been exaggerating? Leaving that quote there just might it seem like CP is full of idiots who can't comprehend that not every statement is meant to be taken literally. It's grasping at straws. If someone says "I exercise all the time", maybe that should be included too, as clearly all humans must sleep, therefore that person clearly exercises less than 100% of the time, making that person [[deceit|deceitful]], and, I suppose, a hypocrite. There are a few good examples on this page (the O'Donnell one, for example), but far too many poor ones. And the Couric one has to be the worst. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 09:22, 14 August 2007 (EDT)
:I agree. My first time reading it, it seems obvious it was a joke. Startoman24
::Right. She's just one of the boys, nevermind she gets $15,000,000 to spew marxist garbage. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

== George Clooney and Charlton Heston ==

I looked at the citation dropped for the premise that Clooney said that Heston deserves Alzheimers... but the real quote says nothing like it! Clooney says that Heston deserves what others "say" about him, not that he deserves a disease, and the link to the quote provides the quote wholly without context. As much as I hate Clooney, isn't it a little dishonest to supply an out-of-context quote, and then provide your own context?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 12:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:Cooney's quote appears to more directed at criticizing NRA support for candadites that oppose gun control, than the issue of the Second Amendment itself. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
So you agree that the quote doesn't stand for the cited proposition. Shouldn't it be removed, then? Say what you will about Clooney, but he doesn't appear to have rejoiced at Heston's alzheimer's as you claim.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 12:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::It's an actual quote by Clooney in response to hearing Heston had Alzheimer's. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Here's a CNN Transcript where Clooney admits joking about Heston's Alzheimers was in poor taste. [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0310/26/rs.00.html] Whatever the merits, there is a story here. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:15, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:::I think we ought to begin a page on [[Liberal hate speech]]; we got the anti-feminist example of Edwards calling a succesful woman a "she-devil" because of her recognized abilities to compete with men in the marketplace; we got at least three examples of liberal hate speech directed at handicapped persons, Clooney "joking" about Heston's Alzheimers, jokes about Reagan in diddies, and [[Rush Limbaugh]] is multi-handicapped, we have numerous disparaging comments about his deafness, his drug addiction (yes, drug addiction is defined as a handicap by the American's with Disabilities Act) after Limbaugh's back surgery. If somebody wants to start it, I just have to prioritize about 10 trillion more examples. We can throw in what was said about [[Clarence Thomas]], or [[Thomas Sowell]]. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:31, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Since we already have a relatively short [[hate speech]] article, I would suggest adding a section on liberal hate speech with the items you just mentioned, instead of making a new article. When that section gets too large, we can create the new page and provide a summary/link to the new article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:48, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Here you go! http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_Hate_Speech
--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

*Ooops! Didn't see your post while making the other page! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 13:58, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the links, Karajou, and Rob. Since you provided them so quickly, perhaps they should be in the article, too?

And yeah, this seems to be something more like hate speech than hypocrisy. I don't see his nasty comments about Heston as hypocrisy at all, just major jerkitude!-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 14:02, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
:The fact that he admitted it was in poor taste, yet insisted it was still funny and showed no remorse for doing so makes it hypocricy <nowiki>[sic]</nowiki>. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
I looked up hypocrisy, and it means, "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." He nowhere says that what he did was nice, while pretending it wasn't; nor does he say that what he said was funny, but believes it wasn't. He was an a--, and a real jerk, but not a hypocrite. Conflating various bad traits isn't a very appealing trait, yourself.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:04, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::''KURTZ: Was that in poor taste in retrospect? ''
:::''CLOONEY: Yes, oh, yes. It was in poor taste. It was a funny joke. .... And it was just a funny joke. ''
:::Seems unrepentant to me. He says above it was ''both'' in poor taste and funny. Nowhere does he say he shouldn't have made the joke.

:::'Hypo', in Greek means 'below' or 'underneath' (as in 'hypodermic', beneath the skin), and 'kritikos' means 'making judgements'. So it means below or beneath making judgements. 'Hypocritic' was an actual word Greeks used for stage characters, or 'actors', someone pretending to be someone who they were not. This meaning has survived in its literal sense in English.
::The subtle difference between a hypocrite and your average run-of-the-mill liar is that when the hypocritical behavior is exposed the hypocrite generally has no idea that they have been engaging in behavior that '''is''' hypocritical. That is the whole point to being a hypocrite; being blind to one's own misdeeds, or contradictory behavior. [[User:Samwell|Samwell]] 16:40, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:::Doesn't seem to me that Clooney did either. He said his joke was in poor taste, but still funny. I think it was neither, but that's not a hypocritical statement, just a jerky one.-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:43, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I respect you for your work on the site, which has become apparent to me only in a few days here. But your reply is still nonsensical. Hypocrisy is distinct from a lack of contrition. Is this not obvious to you?-[[User:Baruch|Baruch]] 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
:Hypocrisy is pretending to stand for liberalism, reason, civility, the betterment of the human condition, and all things good, and not being willing to admit you made a mistake with a vicious and offensive partisan smear in what you consider to be a 'joke' among your enlightened friends. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 17:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
*I really don't believe they teach one how to avoid being that way at NYU, Rob. ;-) --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:07, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

== There is no article called [[Conservative hipocricy]] ==

Why? This is quite a bias of your 'pedia.--[[User:Ardwingore|Ardwingore]] 22:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:That might be because of the spelling. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 22:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
:LOL. You beat me to it Bohdan. :) I feel bad for you Ardwingore. I know how it feels to believe I had a point... --[[User:David R|◄ Ďāʋĭđ Ŕ ►]] 22:54, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
In my opinion, this article is rather silly. If there is a "Liberal hypocrisy" article, then there should be a "Conservative Hypocrisy" or "Reform Hypocrisy" and a hypocrisy article for every school of thought. To have all of these pointless Liberal topics makes Conservapedia look tawdry. Many people take a look at the Breaking News section and see another example of "liberal deceit" or something (since when is an example of bias in Wikipedia "breaking news"?). You cannot fix a liberal bias by replacing it with a conservative one.

There should definitely be an article about conservative hypocrisy, as it is at least as prolific as the liberal version, if not more so. We are all human and subject to the limitations that it implies. By having such an extensive liberal hypocrisy page and not a single murmur on conservative hypocrisy is essentially admitting the already profound bias found in every single article in this pedia. The idea that this pedia isn't ultra-biased is a horrific joke at best

== Edwards again==
Presidential candidate John Edwards told a group of supporters that the Americans should stop using their sports utility vehicles (SUV). However, a photo of his mansion showed that he house with several sports utility vehicles parked. Check out this [http://www.hedgehogreport.com/index.php/7257 story].--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:27, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

==Cigarettes==

I'm sorry, but it takes a massive leap in logic to deduct that Tennessee created a cigarette tax solely to increase their revenues. One, the revenues are a nice side effect of the tax; two, the tax reduces the number of people smoking, as can be seen in Europe; and three, Using Tennessee as an example of Liberal Hypocrisy, or whatever the hell the point of this article is supposed to be, is just insane. I mean, its almost like a parody to choose a state from the Bible Belt as an example of Liberal Hypocrisy! [[User:Graham|Graham]] 20:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

==[[Essay:Conservative hypocrisy|Conservative Hypocrisy]]==

By the way, that article (now deleted) was actually written in the '''essay''' space. Nobody was claiming it was fact (as is effectively claimed in this article, I might point out), it was just an editor's opinion on the topic. Why was it deleted? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:37, 26 January 2008 (EST)
:Because it was not a popular opinion. Heck, Andy decided to post comments on the essay page itself, that should be good enough to disqualify the essay status. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 18:35, 31 January 2008 (EST)

==Politics==
A common liberal theme in '08 is point fingers and say "You don't support Obama? That's because you are a racist!" Then in the next breath, discriminate against somebody because he is old. "What you support that geriatric diaper wearer, old man McCain?" --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:02, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm I have never heard that one before.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-18T01:59:14Z

AdenJ:

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. In 2007, Obama was the most [[liberal]] Senator.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> If elected, Obama would be the first [[Affirmative Action President]].

[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]] and downplays his [[Islam]]ic background by claiming that his [[Kenya]]n [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed atheist" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref>

Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him [[Pennsylvania]], Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref>

Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref>
<ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama admitted doing illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before choosing a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again, for explained reasons, though it is likely a political pander.

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, those single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180. annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President George Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him 'George Bush'.
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his family state that they maintain their faith in Christianity.<ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref> Reasons being not for the rhetoric on display but for the media's assault on the congregation. “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.."<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/, Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-18T01:58:13Z

AdenJ: we can do better than talking about his name!!!

'''Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.''' (b. Honolulu, August 4, 1961) is the presumptive 2008 nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] for president.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org Democratic Party website]</ref> Obama has served as a freshman [[Democratic]] [[Senator]] from [[Illinois]] for three and a half years. In 2007, Obama was the most [[liberal]] Senator.<ref>http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/</ref> If elected, Obama would be the first [[Affirmative Action President]].

[[Image:Democrat Obama during the Pledge.jpg|325px|thumb|right|Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama on the campaign trail with [[Bill Richardson]] and [[Hillary Clinton]] during the [[National Anthem]].]]

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country.<ref>http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/05/12/obamas-freudian-slip-there-are-57-islamic-states/</ref>

Obama has declared himself to be a [[Christian]]and downplays his [[Islam]]ic background by claiming that his [[Kenya]]n [[Muslim]] father was a "confirmed atheist" before Obama was born, but in fact less than 1% of Kenyans are atheists, agnostics or non-religious.<ref>http://www.adherents.com/Na/Na_14.html</ref>

Asked to explain why working-class [[Democrats]] do not support him [[Pennsylvania]], Obama replied "it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref> In response to outrage when his remarks were unexpectedly publicized, Obama replied, I "didn't say it as well as I should have."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7344532.stm</ref>

Obama was on the faculty of the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004. He claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref>
<ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref>

In his 1995 memoir, ''Dreams of my Father'', Obama admitted doing illegal drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, which he referred to as "blow" and "pot" respectively, in his high school years and into his college years, before choosing a different path in life.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref> Recently, he has begun wearing one again, for explained reasons, though it is likely a political pander.

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Obama's campaign "is proud to be actively participating in over 60 local and state wide [[homosexual]] Pride events over the summer."<ref>http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jcitron/gG5VLs</ref>

==Early life and education==
Barack Hussein Obama was born in [[Honolulu]], [[Hawaii]] to Barack Sr., and Ann Dunham in 1961. In 1967, he moved with his mother and new stepfather to Jakarta, [[Indonesia]]. He attended a [[Catholic]] elementary school for two years, followed by an Indonesian public school for two years. Media scrutiny in the light of Obama's campaign for President revealed that the Indonesia public school was not a madrassa, teaching Islam. However, clearly Obama would have taken days off of school in observance of Islamic holidays. After Indonesia, he returned to the United States with his mother where he attended the Punahou School, the leading private preparatory school in [[Hawaii]], until he graduated in 1979.

Obama continued his education at Occidental College in Los Angeles, [[California]], before graduating with his Bachelor of Arts from [[Columbia University]] in New York, [[New York]]. After working as a community organizer in New York City and Chicago, Illinois, Obama enrolled at [[Harvard]] Law School. He became a member of the [[liberal]] ''Harvard Law Review'' in 1989, which used racial [[quotas]] for membership, and was then elected by popular vote as its first African American president in 1990. He graduated ''magna cum laude'' with his J.D. in 1991 and chose not to pursue a federal clerkship, which is the typical post-graduate position for top law students.

He was "Senior Lecturer in the Law" -- not a professor-level position -- at the [[University of Chicago]] Law School as of 2004,<ref>http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml</ref> and is no longer active at the school.<ref>http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama</ref>

==Legal career==
Following law school, Obama continued his work as a community organizer in Chicago as Director of Illinois Project Vote. In 1993 he was hired as an associate at the Chicago law firm Miner, Barnhill & Galland, P.C., and began lecturing in Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. He remains on the faculty on leave of absence through today. During this time he wrote his first book, ''Dreams from My Father'', detailing his background, his youth, and his education. ''Dreams'' was published in 1995.

==Senate career==
Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate for the first time in 1996 and served there for the next eight years. Following a failed campaign for the House of Representatives, Obama ran for the open Senate seat from Illinois in 2004. Obama delivered the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He won a seat in the [[U.S. Senate]] after [[liberals]] obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent, Jack Ryan, forcing him to resign from the race and be replaced by an out-of-state candidate, [[Alan Keyes]].

March 16th, 2005 AP article puts Senator Obama on record to ban oil drilling in the Alaska frontier known as ANWR <ref>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0316-13.htm</ref>

His 2007 voting record in the U.S. [[Senate]] places him as its most [[liberal]] member. Among fellow Senate Democrats, he was further left than liberals like [[Ted Kennedy]], [[John Kerry]], [[Dianne Feinstein]], [[Charles Schumer]], [[Russ Feingold]], [[Carl Levin]], [[Joseph Biden]] and [[Harry Reid]].<ref>[http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> He has grown steadily more liberal since arriving at the Senate: the same analysis assessed him as 10th most liberal in 2006<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref> and 16th most liberal in 2005.<ref>[http://www.nationaljournal.com/members/news/2007/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc]</ref>

In late 2006, Obama's second book, ''The Audacity of Hope'', was published. Its title was supplied by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., a minister who has stated that "racism is how this country was founded and how this country was run .... We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/14/obama_condemns_pastors_remarks.html</ref> The book contains more of Senator Obama's personal story including the roles of both family and politics. ''Audacity'' spent 30 weeks on the ''New York Times'' Nonfiction Best Sellers list.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/books/bestseller/0527besthardnonfiction.html?_r=1&oref=slogin New York Times Best Sellers Non Fiction]</ref>

Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. He has not held one hearing on Afghanistan even though American forces are risking their lives in a theatre of war. Since joining Foreign Relations, Obama has missed three meetings on a "new strategy" in [[Afghanistan]], a country he has never visited.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-absent-at-afghanistan-hearings-2008-03-01.html</ref> Barack Obama clinched his party's nomination for President after 16 straight months of campaigning.

In June 2008, Obama voted with the Democratic party to kill the sunset provision of the [[Bush]] tax cuts. By letting these tax cuts expire, those single mothers with two kids will pay an additional $1,800 annually. Married couples with incomes of $50,000 will pay an additional $2,180. annually. Elderly couples will pay an additional $2,000 and a family of four will pay 191% more per year in taxes. Barack Obama often claims to be for taxing the rich their fair share. By voting to eliminate the Bush tax cuts, Obama is taxing most middle class and blue collar families.

Obama and the Democratic-led Congress has voted for the upgraded GI Bill despite the opposition from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Pentagon, the generals in combat zones and the GOP Presidential nominee. It was crafted to increase veteran benefits. Yet, the strain on our military is great.<ref>[http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php] http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_to_obama_dont_demagogue.php , McCain To Obama: Don't Demagogue The GI Bill, May 22, 2008</ref> The bill would cost $2.8 to $4 billion per month. It depletes our volunteer military personel by enticing them to leave service rather than be re-deployed. Taxes of those earning $500,000 to $1 million a year will pay for the upgrade over ten years.

=== Bills co-sponsored ===
Obama's principal legislation was S. 2433, which was an attempt to force the U.S. to increase its foreign aid by hundreds of billions of dollars under the guise of reducing global poverty, which was subsequently blocked by [[conservatives]].<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200802/POL20080225a.html</ref>

Obama did support and co-sponsor a bill championed by [[Tom Coburn]] and known as the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006, which was signed into law by President [[George W. Bush]] on Sept. 9, 2006. This law created a website that will list the federal government's grants and contracts.<ref> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060926.html</ref>

Between Jan 13, 2007 and March 13, 2008, Sen. Obama has sponsored 120 mostly [[liberal]] resolutions and bills in the Senate.<ref>http://thomas.loc.gov/</ref> His supporters cite the following less liberal examples, but this list is not representative:{{fact}}

*S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

*S.133 : A bill to promote the national security and stability of the economy of the United States by reducing the dependence of the United States on oil through the use of alternative fuels and new technology, and for other purposes.

*S.453 : A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

*S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries.

=== Accomplishments while serving on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee ===

In February 2008, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved Obama's proposal on a new strategy to reduce poverty throughout the world.

Obama worked with Sen. Lugar writing legislation aimed at improving conventional and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This legislation was signed by [[George W. Bush|President Bush]] in January 2008.

In June 2007 the Senate passed his resolution condemning violence by the [[Zimbabwe]] government. It also passed legislation co-sponsored by Obama that financed a Special Court for Sierra Leone to prosecute former [[Liberia | Liberian]] President [[Charles Taylor]]. <ref> http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/26/obamas_senate_foreign_relations_work/ </ref>

==Presidential campaign==
[[Image:obama.jpg|thumb|right|Senator Barack Obama]]
Senator Obama began his candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007, in Springfield, Illinois. His announcement speech largely avoided specific campaign issues and focused on his general political message of hope for the future. It also attempted to strongly invoke the memory of Abraham Lincoln and his "House Divided" speech.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/10/obama.president/index.html "Obama declares he's running for president"] 11 February 2007, www.CNN.com </ref>

Obama's campaign has been financed largely by [[leftist]] donors opposed to the war and to the [[American]] military in general. Obama has encouraged this by refusing to wear the customary flag on his lapel during appearances (asserting that he would prefer his patriotism to be represented through his actions rather than an arbitrary symbol) and by other less-than-patriotic gestures and symbols, such as declining to put his hand over his heart during a patriotic recitation. In an appearance on May 16 where he addressed President Bush's statements that some politicians would prefer appeasing terrorists through negotiations, Senator Obama once again wore the flag pin as he did following 9-11.

By early April 2007, his campaign generated over $25 million from over 100,000 contributors. $23.5 million of that money will be available for the Democratic Primary.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/us/politics/05obama.html Obama Shows His Strength in a Fund-Raising Feat on Par With Clinton], 4 April 2007, Jeff Zeleny and Patrick Healy,'' The New York Times''</ref> After the first Democratic presidential debate in Columbia, South Carolina, Obama's image as an "articulate" spokesman came into question after his failure to state right away that he would retaliate in case of further terrorist strikes against the United States.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702162.html?hpid=moreheadlines Clinton Campaign Tries to Keep Heat on Obama Over Debate Response], Dan Balz, ''Washington Post'' April 28, 2007.</ref><ref>Chicago Sun-Times,
[http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/362269,CST-NWS-sweet29.article 'I was a little nervous' at debate'], Lynn Sweet,
April 29, 2007,</ref>

Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. From his remarks, he states that he has "one more to go" and stated he couldn't visit Hawaii and Alaska, indicating he meant to say, "forty-seven states".

During a fund raising event in Virginia in May 2007 Obama told donors,
{{Cquote|This week there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died. An entire town destroyed.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,271357,00.html Transcript: 'Special Report with Brit Hume,' May 9, 2007], retrieved from ''FOX News'', 06/13/07.</ref>}}

In reality, the tornado which touched down in Kansas cost the lives of nine people in the town of Greensburg, and twelve overall in Kansas.

By August it appeared Obama was running to be left off the ticket completely rather than the much ballyhooed Hillary/Obama ticket the [[mainstream media]] was pushing. After a series of ill-advised foreign policy statements, Obama was openly criticized as a lightweight even by liberals, in much the same vein as [[John Edwards]] and [[Dan Quayle]] had been depicted. First, Obama said he would have face-to-face meetings with two of Florida's most feared enemies, [[Fidel Castro]] and [[Hugo Chavez]]. Florida is a key state to any presidential ambitions. Then Obama claimed that he would be willing to invade the sovereign territory of a U.S. ally without prior consultation. Finally, Obama broke the cardinal rule of declaring he would not use nuclear weapons, removing the element of bluff U.S. Presidents had vitally depended upon throughout the [[Cold War]] era. The incidents all added up to a picture of a candidate ill-prepared and ill-advised, lacking in a basic understanding of the office of the presidency, and failing to surround himself with appointees able to make up for his deficiencies. However, Obama won the Iowa Democratic caucuses, pushing [[Hillary Clinton]] into third place, which gave him a serious chance of becoming the Democratic nominee.

On June 3rd, Barack Obama had received enough pledged delegates and the endorsement of superdelegates to be called the presumptive nominee of the [[Democratic Party]] by the [http://www.democrats.org Democratic National Committee]. The nomination became official when [[Hillary Clinton]] conceded on June 7th.

On June 5th, Obama spoke at Briston, Virginia- Heathcare Town Hall forum regarding Political Action Committees and his campaign. "Well, we’re here today because we know that if we’re going to make real progress, this time must be different. Throughout my career, in Illinois and the United States senate, I’ve worked to reduce the power of the special interests by leading the fight for ethics reform. I’ve sent a strong signal in this campaign by refusing the contributions of registered federal lobbyists and PACs. And today, I’m announcing that going forward, the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard and won’t take another dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. They do not fund my campaign. They will not fund our party. And they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I’m President of the United States."

On June 6th, an [[AP]] article <ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEMOCRATS_MONEY?SITE=KING&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Transcript: 'Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money ,' June 6, 2008]</ref> presents the rules for lobbyist donations to the DNC and for the Presidential nominee. Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle. Retroactive period being the date Barack Obama started his campaign, February 10, 2007. The DNC possibly the day after the November 2006 Congressional elections until June 5th, 2008. In addition, Barack Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Unlike [[John McCain]], Barack Obama has not disclosed the lobbyists working in his campaign.

== Positions and Qualifications ==
Obama is [[pro-abortion]]. Obama said "the first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act".<ref>[http://christiannewswire.com/news/560716251.html]</ref> That bill "would invalidate virtually all state and federal limitations on abortion, and would make partial-birth abortion legal again." <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3961.html, Pro-Life Voters Must Work Overtime to Stop Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 4, 2008</ref>
The leading abortion providers and PAC supporters have wholeheartedly endorsed Barack Obama. The National Abortion Rights Action League [[NARAL]] has given Barack a 100% rating for his efforts in Congress 2005, 2006 and 2007 <ref>http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/elections/statements/obama.html</ref>. EMILY's List, a political action committee that funds female candidates who support abortion rights backs Barack Obama<ref> [http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/06/emilys_list_bac.html],EMILY's List backs Obama, June 6,2008</ref> The nation's largest abortion business, Planned Parenthood has begun the process necessary to endorse pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama. <ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html], http://www.lifenews.com/nat3971.html, Planned Parenthood Begins Process to Endorse Pro-Abortion Barack Obama, June 10,2008</ref>The board of directors of the pro-abortion group's political operation met on Friday June 6, 2008 and unanimously voted to recommend an endorsement for Obama. Obama has steadfastly advocated support for partial birth abortion as an Illinois legislator. Baracks wife, Michelle Obama, wrote a fundraising letter<ref>[http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php], http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/archives/2006/10/post_5.php, February 17,2004</ref> in support of partial birth abortion and against the proposed ban. Barack voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to give a child who survived an abortion procedure life support healthcare. Obama wanted the life terminated even if he or she survived outside the mother's womb.<ref>[http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm], http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007034.cfm, Obama Blocked Born Alive Infant Protection Act</ref> With Obama no longer in the state Senate, the Born Alive legislation passed in 2005.

In the context of sex, he quipped about his daughters, <ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/03/30/sunday-meditation-obama-and-the-punishment-of-unborn-life/</ref>{{QuoteBox|"if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."}} Obama makes it clear if his daughters had an unplanned pregnancy, he would support terminating the life of his grandchild and it is undeniable that Michelle Obama agrees with that decision.

Obama, having been asked about his associations with William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, he explained that the views of his associates are not necessarily his own. He then compared his friendship with Ayers whose actions led to the loss of a life to his friendship with pro-life doctor and representative Tom Coburn<ref>[http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html]http://www.lifenews.com/nat3894.html, LifeNews.com, April 25,2008</ref>
Obama explained that his friendship with Ayers, shouldn't be construed as implying he endorsed the terrorist-like tactics Ayers used to drive home his political point. Barack Obama brought up the pro-life colleague to make the dubious comparison that he's friends with other people who take "extreme" positions or would use terrorist tactics.
"The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions"

Obama has no military or executive experience and little foreign policy experience.<ref>"Fresh doubts over Barack Obama's foreign policy credentials were expressed on both sides of the Atlantic last night, after it emerged that he had made only one brief official visit to London – and none elsewhere in Western Europe or Latin America. ... Mr. Obama had failed to convene a single policy meeting of the Senate European subcommittee, of which he is chairman."[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3080794.ece]</ref> Yet he is the favorite of the leftist attack site "MoveOn.org" for the [[Democratic]] nomination for [[President of the United States]] in the [[2008 Presidential Election|2008 election]],<ref>MoveOn.org reportedly favored Obama by 70-30% over Clinton. [http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/02/moveonorg_obama.html]</ref> campaigning to the left of [[Hillary Clinton]].<ref>For example, Obama promised not to use nuclear weapons against terrorists, a promise Hillary Clinton refused to make. [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/02/AR2007080202288.html]</ref>

He has no clear personal achievement that cannot be explained as the likely result of [[affirmative action]]. Some examples border on the absurd: Obama has no background in [[physics]], yet it is claimed that "Obama analyzed and integrated [[Albert Einstein|Einstein]]'s [[theory of relativity]], the [[Heisenberg uncertainty principle]], as well as the concept of curved space as an alternative to [[gravity]], for a Law Review article that Tribe, for whom Obama worked as a research assistant, wrote titled, 'The Curvature of Constitutional Space'." <ref>http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/barack.obama.harvard.2.334825.html</ref> Obama's "research" for Constitutional Law Professor Tribe on this article also raises issues about preferences, as Obama had not yet even completed any law school courses<ref>Obama did not start his second year of law school until September 1989, the earliest he could have taken constitutional law, yet this article must have been written, submitted and accepted prior to that time to be published in the November 1989 issue of the Law Review.</ref> on the [[Constitution]].<ref>The liberal Professor Tribe saw the best law students for several decades, yet insisted that Obama was the "best student I ever had" and the "most exciting research assistant." [http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071114/NEWS01/711140429/1217/NEWS98]</ref>

Throughout his career, Obama repeatedly ducked controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. In example, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" nearly an astounding 130 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then for [[U.S. Senate]], which was successful after his opponent Jack Ryan, a millionaire school teacher, was smeared with a court-ordered disclosure of confidential divorce records that both he and his ex-wife wanted to remain sealed. A newspaper that favored Obama took the unusual step of suing to force the confidential divorce information to become public, and a California judge opened the records at a pivotal time in the campaign.<ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/2898641/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/news/3289561/detail.html</ref><ref>http://www.nbc5.com/politics/3444371/detail.html</ref>

Barack Obama is often praised for his speeches, except when he is not able to read them from a [[teleprompter]]. "Shorn of his Teleprompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. ... The prepared text for his remarks, as released on his website, sounded a lot like a typical Obama speech. ... [But with] no Teleprompter signaling the prepared text, Obama failed to deliver the speech in his characteristically flawless fashion."<ref>http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp</ref> The [[New York Times]] noted that "Mr. Obama excels at inspirational speeches read from a teleprompter before television cameras, critics have noted, but many of his other speeches on the campaign trail have failed to electrify."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html?_r=2&ex=1358485200&en=bb179297e5f61acb&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin</ref> When Obama ridiculed [[Hillary Clinton]] for being like [[Annie Oakley]], it is apparent that he was not writing his own speeches.<ref>"Some Obama adviser probably earned his or her dollars for that cut," the USA Today wrote. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/raasch/2008-04-17-2008-04-17-raasch_N.htm]</ref>

Obama often makes reference to his "two decades of experience" in public service work. During most of that time he claims experience, he was either going to school, working for a law firm, writing a book and community organizing.

== Political views ==
Obama's political views have been subjected to controversy even before he put himself forward as a presidential candidate. Former House majority leader [[Tom DeLay]] has described Obama's record in the Illinois Senate as that of a [[Communism|“Marxist leftist".]]<ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_121306/content/stop_the_tape.guest.html|Sexy Rock Star Obama Whines About His Ears], RushLimbaugh.com, December 13 2006</ref> In May 2007, Obama (and Sen. Hillary Clinton) voted against funding the Iraq War for the first time.<ref>[http://uspolitics.about.com/od/legislatio1/a/HR2206.htm HR 2206 - Emergency Appropriations], Kathy Gill, Your Guide to U.S. Politics: Current Events. May 26 2007.</ref><ref>[http://more.gov.mtopgroup.com/2007/05/votes-hr-2206-iraq-supplemental.html Votes - H.R. 2206: Iraq Supplemental], May 28, 2007. Retrieved from Deeper Inside the Mountain, June 4, 2007.</ref>

Obama's views on [[gun control]] is focused on an opinion article in the [[Wall Street Journal]]:<ref>David Kopel, "The Democrats and Gun Control," Wall St.J., Page A19, April 17, 2008 [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB120839466717921537-lMyQjAxMDI4MDE4NzMxOTc0Wj.html]</ref>

:As a state senate candidate in 1996, Mr. Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns in a questionnaire. The Obama campaign has claimed he "never saw or approved the questionnaire," and that an aide filled it out incorrectly. But a few weeks ago, Politico.com found an amended version of the questionnaire. It included material added in Mr. Obama's handwriting.

Obama has said, "Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," and "it puts the lie to the notion that [[separation of church and state]] in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life."<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/06/17/news/iowa/8db7c1a17d2b51f9862572fd000fc9f4.txt Obama says religion has place in politics], By Todd Dorman, ''Sioux City Journal'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Nonetheless, he asserted that elements of [[sex education]] should be taught in kindergarten.<ref>"Barack Obama reaffirmed to [[Planned Parenthood]] this week that he believes elements of sex education should begin in kindergarten." [http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3395856 (ABC News)] July 20, 2007 </ref>

Obama spoke at the May 1, 2006, illegal immigration march in Chicago.<ref>http://nomoreblather.com/barack-obama-and-the-immigration-marches Immigration marches</ref>

::''We are hungry for change!'' S.C. January 26, 2008.

Barack Obama in his short stint as Senator of Illinois, has made clear his opposition to the [[U.S. Military]] in policy and in rhetoric. Obama has spent much energy to remind America of the war that should have never been waged and that we should not be there at all, in any way. In 2002, as an unknown Chicago representative to the state of Illinois, he declared his opposition to the Iraqi conflict. At the time, America was united in the stance against terrorism and the prospects of a rogue enemy with WMD worried the United States. Since elected to Congress, he voted against the Emergency War Supplemental. Obama did not oppose his party debating the bill long past the timeframe requested. This action directly affects troop deployment in combat zones. Obama has repeatedly called for the return of troops in Iraq. Barack Obama has a no confidence vote for the 'Surge' before the measure was put forth by General Petraus to Congress. Obama would not denounce MoveOn.org's slander NY Times advertising against the General.

Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President George Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him 'George Bush'.
* "I am happy to have a debate with John McCain and George Bush about foreign policy," Obama said <ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/obama.bush.mccain/], CNN Obama blasts Bush McCain, May 16, 2008</ref>
* "For all his talk about independence, the centerpiece of John McCain's economic plan amounts to a full-throated endorsement of George Bush's policies," <ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/10/obama_takes_the_offensive_vs_mccain/] Boston Globe Obama takes offensive vs. McCain, June 10, 2008</ref>
* "George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists." <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7403386.stm], BBC Obama attacks Bush over Iran , May 15, 2008</ref>

== Foreign policy experience ==

In [[Russia]] and the former Soviet republics, he met with representatives of the International Republican Institute and National Democratic Institute to discuss democracy in the former Soviet republics. He also met with Russian military officials and visited several nuclear and biological weapons destruction sites in Russia, [[Ukraine]], and [[Azerbaijan]] with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN). On the same tour, he visited London, UK, and met with [[Tony Blair]], sitting UK Prime Minister.<ref>http://obama.senate.gov/press/050823-obama_to_visit/</ref>

Obama visited South Africa, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Chad; he discussed his tour of Robben Island prison, met with U.S. troops, and visited refugee camps of the people fleeing Darfur. He also addressed Africa's growing [[AIDS]] epidemic. <ref>http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060906-090606_africa_t/</ref>

During a ten-day-long tour of the Middle East, he talked with government leaders in Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, and Israel. <ref> http://obama.senate.gov/news/060113-obama_wraps_up/</ref>

==Religious affiliations==

Obama and his wife (reared a Baptist) have been active members since 1988 at the Trinity [[United Church of Christ]]<ref>http://www.tucc.org/about.htm</ref> in Chicago. A church that embraces black liberation theology and its emphasis on empowering oppressed groups against establishment forces. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. This denomination was the first in America to ordain gays, women and blacks as ministers.<ref>[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html], http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/31079.html, Obama's church pushes controversial doctrines, March 20, 2008</ref> According to his sister, Obama was baptized at this church the same year.<ref>[http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2 http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/30/america/30obama.php?page=2]</ref> Obama describes his conversion in ''The Audacity of Hope''. The title of this book is taken from one of Pastor Wright's sermons.
In April 2008, Obama disavowed Pastor Wright's views. In May 2008, Obama left his church. His response blames the media and not the rhetoric on display <ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, may 31, 2008</ref>{{QuoteBox|“It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace..."}} Wright had been reported as recently making inflammatory comments in his sermons such as "God damn America" and describing the September 11th attacks, he said "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."<ref>[ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4443788 Obama's Pastor: God Damn America, U.S. to Blame for 9/11]</ref> In addition, Rev. Wright blamed America saying "We supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic."

In late May 2008, Obama left that church. Obama and his family state that they maintain their faith in Christianity.<ref>[http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/12/obama_has_never_been_a_muslim_1.php]</ref> Reasons being not for the rhetoric on display but for the media's assault on the congregation. “It’s not fair to the other members of the church who seek to worship in peace.."<ref>[http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/], http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/31/obama-resigns-church-membership-in-chicago/, Obama Drops Church Membership in Chicago, May 31, 2008</ref>

[[Image:Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright.jpg|thumb|Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright.]]

[[Daniel Pipes]] claims that Obama was raised a [[Muslim]] because he attended classes on the Koran while attending a Muslim school.<ref>[http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5286 Was Barack Obama a Muslim</ref> Obama did attend a school administrated by Muslims but [[CNN]] reports that it was a non-religious public school attended by students of many faiths, not a [[madrassa]].<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/22/obama.madrassa/</ref>

{{QuoteBox|In Indonesia, I'd spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I'd pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended. Just a parched old nun and 30 brown children, muttering words. Sometimes the nun would catch me, and her stern look would force my lids back shut. But that didn't change how I felt inside."}}<ref>Dreams from My Father, by Barack Obama, p.142 Aug 1, 1996 </ref>

Obama has described his upbringing as occurring in a non-religious environment.

{{QuoteBox|In sum, my mother viewed religion through the eyes of the anthropologist that she would become; it was a phenomenon to be treated with a suitable respect, but with a suitable detachment as well. Moreover, as a child I rarely came in contact with those who might offer a substantially different view of faith. My father was almost entirely absent from my childhood, having been divorced from my mother when I was 2 years old; in any event, although my father had been raised a Muslim, by the time he met my mother he was a confirmed atheist, thinking religion to be so much superstition.

And yet for all her professed secularism, my mother was in many ways the most spiritually awakened person that I've ever known. She had an unswerving instinct for kindness, charity, and love, and spent much of her life acting on that instinct, sometimes to her detriment. Without the help of religious texts or outside authorities, she worked mightily to instill in me the values that many Americans learn in Sunday school: honesty, empathy, discipline, delayed gratification, and hard work. She raged at poverty and injustice.}}<ref>[http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1546579-4,00.html My Spiritual Journey] Time Magazine, October 2006</ref>

== Books ==

* ''Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.''
* ''The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.''
* ''Barack Obama in His Own Words.'' (B. Obama and Lisa Rogak)

==Published criticism==
On April 11, 2007, staff writers of ''The Boston Globe'' reported the criticisms of several black commentators regarding Obama's apparent hesitation to join the race to condemn acclaimed radio personality [[Don Imus]],<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref> who made a racially insensitive remark<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/industryNews/idUSN1237895620070412|title=Furor over Imus puts heat on other broadcasters], Daniel Trotta, Reuters, 2007-04-12.</ref> on the air during the April 4 broadcast. Obama did not comment on Imus's remarks until well after prominent civil rights leaders [[Al Sharpton]] and [[Jesse Jackson]] had called Imus to account and after Imus was suspended by MSNBC and CBS Radio. Obama later weighed in on April 10 by saying, "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." 

The ''Globe'' reported that Obama's perceived delay in addressing Don Imus's remarks was described by Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, as "miss[ing] an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus."<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/04/11/obamas_silence_on_imus_alarms_some_blacks/ Obama's silence on Imus alarms some blacks], Rick Klein and Joseph Williams, ''The Boston Globe'', April 11, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/04/obama_race_and_the_election.html Obama, Race, and The Election,] ''Real Clear Politics.com''</ref>

In June 2007 the ''Chicago Sun-Times'' reported Obama had actually received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted slum landlord Tony Rezko<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/353829,CST-NWS-rez23.article Barack Obama and his slumlord patron], Tim Novak, Chicago Sun-Times, April 23, 2007.</ref> and his associates than Obama has publicly acknowledged.<ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/432197,CST-NWS-obama18.article Rezko cash triple what Obama says], Chris Fusco and Tim Novak, ''Chicago Sun-Times'', June 18, 2007.</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the position of "Senior Lecturer."<ref>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics</ref><ref>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4238307</ref><ref>Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago from 1992 to 2004.[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after [[9/11]], but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation.<ref>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10/when_did_obama_stop_wearing_a.html</ref> Presumably it would have hurt him with anti-military campaign donors.<ref>In 2007, at critical moments in his campaign for the nomination, Obama had difficulties securing the support of anti-war activists. [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/04/politics/main2645861.shtml]</ref>

In his memoirs, Obama claimed a ''[[Life]]'' magazine article about a man who had become ill after trying to lighten his skin color by chemical means had a major impact on him. In fact, ''Life'' never published any such article.<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032601583.html</ref><ref>"Then there's the copy of Life magazine that Obama presents as his racial awakening at age 9. In it, he wrote, was an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. In fact, the Life article and the photographs don't exist, say the magazine's own historians." [http://newsbusters.org/node/11641]</ref>

Obama falsely claimed that he "had an uncle who was one of the — who was part of the first American troops to go into [[Auschwitz]] and liberate the [[concentration camp]]s. And the story in our family was that when he came home, he just went up into the attic and he didn't leave the house for six months."<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,359061,00.html</ref> In fact, the Soviet army liberated Auschwitz. Embarrassed, the Obama campaign later admitted that Obama was wrong, and claimed he should have said that Obama's great-uncle helped liberate a subcamp of Buchenwald.<ref>http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/27/obamas_uncle_and_the_liberatio.html#more
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton later claimed that Obama's great-uncle "served in the 89th Infantry Division that Liberated Ohrdruf, a Subcamp of Buchenwald, the First Camp Liberated by Americans, on April 4, 1945." Given that Obama misrepresented what happened, one can also wonder about his story that his relative went into the attic and did not leave his house for six months afterwards.</ref>

Obama said that "[t]here was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, [[Alabama]], because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." In fact, Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.<ref>http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/21/barack-obama-gaffe-machine/</ref>

Obama states that he has consistently opposed the [[Iraq War]] since 2002, a claim and position that former President [[Bill Clinton]] criticized as "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1131516320080111</ref>

Executive vice president Wayne LaPierre of the [[NRA]] accuses Barack Obama of "mouthing pro-Second amendment words and pandering to gun owners" on the campaign trail.<ref>[http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml], http://www.gopusa.com/news/2008/may/0514_nra_mccain.shtml, NRA chief stresses common ground with McCain, Associated Press, May 14, 2008</ref>

[[McCain]] Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set "an extremely dangerous and extremely naive approach toward terrorism" <ref>[http://www.newsmax.com/politics/mccain_obama/2008/06/17/105265.html], AP McCain Aide Says Obama Has Sept. 10 Mind-Set, June 17, 2008</ref>

==See also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Barack Obama|Articles about '''Barack Obama''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==Further reading==
*[[Peter Hitchens|Hitchens, Peter]] [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=511901&in_page_id=1811 ''The Black Kennedy: But does anyone know the real Barack Obama?''] [[Daily Mail]]. Accessed 4 February 2008.

==Sources==

*[http://obama.senate.gov/about/ Official Senate Website]
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/pfd2005/N00009638_2005.pdf Barack Obama Personal Financial Disclosures Summary: 2005], retrieved from opensecrets.org 17 June 2007.
*[http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=O000167 Biographical Directory of the United States Congress]
*[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html University of Chicago Law School] Faculty Listing
*[http://www.biography.com/search/article.do?id=12782369 Barack Obama Biography] from Biography.com
*[http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per New York Times Topics, Barack Obama]
*[http://youtube.com/watch?v=zUdjhKbImwE Documentary on Barack Hussein Obama]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Obama, Barrack}}

{{2008 presidential candidates}}

[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-18T01:48:52Z

AdenJ:

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,
JMarks.

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Why Wouldn't he Change his Name?===
If he were trying to fake his Christianity, he would certainly change his name '''unless the name "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr." had some meaning greater that his political ambition.''' How could we not conclude that the name is a reminder to him of his true loyalties? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 20:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Why would he change his name? Hussein is not by any means a Muslim name, but rather than Arabic name. You're confusing race with religion here... [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 20:29, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::"He read a piece of information" is a more implausible explanation for misspeaking than "He's a Muslim manchurian candidate who compromised his mission to take over the US and give it to the Muslims"? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Karl Rove has advised conservatives not to imply that Obama is connected to Islam because it might do more damage to McCain than Obama. I wonder if he might have a point. Christians, after all, did not demand that David Livingstone change his name when he went on a mission trip to Africa. A name is something personal and I would not change my name if I went abroad. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 20:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Does Conservapedia avoid telling the truth because it is politically incorrect? [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 21:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

this conversation is pointless, the idea of whether or not Obama is Islamic has been debated and settled by the media, the conservatives, everyone, sometime ago. Lets do some work not debating about a moot point.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 21:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Dolphin

2008-06-17T22:16:06Z

AdenJ: wikify - added info

[[Image:Bottlenose_Dolphin_KSC04pd0178.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A bottlenose dolphin.]]
'''Dolphins''' are a number of kinds of small odontoceti, or toothed [[whale]]s. Dolphins are [[mammals]] and breath [[oxygen]].

The term [[porpoise]], sometimes used [[synonym]]ously with dolphin, in fact should refer only to certain small blunt-snouted and spade-toothed types, generally of inshore habitat, such as the harbour porpoise of the North Atlantic.

In addition to the many types of sea-dwelling dolphin, [[river dolphin]]s are found in certain of the world's great rivers.

Dolphins mainly feed upon small fish and [[squid]].

Dolphins typically live in small family groups. They are highly sociable, and if left alone will freely associate with other species of whale, and with humans. Human interaction includes accompanying ships and mingling with swimmers. There have been a number of historic cases of dolphins assisting human fishermen. Dolphins generally avoid [[SCUBA]] divers, however, because they dislike the noise made by their regulators.

Dolphins are commonly found in company with [[tuna]], and are frequently netted with them.

Dolphins are highly intelligent, and captive dolphins have been trained to perform complex acts at aquariums, and to carry out military minelaying and guard duties.

Dolphins live in salt water but can survive in fresh water.<ref>http://www.wdcs.org/dan/publishing.nsf/allweb/E8ADCC3DEEE1556E802568F8004DF252</ref>

The largest species dolphin is the [[orca]] (or "killer whale").

The [[Bible]] states that dolphins, along with all other water-dwelling animals, were created by [[God]] on the fifth day of [[Creation]].<ref>Genesis 1:20-23</ref>

==References==
<references/>

{{Nb zm dolphins}}

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2008-06-17T22:10:15Z

AdenJ: /* 57 states, again */

Archives:
[[/archive1|1]]
[[/archive2|2]]

==False Citation==

In the first paragraph of the article, it says "Obama falsely claimed that he was a constitutional law professor, when in actuality he merely held the title of "Senior Lecturer." when according to the source cited: "http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/obama/cv.html" it says he is. When I edited it to say the truth according to the website, it was reverted. Why?

I have edited it again. I understand that this website is supposed to have a conservative twist, but unless conservatism is about spreading lies, then it shouldn't do so.

== No citation ==

"after liberals obtained the release of confidential and personally embarrassing divorce records of his opponent"

Where is the source that supports "liberals" obtained the release of any information? The reality is that both Ryan and his wife authorized the court to release the documents. They did so in response not only to requests by the news media but also by requests from his opponents in the GOP primary.

: No, the sensitive and highly confidential information was ordered to be released by a judge upon the request of a newspaper supporting [[Barack Obama]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:51, 26 May 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are accurate then you should have no problem finding a source to cite in order to back it up. Is this an encyclopedia or not?

== Why lead with the criticisms? ==

This article should certainly include the criticisms and his misrepresentations, but why are they at the top of the article? [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:04, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Sad. No responses at all. The people conservapedia likes will get decent articles, those that it dislikes will lead with critcism. Hm, sounds like bias to me. Oh well. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:43, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: The response is obvious: good entries lead with the most informative material, just as newspaper articles and good encyclopedias do. We don't fall for the Wikipedia trick of [[placement bias]], where it leads with [[liberal fluff]] and buries or omits informative truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:54, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

: LOL! [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 07:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::Yesaliberal indeed. Where reason fails, resort to infantile mockery. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Point taken. As I said, the criticisms and his misrepresentations should be included by all means. I'm a firm believer in the "warts and all principle." It's the differences between the layouts of the articles of say Obama and G.W. Bush which introduce the bias that you accuse Wikipedia of. Wouldn't it be unbiased to include criticisms of Bush at the same relative position as Obama, such as the WMDs issue in Iraq? Surely war criticism must rank at least as highly as the "57" issue mentioned in Obama's article, particularly since this is perhaps a case of mis-speaking on Obama's part. Bush is almost legendary for his oratory stumbling. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 15:01, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Nomination timing ==

Obama hasn't won the nomination until Hillary concedes, or when the delegates vote. The timing is not determined by the press.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:14, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Then how is McCain the nominee when the delegates haven't been voted and Ron Paul hasn't conceded? Technically both candidates are the presumptive nominee. And even the [http://www.democrats.org DNC's website] has him listed on the front page as the nominee. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:17, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

: That's a silly appeal to consistency. Ron Paul is nowhere near John McCain in popular vote or delegate tallies. In contrast, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote and is close in delegate count.

: The odds are overwhelming that Obama will win the nomination. But it's error to claim he's already won it when his close rival has not conceded.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:22, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Then it's an error that not only have all the major news organizations made, but the DNC website as well. To mollify your criticisms, I have added the technicality that the nomination becomes official upon Clinton's concession or at the nominating convention. Of course, the DNC website announcing he's the nominee makes the point a little less important, but facts are facts and have been noted accordingly on the entry. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:25, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Jareddr, [[conservatives]] don't worship the media as liberals do. The major news organizations have all been wrong about many things, and will continue to make errors or intentional mistakes. They don't decide the outcome of elections. You might as well cite what all your classmates or co-workers think if you're going to cite the media as an authority.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:27, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How about citing the official party website as the authority? Because the DNC said he's the nominee and yet your response didn't touch on that part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: I left it in about the DNC. You're right to cite it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Classmates and media as equal in authority - can we get that posted as an official policy somewhere? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 21:36, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Maybe I was too hasty in my remarks ... because that comparison gives the media too much credit! The media is probably more biased, politically and for financial reasons, than classmates are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:47, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Association with Black supremacists ==

I think Obama's documented association and, indeed support, of Black supremacists, such as Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan, is deserving of a section in his article.

He refused, on TV, to denounce or reject Louis Farrakhan (a man who publically said "White people are potential humans, they haven't evolved yet".

[[User:Alfred123|Alfred]]

:I saw that debate, and I think he did "reject and denounce" Farrakhan's endorsement, but only after being badgered by Mrs. Bill Clinton. [[User:Darkknight|Darkknight]] 17:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Switching the two pictures' placement ==

Would'nt it be better to have the composite- type picture at the top of the article, as this article is about him and the current picture presents him with other people? I understand that the intention of this site is to showcase issues from a conservative point of view, but does it have to be done at the expense of being more encyclopedic?--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 11:08, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Placing his official photo on top I believe would constitute [[photo bias]] according to previous attempts. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:09, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm. It would appear that the current layout is a shinning example of the photo bias you speak of. Perhaps you were being sarcastic, I am not caffeinated enough for my sarcasm detector to kick in. Anyway, just my thoughts. I thought making the change would lend a bit more credibility to the article and make it look like less of an attack page.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 20:56, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

::Just didn't want to see you get banned for credibility's sake. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:04, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

== Obama's personal achievements a result of affirmative action ==

I must say, as a black man, I find it very encouraging that one can depend on affirmative action to rise to the distinctive position of presidential candidate. Here I am, with a modest job in sales and all this time I could have been riding the affirmative action train all the way to Washington! Does every black person know this? Holy jeez, man, we could hold every elected position in America if this news got out. I'll see you suckers in 2012, vote for me. Thanks affirmative action!--[[User:Carterlansford|Carterlansford]] 22:00, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought he actually had won his seat in the Senate because more people voted for him. I had no idea that the other person had actually gotten more votes in the election, but because of Affirmative Action, they gave it to Obama anyway. Makes me wonder why they even had an election to begin with. [Dingus]

==huh?==
whats with that punishment pic? His quote is fine I am sure but that is some drawing and isnt encyclopedic what so ever!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 05:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:A quick google search shows that it's on sex education, I've added an appropriate caption and will add context to the article. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:25, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:: [[Liberals]] do not support funding for abstinence education, and we're not going to mislead people here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:30, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I definitely don't support funding for abstinence-only education, and I'm happy for you guys to not mislead anyone about that. But the image just makes you look like a bunch of jackasses. It's like having a LOLcat-type image of Obama saying "Evolution: I taught ur kidz it." It may be an accurate statement of the liberal position, but you still look stupid for putting it in an encyclopedia. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

That's because it doesn't work as well as sex education. There's no basis for supporting abstinence education other than an ideological one, but even that is shaky since it's associated with more problems. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I advise strongly that you read the transcript of the interview before making blanket assumptions. I will leave out the bit on abstinence education but will readd the rest of the text, otherwise the picture makes absolutely no sense. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:51, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Also it was entirely possible to remove the bit about abstinence education (thus removing any implication that liberals support it) without reverting two edits and other information. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:00, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Since some seem to believe it's about abortion, here's the full quote showing that it is about sex education:

{{cquote|So, when it comes to -- when it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence only -- should include abstinence education and teaching that children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters -- 9 years old and 6 years old. I'm going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at the age of 16.

You know, so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions. That will be important, number one. Then we're still going to have to provide better treatment for those who do have -- who do contract HIV/AIDS, because it's no longer a death sentence, if, in fact, you get the proper cocktails. It's expensive. That's why we want to prevent as much as possible.}}

Since we're the trustworthy encyclopedia I see no reason to quote mine and suggest he was referring to abortion. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 21:10, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Complaint ==

''"Senator Obama began his anti-soldier candidacy for President of the United States on February 10, 2007"''

This is clearly a heavily biased statement. After editing out the "anti-soldier" remark, it was replaced within 2 minutes. This site never had a lot of credibility to begin with, but this whole article is just transparently biased. Amazingly so for a site whose main claim against Wikipedia is that they slant to the left.

Apparently insinuating that Barak Obama's candidacy is not based on being "anti-soldier" is "Liberal bias"

''Warning: your introduction of liberal bias is getting tiresome and will lead to blocking of your account.--Aschlafly 11:23, 8 June 2008 (EDT)''

This is simply amazing.

: Obama raised a ton of money for his campaign from anti-soldier, anti-military sources. Obama catered to that support in key ways.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Then why not call it "anti-war"? It's quite a leap to say Obama himself or his campaign is anti-soldier. In fact I think you're using the terms anti-war and anti-soldier interchangeably when they should not be. One can be anti-military in convictions but that does not make him anti-soldier. The argument is misleading and it seems purposefully so. With respect, it would speak a great deal to the creditability here if you allow the replacement of 'anti-soldier' with 'anti-war' because I believe there is a valid case for it.

: It's not primarily "anti-war," but rather is mostly "anti-soldier" or "anti-military". Many [[leftists]] hate soldiers. They really do. They even insult and protest against them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:07, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Don't you have to actually show that *Obama himself* hates soldiers and/or is anti-military before putting that in his entry? Are there no standards whatsoever here except not being liberal? [Dingus]

I don't appreciate you changing the title of my question to "liberal complaint". I am a conservative. The problem here is that you have such a great opportunity to present conservative and liberal viewpoints free of the bias normally associated with them. I believe that true conservative ideals do not need to be slanted or have their opposition omitted to be attractive. You are in fact using standard liberal practices of accepting only "convenient" facts and purposefully omitting opposing viewpoints. These practices, which are unfortunately present in abundance, are serving only to perpetuate a negative stereotype of conservatism. What you're doing is hurting our ideals when you have a tremendous opportunity to be helpful.

::: Obama raised money, big money, from anti-military supporters. Moveon.org actually endorsed Obama and raised a ton of money for him, and Moveon.org took out an ad in the NY Times mocking our top general. Enough said?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:56, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: So when racists endorse McCain, you'll edit McCain's entry to indicate that he's running a racist campaign?[Dingus]

::::: You speak in non sequiturs. McCain does not welcome any racist donations. Obama welcomed tens of millions of dollars in largely anti-military donations.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you are trying to paint Obama as "anti-soldier," you might consider removing the following:

:: ''* S.117 : A bill to amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and services for members of the Armed Forces, veterans of the Global War on Terrorism, and other veterans, to require reports on the effects of the Global War on Terrorism, and for other purposes.

:: ''* S.713 : A bill to ensure dignity in care for members of the Armed Forces recovering from injuries. [[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 17:32, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

It gets even better. Apparently, if you add a '''citation needed'''{{fact}} to some [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=469755&oldid=469754 unreferenced opinions]], then the changes are immediately reverted and your userid is temporarily blocked. Does Conservapedia believe that asking for facts and references is a liberal bias? --[[User:SamSamson|SamSamson]] 12:46, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Why, yes. Yes they do.--[[User:Irockarolex|Irockarolex]] 15:05, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Michelle Obama ==

To add to Obama's biographical information, it would be helpful to have a picture of Michelle Obama uploaded. Perhaps this picture could be used: [http://obamaquotes.com/Squidoo-Xmas-Card-Portrait.jpg Obama Family Christmas Card]?

== Curious about removal of "liberal bias" ==

Why have various attempts to post about the University of Chicago's clarification [http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/28/832174.aspx] been deleted as "liberal bias"? Are they being worded incorrectly? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, can we get an answer to this? How can citing the official University of Chicago response regarding Obama's University of Chicago employment to answer the question of Obama's employment at University of Chicago be considered liberal bias? [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:33, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::You're new here, aren't you? 21:37, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but I was under the impression that Conservapedia is intended to be an encyclopedia that's free from liberal ''bias'', not one that censors facts that happen to be ''inconvenient'' to the conservative viewpoint. Doing so weakens the conservative argument and helps the liberals make their case. [[User:Pharaonic|Pharaonic]] 21:47, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Well, you're wrong. Conservapedia is an encyclopedia that proudly wears its conservative bias on its sleeve. As for the methodology it takes to express that bias, and the ways in which that reflects upon conservatism writ large, well, the wiki belongs to one guy, and what he says goes.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 21:52, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Pharaonic, it you sincerely don't understand why a "Senior Lecturer" is not a "Professor," then please see the discussion [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aehlinger|here]. If you still don't get it, then I urge you never to work in a personnel or employee hiring department.

::::: AliceBG, we don't have "conservative bias" here and your slurs and excessive talk are getting tiresome. Let's see some substantive edits or please "move on," as [[liberals]] are fond of saying.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Mr. Schlafly, can you actually read? The University of Chicago says he's a professor. If your employer says you're a professor, you're a professor. That's pretty much the definition of the way it works. I don't understand what the controversy is. [[User:Athuroglossos|Athuroglossos]]

::::::: Athuroglossos, it appears that you didn't read what the public relations department at Chicago actually said (it did not say [[Obama]] that held the title of professor). Also, it's foolish for you to put so much emphasis on what a public relations said anyway, when the truth is so obvious. Do you believe the press secretary for [[George W. Bush]] with such fervor also?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:59, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: That's not the best analogy in that the press secretary works for the President and "serves at the pleasure of the President". U of Chicago Law School public relations dept. doesn't work for Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:02, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::If I may say without sounding rude Mr. Schlafly, you have many times stated that Conservapedia has a Conservative bias. It is called CONSERVapedia. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:50, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:The press release reads, "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama '''served as a professor''' in the Law School." Obama said, "I was a constitutional law professor," not "I held the title of professor." Your position is untenable, Mr. Schlafly; you might want to admit that you were wrong, and move on. Besides, the public relations arm of the University of Chicago—the world's leading school of conservative economics, I might add—is not a professional advocate for the Barack Obama campaign the way Dana Perino is a professional advocate for the President. [[User:Hindublog|Hindublog]] 17:18, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Punishment image ==
'''Note to editors''' 
If you remove the '''Image:Punishment.jpg''' from this article, you will be blocked for one day. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 15:29, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Since the image has been removed several times and had to be reinserted, the '''blocks for removing the image''' will be '''increased to 3 days'''. --[[User:DeanS|DeanSformerly Crocoite]] 21:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

This image is ridiculous. There's no reason to have an image with that quote. I could go to McCain's page, pull a quote of his out of context, apply a "witty" image, and I'd probably get banned. I'm removing it as a protest, it's worth the one day block. -- Aaronp

:Wouldn't that be considered blocking because of ideology? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:55, 9 June 2008 (EDT)
:"Editors" not "Editor's" [[User:Dnotice|Dnotice]] 17:25, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously this page isn't fair or balanced, but this kind of thing is purely sensationalist. Removed, block me.[[User:Godlover|Godlover]] 17:36, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:That certainly does look like blocking for ideology. Besides, [[:Image:Punishment.jpg]] is clearly a propagandistic image, not an encyclopedic image. If someone at the evil liberal Wikipedia took a quote from a politician and Photoshopped an image like that, then inserted that image into that politician's article, they'd get reverted and possibly blocked for it. At the very least, the evil liberal Wikipedia administrators wouldn't use admin tools to protect one revision of an article with a provocative image. If you're going to be a "trustworthy encyclopedia", then stick to an encyclopedic treatment of the facts, quotes, and opinions. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 17:39, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused as to how the image is relevant at all. It's just a picture of a baby, and doesn't provide any new information. The purpose of images is usually to add context, and as an encyclopedia, I would think the goal here is to cut down on clutter. And honestly the "motivational poster" style reminds me of 4chan. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Entirely unencyclopedic and unprofessional, more suitable for a set of conservative blog posts than a reference source.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 19:24, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if any of you CP sysops have ever even glanced through an encyclopedia. Please stop calling this project an encyclopedia as you are taking that name in vain. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:22, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

I think that the image is not appropriate for an encyclopedia entry. Use the quote in the article, get rid of the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 22:53, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Not only is the image accurate and acceptable, the fact that liberals are obsessed with removing it shows it makes a difference. Somebody removed it again. make sure you keep it up until the end of the year at the least.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 17:10, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

The image is unrelated. The quote is very applicable, but should be used separately from the image. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:16, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Since it is such a contentious issue the image should stay and the question should be referred to Andy or senior sysops for decision. It is not for anyone to remove. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:18, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
::something being contentious is not reason enough for it to be in the article. In order for an image to be part of an article it has to have some connection to the article itself. The image in question, (a baby held in hands) has no connection to Barack Obama, and therefore deserves no place in the article. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 17:27, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It is contentious between sysops and therefore hasty action ought not to be taken. You can read what Dean has said at the head of this section. Why should sysop CPAdmin1 have more or less authority than sysop DeanS? Where there is such a clash, the answer is not to have an edit war, but to refer the matter upstairs. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:30, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

: If the image is unrelated, than consider taking down Obamas no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Obama says he is partiotic just not in a normal way. The guy has a 100% record on death to children in the womb. Abortion is a big issue and Obamas view of a mistake is a baby. He should be called out in any image. Is a baby a mistake? You decide if Obama is right by looking at the picture. The connection is clear. If not allowed to stand, then a picture of mutilated aborted child should take its place.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::The quote can stand without the image. People don't need a picture to know what a baby is. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

: Where is DeanS? There is a picture of a child in womb on John McCains page. What is the difference between images? Remove Obama's quote and keep the Picture with the headline Punishment.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:20, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::I also removed the picture from the McCain article.
I have protected this article because of disruptive edit-warring. Wil the involved parties please seek consensus on this talk page instead of reverting? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 21:57, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:A great idea - perhaps someone should convene the Student Panel and get them to rule on this.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::Why don't you do it? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:27, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I assume that is something a sysop/site administrator would do.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Nope. You can do it if you want. But why not have the involved editors (or even the entire conservapedia community) come to consensus on this talk page? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:35, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Are you talking about a true consensus - one editor one vote? or one sysop one vote? Or one senior admin one vote? Well, for my two cents' worth - the picture is silly, adds nothing to the article and makes Conservapedia look more like a blog than an encyclopedia. It does the whole project a disservice and robs the implied editorial position (a position which I disagree with but respect), that B.O. is an inferior candidate to J.M. of a lot (as in almost all) credibility. Oh, yeah - the U of C CLEARLY stated that B.O. held a title "equivalent to professor." Why is that such a problem? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 22:52, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Thank you for your opinion. Now we are going to wait to see what other editors say. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I would make the image smaller, and with a more detailed caption as to what it is, where it came from, and the source of the Obama quote within. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:08, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: There's no reason to have the image at all, as it has nothing to do with an encyclopedic entry on Obama. Alice is correct in saying that it makes CP look like a conservative blog. Like I said previously, I could go through and do the same thing to other pages, slapping on "witty" macros, but that wouldn't contribute anything to the encyclopedic goals of CP. The image should stay removed. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Do you think this image would be better in an article about the campaign between Obama and McCain, as in a something about means and methods used to get a point across? It may have an actual quote from Obama, but it's still a campaign poster. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:19, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Is that an article yet? It is fairly early. Does it still need to be written? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:23, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Karajou - only if the poster came from somewhere with some sort of notability - the RNC, the McCain campaign, a large, nationwide right-to-life group, something of that nature. As far as I understand, this thing was put together on an open access website and published on Some Guy's Blog. I could run off a dozen similar things in an hour and put them on a blog somewhere - that hardly warrants their inclusion in an encyclopedia article.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 23:24, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::True, but it doesn't automatically exclude it either. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 23:26, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::As a campaign image, it could go in an article about the current campaign, but I agree with Alice in that the image appears to have been created by a single individual not connected to anything beyond a personal blog. If the image was created by a McCain staffer, than it could be included.
::::::::::The article should be titled "2008 Presidential Campaign", and have subtopics on all the participants and their outcomes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::Page does exist: [http://www.conservapedia.com/2008_Presidential_Campaign]. Maybe make a subtopic on methods used by all sides to put their point across. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:38, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::Or we could not put any propaganda up on the encyclopedia at all until the issue is over with or unless it is highly influential (a la that ad with the atomic bomb and the young girl), as would seem more appropriate for a reference site.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 23:41, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::The image has no place in an encyclopedia article. It does not relate to Obama or to the quote. I think it should be deleted. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:56, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::::Your removal of the image defeats the purpose of my locking the page in an dispute resolution attempt. I am now entirely confused as to how to solve this, now the other users will cry foul and I will be forced to unlock commencing the revert war. I personally thought that we were on our way to reaching consensus. *sigh* [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I think that a consensus can be reached just as easily without the image in the article in the meantime. I think that while debating and coming to a consensus it makes more sense to have the questionable image out of the article. It is certainly not hurting the article, or the credibility of this site while it is not in the article. The debate is over whether it does that while in the article. Therefore, it makes more sense to keep it out of the article, and not in a position to be a problem. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:12, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
If it is deleted from the article how can people reach an informed decision on whether it should be in the article or not? It appears to me that you are asserting ownership of this piece, and that is neither justified nor justifiable. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I oppose the picture, it offers no value. The quote might but the picture does not
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:10, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I would like to lend my voice to this and say I support the picture, it offers enormous value. The left wins when it is removed. The left that supports abortion and the candidate who condones abortion wins. Silence opposition to abortion, go ahead, smart move that you will answer for one day.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:25, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

I oppose the picture's inclusion. The quote is already in the article; the picture is unnecessary and does not belong in an encyclopædia. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 10:53, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Don't get me wrong. I hate abortion as much as anyone here. That photo just is not related to Obama. If you want to put the photo in the abortion article, go ahead. as for making an informed decision, I'll put the photo here where people can look at it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 10:54, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
[[Image:Punishment.jpg|325px|thumb|right|]]

== "but later stopped wearing it without adequate explanation." ==

Um, this is an encyclopedia. It's not our place to pass judgment on whether it was adequate or not, especially when the explanation given is not quoted. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 18:27, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hmmm There are a number of conservative politicians that aren't wearing flag pins. Can we put up a picture of those politicians and make note that they didn't explain their removal? Perhaps I can get permission to add a recent picture of John McCain not wearing his pin?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:31, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Ah yes, the flag pin malarky. Yes, I suppose the man who wants to take the troops home and provide them with a good education and good healthcare benefits and actually reward their service is anti-patriotic and anti-soldier. Are you sure you people aren't hinting at something more devious? That he can't be President because he's unpatriotic? Or that he can't be President because he's black? [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wow, now Obama supporters are going to imply that a criticism about his lack of lapel pin has something to do with his ethnicity?! Obama supporters are hilarious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

::Guess who does wear a flag pin.....[http://tingilinde.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/29/craigmugshot.jpg Mr. Bathroom Knocker] himself. Lets automatically vote him for president, as he completes the only requirement to be a president, wearing the sacred flag pin. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 15:38, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:Right wingers are terrifying. You may think I'm hilarious, but the vast majority of African Americans think the flag pin controversy is simply a front by the right (As well as the constant use of his middle name, Hussein) to make the case that Obama is somehow 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic'. Well, the American people are really sick of it this time Mr. Schlafly. We're not going to stand for this dinosour 'got ya' politics anymore. Come November, the American people will have spoken and your brand of smear, insult and pettiness will become nothing more than an internet phenonomon, where only the most disjointed will indulge in the politics of character destruction. I hope you enjoyed your twenty years under the sun, but finally, America is going to enter the 21st century. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 09:50, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==The Introduction==

The introduction should give a passionless rundown of the man's life and times. Please consult a Britannica article for proper format. This 'swiftboating' that begins at the article is highly unacceptable for an academic project. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 21:41, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

Does anyone have any interest in discussing how to actually improve this article, or are we happy to allow the outline of an article be overwhelmingly critical? If you are serious about making an encyclopedia, then please, consider professional measures even about people you dislike. [[User:TBarret|TBarret]] 10:02, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
:TB - The site's administration has made it clear that the tone of this article is not up for negotiation: From the professor-not-a-professor question and the choice to ignore what the U of C has to say on the matter, to the baby image to the fact that while the McCain article excuses his voting absences due to the fact that JM is running for President while the Obama article makes no such excuse.... So while some editors may, as you put it, "have [an] interest in discussing how to actually improve this article," Conservapedia, as an institution, would prefer to "allow the outline of [the] article be overwhelmingly critical." You don't like it? Go edit at Wikipedia, or do as Aschafly did, and start your own wiki project.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:33, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Why the concern, though? I too was annoyed at the coverage, and then came to a realization last night. Who is CP's audience? Homeschoolers? Assuming this is their only political reference point---they're too young to vote anyway. And any adult who uses CP as a primary source of information isn't likely to vote for Barack Obama regardless of whether CP acknowledges he served as a professor or not. Anyone who sees this site and buys the information presented was never, and will never be, a Barack Obama voter. So why waste the energy trying to correct the misinformation on the site for viewers that won't use it anyway? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

==Structure==

I personally would like to see this page in the same format as McCain. Obviously, Obama has less of a history to compare apples with apples. However, I like McCains page structure. In Obamas structure, you have Positions and Qualifications. Also, Obamas page has Political Views which are essentially positions. McCain page lists -budget -education -healthcare. Obamas hasn't the layout and seems to be more piece meal with a scattering of viewpoints. I would change but I don't feel I have authority for signification structure changes.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:26, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

:I would like to see a standardized structure for articles on politicians. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:29, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== The Senior Lecturer Reference ==

The reference that CPadmin1 used says that Obama "served as a professor in the law school." Since that information, quoted verbatim, was removed earlier, perhaps another reference should be used, lest that information leak out? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 17:24, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== "Presidential scrutiny sought more information on the Indonesia public school and it was determined not to be a Madrassa, teaching Islam." ==

"Presidential scrutiny" is vague - did the President scrutinize the school? I think "media scrutiny" is what you mean.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Great point. Please change accordingly. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== 57 Islamic states... ==

1. "It has been observed" is passive voice and weak. 2. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, but I don't think all of these are "Islamic states" in the way that say, Saudi Arabia and the UAE are. [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 10:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:In addition, make note of the mistake, by all means. But that is the most far-fetched explanation for the number. There are 57 states with Muslim majorities, so he must have been thinking that instead? Come on, let's at least TRY to be realistic, if not encyclopedic. This has gone past the line of conservative into fringe thinking. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:34, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

No one has come up with any other explanation. Also, by the way, when there is a Muslim majority, it is common to consider it to be an Islamic state.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:49, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:The other explanation is that it was a slip of the tongue. Not every slip is Freudian and indicates he's actually a Muslim. That's a pretty far-fetched conspiracy theory. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:58, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually, here's the explanation, clear and simple. If you listen to the entire remark, he states that he has one more to go, and Alaska and Hawaii as well. Taking three states from the 50 total, gives you 47 states that he visited. A slip between saying forty-(seven) and fifty-(seven) is more likely especially if he was going to say something about visiting all 50 states (putting fifty in his head). It's more likely he slipped between the forty part and said fifty, as opposed to some outlandish theory of how many Islamic states there are. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:04, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::here is the full quote.
::''"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."''
::It is obvious where the number 57 comes from. He accidentally added 10. He excluded Alaska and Hawaii, because his staff "would not justify it" and he had been to all the other states except 1. That leaves 47. I simple mistake, "slip of the tounge" as Jareddr said is the only plausible explanation. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's another explanation - "57 states" is a figure of speech meaning "a whole lot of states". Why 57? Because of the well-known Heinz slogan "57 varieties". A far more likely explanation than some far-fetched attempt to link it to Islam, at least! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 17:14, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Oh right. And Obama learned about Heinz 57 in ... his Islamic grade school!

: Face it, guys. Americans learned that we have 50 states in grade school and no one educated here would ever make a mistake about the number. Obama was educated in an Islamic grade school, which is a very different experience. Perhaps that's not a big deal, but let's be truthful and honest about it rather than pretending he's something he's not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:40, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

::It was a slip of the tongue, not an actual mistake in knowledge. No one who has lived in the united states any length of time, and served as a US senator would make a mistake about that. If you read the entire quote which I posted above, he clearly goes through the math starting from 50 (all the states) subtracting Alaska and Hawaii, and one other state that he doesn't name. This brings him to 47. He accidentally said 57 (possibly because the number 50 was in his head because that is the number of states) instead of 47. There is no reason for the number of islamic states to have anything to do with it. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 11:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

==Drug use==
Why is my statment about drug use being removed? It's an important thing. We all know drugs are dangerous and immoral. People need to be warned that a man who wants to be president used to be a drug addict. What sort of role model would he be? What does this say about his morals? What if he has a relapse while in office? Maybe the drugs have effected his brain. Do we want a president whos brain might be damaged from drug use? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:37, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:Please provide a cite. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::He talks about it in his book. Even Wikipedia mentions it. Here is a cite they use [http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/21/obama_gets_blunt_with_nh_students/]. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 15:55, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Ok, you can out it in, just put it somewhere further down the page because it is from a long time ago, and has little importance at this point. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:01, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:Do you have any proof he was an addict? Additionally, you put "has allegedly stopped doing them" - why? He is the source for both statements (taking drugs, stopped taking them). [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:05, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not that difficult, Wandering. A harmful self-revelation ("I'm a drug user") is likely to be true. In the nature of things, a beneficial self-revelation ("I'm nice and clean now") is less likely to be true. It comes from an understanding of human nature, something in which Liberals are curiously deficient. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:14, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Well, if nothing else, I have to applaud your consistency and the efficiency of your early methods. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:I can't quite see how you're planning to use this against him. After all, the current president was also a cokehead and a pothead-- Oh. Nevermind, I see. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:08, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::Are you trying to say drugs aren't addictive? Or it's OK if he didn't do them every day? As for George W. Bush do you have any proof to back up your slanderous attacks, or are you just going to smear him like all liberals do? Barack Hussein Obama admits he did illegal hard drugs. He has no reason to lie about that. He would have a reason to lie if he were still doing them. I don't know if he still does or not, but I wouldn't be surprised. Drug habits are very hard to break. Has he released the results of a drug test to the public? I don't think so. Do you wonder why he hasn't? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:15, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Marijuana is not physically addictive, my parodist friend. I'm also not saying it's OK-- Please stop putting words in my mouth. Yes, yes I do: [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6999665/ Bush makes sure you know he didn't deny it.] Furthermore, you called marijuana a hard drug, which is incorrect. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:22, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::"Marijuana is not physically addictive". Liberals love to pretend their favorite drugs aren't harmful. And did you not see that he did cocaine as well, or are you going to pretend that's not addictive either? He may say he only did it on occasion, but when it comes to drug use you have to take what a person admits they did and multiply it by 10, at least, if you want the truth. And Bush did not say what he did in his youth, so to say he did cocaine is speculation, and just making things up. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:34, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Good sir, do you have a source to prove that Marijuana is physically addictive? Furthermore, yes, I saw that he did cocaine-- And to say that someone did cocaine ten times doesn't make sense. At that point they'd be addicted. Your logic is flawed terribly. Furthermore, he made a specific effort to not deny he did cocaine. Your remarks that Obama might be doing cocaine in office are, however, pure speculation. Good day. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Whether or not it is "physically addictive" is not important. It is illegal, immoral, and dangerous. It is also a gateway drug to the hard drugs that are even more dangerous. In Obama's case it led to cocaine. You say someone is addicted to cocaine after doing it 10 times. I don't doubt it. How many times has Obama done it? Did he get addicted? I don't know, and I didn't put that in the article. But it is something everyone should be concerned about. We don't say that he is secret a Muslim even though he might be because we can't prove it, but we do rightly mention that he went to an Islamic school, and the 57 Islamic states statement so people can decide for themselves. We should also prominently mention his drug use, so people know that he used to do drugs regularly, and they can decide for themselves if they think it did him any long term harm or if they think he still does and will continue to do so. It's a risk people need to know. It's much more important than his lies about his uncle. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 17:00, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Tim, I agree with putting it further down the page. Right now the lead looks bad with all these criticisms. I agree that it belongs in the article but I think we should make a seperate section for all of this or include it in the relevant sections already there. We had the same thing on the McCain page. A lead section full of little criticisms of mistakes in speeches until I removed it. What do you think? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:12, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::I agree. I think the lead should only include major biographical information. Everything else belongs further down. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If CP is going to be credible, then George W. Bush's admitted alcoholism needs to be added to that article, or the drug comments removed from this one. Trustworthy means being consistent and fair. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:21, 13 June 2
::::No one ever went to prison for being an alcoholic (a word that people use to describe conservatives who drink but rarely liberals). Obama's looking to get into the white house when he should be in the big house. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 16:25, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Be careful what you say. several of your comments have been thinly veiled claims that Obama is a drug addict. You are very close to being blocked. As for Bush, feel free to put anything in that you can find a reference for. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 16:31, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Since you've decided... ==

Since the powers that be have decided to include every single verbal folly (that means word mess-up for all you fancy non-elitist spawns of NON-doctor crazy women who like rape) that Mr. Obama has made, I suggest we include in the page for George W. Bush, that he falsely claimed that OBGYN's all sleep with their patients, childrens are learning, that IRAQ was a good idea, that people in a hundred thousand years will look back and say "Gee, bombing the crap out of a country for no specific reason then sending thousands of troops to die because he liked war was the best idea ever. Lets give him a medal, and every other mess-up that Bush, Sir Quail Hunter, Dan Quayle, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and every other human being who has ever, ever in their life, made a mess mistake is speaking, then connect it to conspiracy theories. Like, for instance when Bush said "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"....HE’S A CANNIBAL!!!!!. And, when the over lord of all of Conservapedia once said "See if you can learn out to spell "superior"....He is a Satanist because the Satanists have a code word which replaces how with out in a condescending tone of voice which means "I hate Jesus". I tried to be a good boy. I tried to do something interesting, then I realized, you can't. Not here. Because the evil commie overlords will always keep you in the dark, tell you to shut up, and hypocrite their way to the top. Reagan did it, Bush I did it, Bush II did it.....and Andy did it. It is amazing that we don't go on merit in this world. We go on who gets up one morning and says, you know what....I don't like them. Sure they are peaceful and aren't bothering me, but they don't quite believe what I believe. I like Jesus, they like Mohammed Ali or some other boxer, so I'm gonna blow their heads up. And tell the people its for their own good, that those evil non Jesus fanatics hate us. Well guess what. Everybody hates americans, for good reason. We are a 231 year old country that thinks we own everything, know better than everybody and have the right to blow you up, all in the name of Jesus, Cash, and the third god, National Frickin Pride. Ban me, and remove the vile stench of idiocy and intolerance from me.

The (hopefully) Gone,
JMarks.

==Political Views==

My quote below keeps getting (citation needed) put after it. I am glad to site this except I think yellow belly liberals are messing with me. Since when do we need to citations for 'often refers' or 'frequently refuses'? Common, every week occurances don't need citations.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:53, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

quote
Senator Obama often refers to the office that he seeks, without the proper respect of those that came before him. When talking of the President, he frequently refuses to call him President Bush or even Mr. George Bush. Obama disrespectfully calls him just 'George Bush'.

There needs to be a citation, because you can't just say that he does something without proof. Also, when the article says he has 'no executive experience', what does that refer to? Executive as in 'Presidential'? [[WillD]]

OK. I'll make the necessary citations--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Christians==

Any reason why he doesn't belong in this category? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Obama has left his church, and there is substantial skepticism about what he really believes as opposed to merely posturing for political gain. Most Christians do not take the political positions that Obama has taken, such as his support for [[abortion]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Not being affiliated with a Church does not mean a person is not a Christian, a majority of Christians (at least here in Australia) do not attend Church regularly and have no membership with a religious organisation. Same with the second point, just because Christians disagree with someone it does not remove their faith. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: As often occurs here, detractors like yourself insist on the possibility of an exception rather than accepting a general rule. Obama doesn't simply disagree with "someone", he disagrees with the vast majority of Christians about [[abortion]]. Also, he never changed his Muslim name, while most Christians would upon any real conversion, just as Christians change to Muslim names when the conversion is in the opposite direction (e.g., Cassius Clay -> Muhammad Ali). So numerous indications weight against insisting that Obama must be a Christian. Conservapedia is not fooled by political expedience that can distort the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

===Christians and Abortion===
[http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm Here are some poll results about Americans and abortion]. [http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19771020&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8 Here are some poll results specific to Americans who self-identify as Christians]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 17:59, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==57 states, again==

Sorry to say, but that line just seems ignorant. At the time Obama left grade school in 1971, the OIC had 30 members. One of its members, Albania, was officially atheist, while Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Mozambique and Suriname ''did not even exist'' as independent countries. (Bangladesh became independent in 1971, the year he left Indonesia, but in any case didn't join the OIC until 1974.) So the notion that he "learned in grade school" about "57 Islamic states" is absurd on its face. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 12:47, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: The article doesn't claim Obama learned about "57 Islamic states" in grade school. It does make clear why Obama did not learn about "50 states" in grade school.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::1. He had from, say, 1965 to 1967, from 1971 to 2008, and for that matter from 1967 to 1971 to learn that the US has 50 states. In all likelihood we're talking about a slip of the tongue from someone who's made other gaffes (not unsurprising in a grueling primary fight with a loaded schedule and reporters recording his every word). Moreover, if you take the 50 states and add DC, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico and Democrats Abroad - all of which had nominating contests - you get to 56.
::2. Even if his remark has some significance (which it doesn't), a serious biography doesn't mention, in its lead section, a remark barely noticed by anyone. You talk about his background, his education, his accomplishments (such as they are), the campaign - but don't veer into speculation on the basis of what is most likely a verbal slip. I don't like the man myself, but some pretense of objectivity should be kept when discussing him. [[User:Btraven|Btraven]] 14:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It may be a slip of a tongue, just as a racist or other offensive remark can be. But slips of the tongue can cry out for explanation, as this "57 states" slip does. You can bet if any Republican candidate had a "slip of the tongue" that was racial in nature, then liberals would run him out of the contest.

::: I've never heard any American say, as a slip of the tongue, that there are more than 50 states. So Obama's remarks are significant and do cry out for explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Is it appropriate to list all the gaffes of George W. Bush or John McCain as well? He could've read the number fifty seven in something he read before the speech and just slipped up. Surely you've misspoke before? [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Your explanation is implausible. Yes, of course, we all make mistakes. Dan Quayle made one once, and [[liberals]] hounded him out of politics for it. The point is not that Obama made a mistake, but why.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats true but G.W.Bush once said he never stopped thinking of ways to harm his country. We dont wonder why he slipped there.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Cooking

2008-06-17T21:37:44Z

AdenJ:

'''Cooking''' is the act of preparing food to be eaten. There are many differant schools of cooking from [[Italian]] cooking which usually includes [[pasta]] to [[Asian]] cuisine which uses [[noodles]] and [[rice]] in a lot of dishes.

Cooking is a very [[social]] activity which has a long history.

Cooking

2008-06-17T21:37:07Z

AdenJ:

Cooking

2008-06-17T21:30:28Z

AdenJ: New page: '''Cooking''' is the act of preparing food to be eaten. There are many differant schools of cooking from Italian cooking which usually includes pasta to Asian cuisine which use...

User talk:Learn together

2008-06-17T21:14:28Z

AdenJ:

{{Welcome|sig=[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]}}

[[User talk:Learn together/1|Archive]]

==Contest==
How about joining us on team one (to be named) in the contest?--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 19:49, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

:It would be an honor to be on a team where you are captain. Count me in. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:58, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Great! We're going to need you--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 10:48, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::The contest begins today( Sep. 28) at noon, please check out our [[Conservapedia:Team Airborne|team page]]. Thanks, --[[User:Tash|Tash]] 08:51, 28 September 2007 (EDT)
== Rocker1973 ==

Can you block this user? He is doing some sort of vandalism that messes up pages badly. Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Larry_Craig&diff=299153&oldid=289755 . http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association&diff=299171&oldid=299152 shows how it works. [[User:SkipJohnson|SkipJohnson]] 16:50, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
:Thank you for noticing this and for your prompt revisions. He has been removed. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Beat me by 30 seconds! But I did block the IP range of all his proxies. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:59, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

::I just help sweep the streets my friend; you're the one who comes through and paves it. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:01, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

*Better get a warranty if I do any paving! :p --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 17:28, 24 September 2007 (EDT)

==Contest Points==
Great job raking up points yesterday!! <s>I'm trying to get a accurate tally of yesterdays points for Team Airborne and I'm wondering when you were planning on recording a tally of your points for yesterday. If you want me to help record them for you, i would be happy to help (I'm recording Ed Poor's points right now since he dislikes the recording precess).</s> Keep up the good work!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:01, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

:I've created a page ([[User:Learn together/Contest2]]) to record your points, and have recorded yesterdays on it. Please feel free to update and change as needed.Thanks!--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 17:43, 29 September 2007 (EDT)

== Urgent Matter... ==

Please contact me if you are around.... --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 04:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== Sanford Ransdell Article ==

I wrote the Sanford Ransdell article. I was told that I could bring material that I wrote over to Conservapedia. If that's not the case then I apologize. [[User:Dwain|Dwain]] 09:39, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:LearnTogether, yes Dwain is the originator of numerous WP articles, and we'd be happy to have his original, uncensored versions here. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:06, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::::No problem gentlemen. I help to guard the site based on the information on hand. If there's more than I am aware of and you have the situation covered then that's fine. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:32, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== [[Alchohol]] ==

It is a very nice article, but it's spelled incorrectly. It's ok, it has to happen to everyone sometime, right? ;-) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:27, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for catching it. I followed the link from the Abby Hoffman article and created it, but didn't catch that it was spelled wrong. I've corrected it in the Hoffman article as well. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:44, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Counting Contest Points==
If you could total your [http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Learn_together/Contest2 contest points] for today that would be great (doesn't have to be exact to the .9999)- I have my SAT's on Saturday so I'm kind of running short on time and want to get some editing in tonight. Great job racking up points!! Thanks--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 20:03, 2 October 2007 (EDT) ([http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Team_Airborne#Point_System here's] a link to the points guide)

:Sure Tash, and thanks for doing this for me as the contest has gone alone. Good luck on your SAT's. I'll need to leave shortly myself, so I won't be able to tabulate it until tomorrow. Hopefully that won't hurt anything. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:09, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

==Points==
What's with all the red links in your edits for day seven? They don't show having been deleted. :{ --[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:23, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:I'm still editing the page Bethany. Hopefully they'll be fixed up soon. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:25, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

The contest is over since 12:00 noon. You shouldn't be counting the ones after that. BTW great contest. Really exciting.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:28, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, it was lots of fun. Hope you guys all enjoyed it. ;-) But don't worry Bethany, I'm not counting new ones, I'm just organizing the ones I did. ;-) I dump my day's work, then I move them line by line to where they should be. Sometimes its quicker for me to just retype them, so case errors can pop it. All the red should be gone now for day 7. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

I also notice that [[Justice Joseph Story]] is after 12:00.--[[User:BethanyS|Beth]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 14:35, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:My last edit was after 12:00, but I had earlier ones the same day. I'm only counting the early ones. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:39, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

::Great job man! You pushed us over the victory line...--[[User:Tash|Tash]] 14:58, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Hey, you got your first victory! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:51, 5 October 2007 (EDT)

==Bush National Guard==

So was Dan Quayle. The difference is, Quayle actually reported for duty and caught hell, while Bush missed most of his training and didn't catch nearly the flak. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:20, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

:Part of the Dan Quayle article shows the double standard used against him that was not applied to others, especially those who came directly afterwards. Quayle was filleted for serving in the guard instead of fighting in Vietnam -- then along comes Bill Clinton. After 8 years of Clinton who didn't fight in Vietnam or serve in the National Guard, the bar was set pretty low. Bush at least spending some time in the guard was a step up. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:31, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

*Maestro, you are merely repeating, nazi like, the '''BIG LIE'''. Bush, according to all documentation not presented by Dan Rather, missed nothing much, and was fully flight qualified. It is open to speculation only as to how "officially" sanctioned his doing his flight quals elsewhere was, but I can tell you from personal experience, it was quite normal to do so. And that fact has also been reported nationally, but ignored amongst the hype. Please try to remember the original allegations were not that he wasn't fully trained or qualified, but that his connections allowed him to take that training in other places. Later it was minipulated, spun into his actually not receiving the necessary training. That has been completely, and factually disproved. That is why Rather was <s>fired</s> allowed early retirement. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:24, 17 October 2007 (EDT)

== My friend ==

Where are you? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:15, 5 November 2007 (EST)

:I am here my friend; I have just been very busy. Hope you are doing well and God's blessing to you. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:04, 8 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest==
Hello Learn Together - given that in the last contest you were one of the top two contributors - you have been made a captain in the [[Contest3|newest contest]]. The tentative starting date is Friday the 9th, and it runs for 7 days. Pick as many people as you want for your team - however, only the top 7 contributors will actually count (and it's best if you keep your team number to bellow 10 to ensure equality). If you are unable or unwilling to be the captain - please get back to me as soon as possible so we can inform the next candidate. Thanks so much - and good luck!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:40, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you Iduan, I am flattered you have chosen me as captain for the next team contest. Unfortunately, I am very busy at this time and I feel I would not be able to do the position justice for Conservapedia or those who would join my team. In fact it was only dumb luck that I happened to sign on today and look. Really, Tash put in the most effort in the last contest even with his SAT test coming up at that time, including helping to tabulate our scores. May I recommend, especially after his strong showing in the last contest as captain to bring our team to a razor thin victory margin, that you see if Tash would be willing to take up the gauntlet.

:Again, thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:10, 8 November 2007 (EST)
:: Nice to have you IN. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:55, 9 November 2007 (EST)

:::I can't let TK down. ;-) I'll do the best I can for you guys. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:58, 9 November 2007 (EST)

::::Ready? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:26, 11 November 2007 (EST)

:::::Where is the list of your points? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:15, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::::::I haven't tabulated it yet my friend. Don't worry, they won't be going anywhere. ;-)

Congratulations, great work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:58, 18 November 2007 (EST)

==Contest2==
Hey Learn together! I'm so glad you could participate in the contest - even if you couldn't be a captain (and I'm even more glad that you're on my team!) So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks (and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest: We must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]00:02, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Team Name: <big>'''Supply Siders'''</big> --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)
:Team page: [[Conservapedia:Team Supply Siders]] --[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 17:02, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Nice assist==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=A_Beautiful_Mind&curid=51139&diff=332837&oldid=332785&rcid=359995] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Ed, I just couldn't resist ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:17, 12 November 2007 (EST)

==Dewey==

Why is Dewey blocked? [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

:He's highlighting all "goat" entries. That's a tonuge-in-cheek move that a site whose goal is to vandalize CP takes pride in. The last edit to Vitamin C had goat highlighted in about 10 different places. Think of it as a calling card to say "gotcha". Look through his edit history before being blocked and you'll see what I'm talking about. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:28, 12 November 2007 (EST)

== [[Panzerschreck]] ==

Check out the first two paragraphs of this article: direct WP copy/paste. I was going to recommend it for deletion, but since you edited it (and since the rest seems OK) I didn't want to screw you out of a couple contest points. Now instead you have an opportunity to gain some points :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you. The information appears to be a factual straight forward description, at least in the first paragraph. It all seems to be pertinent. Even if it matches WP, I don't view it the same as copying large quantities. I changed the second paragraph, where more individual style could be seen. BTW, if you really find an article that's unsalvageable, don't hesitate to have it deleted. The contest is to make CP better, so losing a couple of points to delete something that doesn't belong is no skin off my back. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Actually I was on the fence about deleting, but I didn't want to step on any toes. Competition's fierce! :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for cleaning up my edits ==

I think I've got it now, I appreciate the help.-[[User:MexMax|MexMax]] 18:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:Yes, you've really got down the categories, the default sort, and the name form with the edits you're doing. Good job! Some of us will bold the name as well. With the entries that you have, I'm doing some form cleanup too. That's strictly up to the individual. Here is an example [[Philip_Pendleton_Barbour]]. Please note what I do is not a requirement or even expected. I just personally think it looks better that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:14, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Jellyfish ==

Thanks for the recategorizations. However, I think that jellyfish should probably be recategorized, because the second sentence of the article says that they aren't actually fish. I'm not sure what the best category is, because I haven't looked at how the animal articles are really organized, but I thought I'd see if you had any suggestions. Thanks! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 03:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Unfortunately, not really. Perhaps a category for "Sea Creatures" might be appropriate. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:17, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*Invertebrates?

:I was hoping for something that would get all the water creatures in one place to make it easy for our viewers. I'm sure we'll think up something. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:34, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==Points==
Could you possibly record your points since November 12, 12:00 in the afternoon? If you could that would be great! --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:24, 14 November 2007 (EST)

???--[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:31, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:I'll see what I can do. It takes me a bit longer than you guys since in the past I've displayed each individual article under the scoring categories. I'm really not looking forward to that. ;-0 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 11:37, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::OK! Sorry if I was annoying...I just want to know what I'm up against! ;P --[[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 11:40, 14 November 2007 (EST)

==KGB==
Very good question, and not without several problems. We actually ran into this in WP also, and they have not satisfactorily resolved it, either.

For our purposes here, the basic division is between Case Officer and an agent. Speaking broadly, the Case Officer is the intelligence professional who is usually a citizen of the same nation that the Intelligence organization is subordinate to. An "Agent," in most cases would be a witting contact of the Case Officer. A "Source" can be unwitting, that is to say, intelligence information can be gleened from an unwitting, unsuspecting source, and then passed through an agent to the case officer. Also, a Source can be witting, too. That is to say, perhaps it is just a one-time passing of information, or perhaps under extraordinary ciricmstances a relationship can be formed between a Case Officer or Agent with a witting Source, whose information can be deemed bona fide & trustworthy, but the Source is just unwilling or incapable of forming an Agent-Principal relationship because of risk of exposure, etc.

I hope that doesn't clear it up, huh? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 21:46, 14 November 2007 (EST)

:Actually it does Rob, thank you. It let's me know that there is a differentiation and I should stay away. ;-) I wasn't sure if they were the same thing and you had just started using a different category later. I'm glad you're the one trying to classify them and not me. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:50, 14 November 2007 (EST)

::For the most part, here in CP, the bios in KGB are Soviet citizens who were KGB Case Officers, & the "agents and sources" are mostly US citizens, with a few Brits, Germans, and maybe one or two Japanese right now. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:11, 14 November 2007 (EST)

*So my answer, on your talk page, Rob, was incorrect? Or can the individuals in KGB, top category be moved off to individuals? Or do we need a new category created? --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 22:14, 14 November 2007 (EST)

== block and delete needed ==

Just look at the recent changes. [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:09, 16 November 2007 (EST)
:That should earn you a few points! [[User:Bohdan|Bohdan]] 16:10, 16 November 2007 (EST)
::Thanks to your heads up approach Bohdan, we stopped him ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:12, 16 November 2007 (EST)

== removal of copy righted material ==

I have removed a few additions you made as they were cut and pasted of material under copyright.
hope you don't mind.--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 14:21, 18 November 2007 (EST)

:Your removal is unwarranted. The source is cited and not directly copied. I am flattered though that I am being sought out by you guys. Why should TK and Andy get all of the fun? ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 18 November 2007 (EST)

== Re-directs..... ==

Please ask before re-directing articles! We prefer to move them, Bill, rather than create double-redirects that need others to fix them later. Thanks. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 20:51, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==His Dark Materials==
Hi, I'm a new Conservapedia editor, and I noticed that you recently edited [[His Dark Materials]]. As you can see on my user page, [[User:JK899|JK899]], working on this article is my primary goal on this site. I am extending an offer to you to help me achieve the goals regarding the books on my user page. If you are interested, tell me on my discussion page. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 19:03, 4 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on what will be the site's reaction to the books , and I know the article will probably receive heavy vandalism after I work on it. I want to state the facts of the book that are impossible to refute, like the plot and the definite constrasts with the stated beliefs of the major religions. I personally don't see the books as being anti-Christian (mostly against using blind faith instead of knowledge), but I won't say that anywhere and will definitely include links to arguments of people who say it is anti-Christian.

Concerning editing other articles, I'll make minor edits of course, but no real major changes until after I get Dark Materials finished. This is on account of me having just read the books and the facts being fresh in my mind.

I'll post the plot section today, and hopefully you'll see it and inform me of what changes I should make. Thanks for being so civil. Usually the only theists I encounter online are raving, opionionated jerks. Guess I've been looking in the wrong places. [[User:JK899|JK899]] 16:45, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Hi Learntogether, I understand you recently undid my edits to [[The Golden Compass]]. I'm not really sure why though, since my changes simply improved the flow of the passage and added additional information (such as the comparisons to Paradise Lost and its alternate title in NZ and the UK). Please feel free to discuss it with me further on the talk page. :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 19:16, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Learntogether, I'm acting in good faith here and yet you're persisting in reverting my edits without comment. Please consider Philip's objective assessment and, in the words of Will Wheaton, "don't be a d***". :D [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:40, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

:Sometimes there are instances where compromise as you wish it is not possible. We are both aware of Pullman's position and we come at it from opposite perspectives in life -- fair enough. But knowing why he wrote the books he did and what he was trying to get across, this site will not allow any watering down or political correctness to cover that up. Other information such as the different name in other continents is fine, but don't try to rewrite the story. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:: To be honest, I'm not sure you are fully aware of Pullman's position :D While he did say he was "undermining Christianity", he's added that there's more to it than that. If you've ever read his "Republic of Heaven" speech, he talks about how he is anti-religion because of the hierarchies and power politics it creates.
<blockquote>"We're used to the kingdom of heaven; but you can tell from the general thrust of the book that I'm of the devil's party, like Milton. And I think it's time we thought about a republic of heaven instead of the kingdom of heaven. The king is dead. That's to say I believe that the king is dead. I'm an atheist. But we need heaven nonetheless, we need all the things that heaven meant, we need joy, we need a sense of meaning and purpose in our lives, we need a connection with the universe, we need all the things that the kingdom of heaven used to promise us but failed to deliver. And, furthermore, we need it in this world where we do exist-- not elsewhere, because there ain't no elsewhere."</blockquote>
I felt that maybe the nuances of Pullman's position (which is one shared by other atheists, myself included) might be of interest to other Conservapedia readers. [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 17:59, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

== Team ==

Hi there

I am just planing to make a team to update, at the Main Page, the "Article of the month". Could be you, Crocoite and me. I am sure Andy will approve it. Agree? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:39, 8 December 2007 (EST)

:It would be an honor to be teamed up with two such fine contributors my friend. Thank you for your confidence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:45, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:: The reply from Mr. Schlafly was this:

''Sounds like a fantastic idea, Joaquin! I'm all for it.''

First thing we have to do is to make a list of featured articles, then select the best ones. We can start now.

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:15, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Please use:

[[Featured articles]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:11, 13 December 2007 (EST)

Happy new year! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:31, 1 January 2008 (EST)

:Any proposal to start? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 07:40, 14 December 2007 (EST)

:: Good one! Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:53, 17 December 2007 (EST)

== Coin collecting==

(slaps own forehad) Darn! I shoulda thoughta [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Category:Coins&rcid=378923 that category] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== Response appreciated ==

This is DarkMessiah, it seems i have been banned (for an idealogical reason :P). If you would like to continue our discussion, as i would, you can email or instant message me on changeblade@hotmail.co.uk Please contact an administrator and have them delete this account. [[User:PleaseDeleteTempUser|PleaseDeleteTempUser]] 17:09, 16 December 2007 (EST)

==Genocide==

I think we've come to a relatively good consensus that the Srebrenica massacre should indeed be considered genocide. Do you think we can unblock the article and make the appropriate edits. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:56, 16 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for your kind words, but it's not a matter of not feeling appreciated. My cycles of quitting/coming back closely mirror Andy's cycles of posting his douche-baggery about liberalism, public schools, murder, etc... and then going relatively quiet. There's no serious dissent by upper management, so the site as a whole must be seen to support his beliefs. I've finally had to draw the line and say "I will not be associated with this." And now, I must return CP to my firewall's blacklist. :p Thanks again, [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:32, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks for the heads up ==

I wasn't aware that we didn't do articles for specific dates. It won't happen again. It is a pleasure to contribute to this site.

:No harm done. We look forward to seeing your further contributions. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:16, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks... ==

...for fixing my talk page. People seem to have something against me lately. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:44, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:It is the highest form of flattery when you are attacked my friend. It is a sign that you are recognized as a valued editor to Conservapedia. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:15, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Puellanivis==

I agree that initially his aggression towards new editors was unhelpful, but after having it pointed out he was genuinely contrite; more likely a misunderstanding than actual malice. Though his comment about Andy ''was'' out of line, I don't think he really meant any disrespect towards him; rather, he was trying to make a point about the 90/10 rule. In any case, despite some poor editing and minor infractions, I don't believe he was a troll intent on doing any damage, and a block of infinite time is rather long, no? I think a few days (maybe a week?) and a stern warning will be enough; besides, his edits will be more closely watched afterwards so there's little possibility for trolling. And besides, it'd be ironic for Conservapedia to accidently drive away new editors for doing the same!

Anyway, you have the power here - I just thought I'd throw in my two cents, perhaps save a new editor from his initial mistakes. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 23:52, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Don't worry; I don't keep permanent blocks if there is contrition. It will change with time and private email correspondence. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:13, 20 December 2007 (EST)

== Battle of Aegospotami/Delium? ==

Seeing as how [[Battle of Aegospotami]] was started by you, could you maybe check if you really meant to say "The Battle of Delium in 405 B.C." in the opening sentence? I'm no expert in Greece place names or wars, so I don't know if this is intentional or not. If it is, could you maybe make a small addition to the article, explaining why it's known as different things? Thanks :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:18, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:That was a mistake. Thank you for noticing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:24, 22 December 2007 (EST)

::Hey, no problem and thanks for clarifying/fixing. Was just cruising around with the Random Page feature and stumbled over it :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 20:26, 22 December 2007 (EST)

:::You're already helping. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:27, 22 December 2007 (EST)

== Philosophy categories ==

Yes, I just saw the naming convention guidelines. I will amend the Philosophy category names accordingly. [[User:JFPerry|JFPerry]] 11:39, 23 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Hey, thanks for reworking [[Christian Domestic Discipline]]! It's a tricky subject, and I'm glad for the additional input you provided. It's much better now. :) --[[User:JakeC|JakeC]] 07:33, 27 December 2007 (EST)
==Contest==
Learn together - if you are interested, as you achieved the second highest number of points in the last contest, you may choose to be a captain for team 2 in the upcoming [[Conservapedia:Contest4|contest]]. Please respond as quickly as possible as to whether you are interested, as the draft will occur Saturday, and if you are not interested we obviously need time to find a replacement. Thanks so much and congratulations!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:10, 10 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for the considering me for team captain for the next contest, but it seems to me that as the top scorer for the Timberwolves that the honor of team captain should fall to Andy first. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:22, 11 January 2008 (EST)

== New articles? ==

(I apologize for not replying sooner to your comment on my talk page - I had been blocked for a full month for one silly edit after a series of good ones.)

*''You have been creating multiple new articles that already exist, including the last five articles you entered into Conservapedia.''

Erm, those had been ''redirects''. They were on the Wanted Articles list, and I knew they existed. So I made a redirect to them. Unless you meant something different, I'm not sure I see the problem... --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 13:47, 12 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey, so the draft will not actually finish until Sunday, but the contest will still start tonight at 12a.m., so all that means is some of you will be getting points without knowing what team you're on. Remember to keep track of your points well, at a page like [[User:Learn together/Contest4]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:Silly o'clock and I'm making silly errors to match. So I'm going to stretch my legs, sup some coffee and look at the stars for a while :) Will try to add a few more points before I log though. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:42, 19 January 2008 (EST)

==Double Redirect==

You made a redirect to redirect. Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:DoubleRedirects this list] before claiming points for this. (Can I claim a point for fixing this? ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:21, 16 January 2008 (EST)

:I think you get a point Ed. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:29, 16 January 2008 (EST)
==Your Article==
Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a fairly big contribution to [[Drunk]] - and given that you started the article so recently, I felt like I should tell you in case there was anything you didn't like about what I did. Great job on creating it, and as far as my contrib goes feel free to revert or delete whatever you feel appropriate--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:51, 16 January 2008 (EST)
:Are you kidding? You should get a gold star. That's great! Keep up the good work! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:00, 16 January 2008 (EST)

== Thank you ==

For addressing [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Barikada this]. Didn't see that you had done so before I posted a message about it. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:39, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:You get the credit. It was your bringing up the issue with specific examples that led me to agree a temporary block was warranted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:50, 18 January 2008 (EST)

::Oh. I see what happened there. The date/time stamp is different on A's talk page for some reason. I thought my post came after you had blocked Barikada already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 16:11, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== MSM Redirect ==

I corrected the Mainstream Media redirect, but the MSM page is locked so it still contains a Double Redirect, I believe. Can this be fixed? Gracias! --[[User:Jdellaro|Jdellaro]] 13:46, 18 January 2008 (EST)

:MSM doesn't appear to be locked. If you do find double redirects that you can't fix, I would advise going to [[User talk:Philip J. Rayment]] and put a note on his talk page. He's actively involved in this area. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:54, 18 January 2008 (EST)

==Email==
You have some :) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:20, 18 January 2008 (EST)
==Points==
Hey Learn Together - I hate to bring up a question of points - but I saw just now in an edit summary, and then your contest page, that you were giving yourself four points for "extensive" minor edits - but no such rule is dictated in the current contest (my guess is that you might be using a point system from a previous contest), I'm not going to make an official challenge because I assumed this is a minor mistake--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:01, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:Uh, learn together? I just noticed you were still doing it - again, if you look at the rules there's nothing that says minor edits can be worth 4 points--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:25, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::I use the same standard I have been using for edits that are really not "minor". In the contests sometimes we are tempted to cut corners, and I attempt to keep myself from doing that by giving points for extensive alterations that aren't specifically extra sentences, but are certainly as meaningful for the state of the article as a whole. As you can see, I am an open book when it comes to tabulating my edits and the point values associated, and I would hope that anyone looking at my contributions would see that my scoring versus the alterations done are appropriate and not taking advantage in any way. If at the end it there is a wish to question the scoring used, then we can discuss it further at that time. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:13, 19 January 2008 (EST)

::BTW, good job with your own work and editing. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 22:16, 19 January 2008 (EST)
:::Ok, I understand your reasoning, although at the same time this is a new rule set, and after the failure of last time we shouldn't really leave anything open to interpretation. Until we invent a "regular edit" (which, btw, I completely agree with you that we should!), I think we should just play it safe and use 2 points for every minor edit, as even beyond the fact that this is a new rule set, everyone else isn't aware that you can do a four point thing - and if you're the only one doing it that kind of gives you an unfair advantage.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:32, 19 January 2008 (EST)
::::There's always a certain amount of individual discretion for scoring. The question becomes is someone trying to game the system or are their edits genuine? I believe the quality of the edits that I scored as 4 points speak for themselves, and, after a quick sampling at least, I don't see anything similar in the minor edit section of the other participants. I do notice many entries by others scored as quality edits that don't match the definition stated for the contest, but that's a judgement call of the individual too. I chose, in most cases, to simply put them as 4 points under the minor edit category. There will always be some differences in interpretation - for instance you give yourself points for bolding alone and many of us will not count that as a minor edit unless other edits accompany it, but as long as we are all trying to be honest and fair it shouldn't matter. I believe difficulties should only be brought up if there is a pattern of scoring that obviously does not match the value of the edits themselves, and I do not believe that pertains to me. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:31, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== ID book ==

[[Intelligent Design (book)]] is the proper name, not [[Intelligent Design (Book)]], as the Manual of Style now says that titles should not be in title case. So the redirect should go the other way. Understand? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:34, 20 January 2008 (EST)

:It sound good, thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:07, 20 January 2008 (EST)

== Contest 4 ==

Congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:10, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Great Job LT!--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 12:15, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:::On behalf of Eagle Team, well done| A splendid effort. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 12:24, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Congratulations from [[Conservapedia:Team Freedom|Freedom]]. Very well done, again!!!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:25, 20 January 2008 (EST)
:Well done, impressive! Thanks for all your graft, B. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 04:27, 21 January 2008 (EST)

Thank you both. You were both great contributors to the contest! ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:36, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:::What is your secret to win every contest?

:::--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)

::::Well, having you on my team for most of them helps ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:36, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Ban for username needed ==

[[Special:Contributions/PastafarianBeliver|PastafarianBeliver]]. "Pastafarianism" is a flippant non-belief which has the sole purpose of mocking people who back Intelligent Design. (And judging from his comments so far, it doesn't look like he's here to provide anything worthwhile. Just complaints.) [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:24, 21 January 2008 (EST)

:Thank you for pointing it out, but I have a tendency to be cautious in banning him at this point. Nevertheless, his edits will be watched. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:34, 21 January 2008 (EST)

::BethanyS banned him already. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:38, 21 January 2008 (EST)

== Barikada ==

It's starting to look like [[User:Barikada]] didn't learn anything from his recent block - e.g. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Left_Behind:_Eternal_Forces&curid=53111&diff=379019&oldid=379013 this edit]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:44, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:My last block was for misinterpreting clear instructions, I believe... [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:46, 23 January 2008 (EST)
::Barkikada, the key is not to see how close you can get to the ledge without falling over. We all have a general understanding of what it means to edit to improve content. Please keep your edits in that direction and the question of blocking you won't come up again. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:49, 23 January 2008 (EST)
:::Not to sound arrogant, but... I'm ''pretty'' sure most of them are. Normally I'd insert a rant about me falsely believing I'm being persecuted, but you're right. I should focus my edits on less controversial subjects. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Vote ==

Click on the link to vote in my poll. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim (CPAdmin1)]][[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Election08|Vote for President]] 23:05, 23 January 2008 (EST)
==Contest 5==
Hey Learn Together, as you were a participant in the last contest I'm just giving you the heads up that the [[Conservapedia:Contest5|draft of the point system for contest 5]] has been written, and we're using the talk page as a forum for any notes/complaints that any users may have.

Learn together - I also want to give you the heads up that, assuming your schedule is free (the date for the contest isn't set yet) and assuming you're willing, you'll be the team 1 captain for this contest. Thanks,--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 20:21, 2 February 2008 (EST)
:Hey Learn together are you still around? If you aren't, and depending on how things go with the contest, we might have to go ask another user to be the captain, but of course if you come back after we've done this you can certainly still join the contest, and I'll wait as long as possible for a response.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 16:47, 13 February 2008 (EST)

::I recommend emailing me directly if there is a time when I'm not on the site much. I can be available. I've written Andy on his talk page. Thanks. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:22, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Hi ==

Nice to see you in action again. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:23, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:And it is always good to hear from you my friend ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:24, 15 February 2008 (EST)

== Trial Contest ==

Hey {{BASEPAGENAME}}, we've decided to do a quick Contest 5 starting at what will probably be midnight tonight - so sign up as soon as possible! [[Conservapedia:Contest5#Those Interested In Participating Please Put Your Name Here]].--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:04, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== [[Gospel of Thomas]] ==

Please review [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Gospel_of_Thomas&diff=391209&oldid=376583 this] edit. I don't know enough to tell if it is vandalism. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 20:45, 19 February 2008 (EST)

:It's not vandalism, but it's not entirely true either. It's got a nice "spin" on it. I'll look at it later and make alterations. Thanks for pointing it out. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:23, 20 February 2008 (EST)

== Heads of government ==

Head of state and head of government are two different things. The CIA ''World Factbook'' defines chief (head) of state as "the titular leader of the country who represents the state at official and ceremonial functions but may not be involved with the day-to-day activities of the government", while head of government is defined as "the top administrative leader who is designated to manage the day-to-day activities of the government". [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/docs/notesanddefs.html] In the US these two positions are occupied by the same person, the president. However, in most parliamentary systems the functions of head of state and head of government are separate (e.g., in the UK the monarch is head of state, while the prime minister is head of government).

Thank you for the pointer on subcategories, however.

{{unsigned|Dadsnagem2}}

== Greetings ==

From no where in the middle of a journey, --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:07, 1 March 2008 (EST)

==Easton's Bible Dictionary==
Should I not use Easton's Bible Dictionary to create Bible articles?--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:03, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

:It's not necessary if there are Bible verses that say the same thing. It can be useful for backing up viewpoints on theological views, but for biographies where the information is contained in the Bible, then it is best to just use the Bible as your reference. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 16:06, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

What does the information in the block say, I think that was a block on accident--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:11, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

The block said I was replacing articles with 404 error server not found yet look at the edits of User:Weqq, I did no such thing--[[User:Kuli|Kuli]] 16:16, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

== Luke ==

Thank you so much for you help! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 20:16, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

:I am always pleased to help where I can my friend. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:52, 26 March 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you Learn Together for your unsolicited support. It really means a lot. Keep up the good work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:09, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

== Deer ==

Why did you revert my edit to [[deer]]? I thought that the deaths caused by deer was interesting and I gave a source to back it up. What was the problem? [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:29, 30 March 2008 (EDT)

:It was an opinion piece you used as a reference. And adding deer to the category "Dangerous Animals" was overkill, especially since the category previously had zero entries. If you wish to include the general gist of the article alerting to deaths on the road due to traffic fatalities then do so, although the specific figures and numbers should have a reputable source before being included. Oh, and of course, this discussion should take place on the deer talk page, not my home page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 04:31, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
::Overkill HA! No pun intended, I'm sure. (Sorry to interject humor into this serious discussion but I couldn't let a golden pun like that pass). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 09:55, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

:::Would this source be better [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5330a1.htm]? It's a government site, and according to it, 200 Americans (at least, I assume that they're Americans) die in accidents involving animals (predominantly deer.) Another animal listed under [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Dangerous_animals] (dangerous animals category), the great white shark, kills a mere 50-70 people ''world-wide'' [http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/education/questions/Attack.html#year], even when combined with all other sharks. Could I redo the entry with the new source and statistics?
:::P.S. Sorry I put this on the wrong page, I wasn't sure where to put it so I guessed. I assume you don't want me to move it now. [[User:Blinkadyblink|Blinkadyblink]][[User talk:Blinkadyblink|RAGE]] 23:20, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
:This is a serious site, and, come on. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:28, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

==Sons of Jacob==

Before you change all the categories, are you planning to '''list''' Jacob's 14 sons in the [[Jacob]] article at any point in time? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:00, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:It would be a good idea, except Jacob had 12 sons. ;-) We had a number of imbedded catgories made that would make it difficult for users to simply see who are Biblical Persons. They had to go through the geneaology all the way from Temar, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,... You get the picture. I'm putting them back in Biblical Persons where they were. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:05, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

:I expanded the article on Jacob (which was rather lacking). I see there's already a link to the Twelve Sons of Jacob in the Jacob article so I didn't specifically put the names of the sons in the Jacob article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:21, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

Learn Togther,
Good to make your acquaintance! I have tried to interest others to do something on Larry McDonald but so far noo takers. A lot of people are now going to our website being refered from the article in wikipedia on Larry but I would like one in Conservapedia. It seems more pressing as this is the 25th year since the shootdown. Can you do the article?[[User:BertSchlossberg|BertSchlossberg]] 01:13, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Satan ==

Satan has been unprotected. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 13:30, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

== Congratulations! ==

Congratulations, you've been promoted to Sysop! Well deserved indeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Congratulations and welcome aboard! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 16:01, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congrats, man! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:Autofire|form!]] 16:54, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congratulations! --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 17:50, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats, brother. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 17:58, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

:Good job LT! You deserve this promotion, and I'm glad you got it. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:35, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

WOW! Thank you very much Andy and all of my friends. I guess when I least expect it is when it happens. ;-) I will try to live up to the honor that you have given me and try to fill the shoes of those who have come before me who I will hopefully be able to emulate. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 00:20, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

: Excellent promotion, congratulations! --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:26, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

::Congratulations! Quite honestly, I didn't think there was any other candidate. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 09:51, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Congrats!! :P [[User:BethanyS|~BCS]][[User talk:BethanyS|Talk2'''ME''']] 10:40, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Please ban Breebree, (vandalism to mobile phones) [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:43, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

HenryS banned him [[User:Dalek|Dalek]] 15:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

Whoo-hoo! Sorry I missed it. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:08, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== TomMoore ==

*14:43, 13 April 2008 Ed Poor (Talk | contribs) blocked "TomMoore (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (personal remarks)

Don't wait for him to reply. I'm not quite sure what the "personal remark" was, but from what I gather, I'm in no position to ask, so...

On the topic: You're applying an interesting standard there, am I to suppose that it's also to be applied to articles? --[[User:MilesM|MilesM]] 06:35, 15 April 2008 (EDT)

== Virgin Mary gallery ==

Any contribution? [[Virgin Mary gallery]]

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:30, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

== Why was Todd Haynes deleted from Brown University alumni?==

I added Todd Haynes, the director of Far From Heaven and I'm Not There, to the list of Brown alumni and you deleted it. Why? Haynes has been nominated for an Oscar and -- in Far from Heaven -- directed one of the most highly praised films of the past decade. How on earth can he be described as "not notable"? George Harrison's SON is included, for Pete's sake. I will reinstate Todd with citations as there is no possible reason for him to be excluded. KeithJoseph 21:30, 20 April 2008 (GMT)

== query ==

Fellow admin, please review this block. The user's name is "oh stupid TK" backwards. The users first contribution was entering a dispute with User:TK. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AUniversity_of_California%2C_Los_Angeles&diff=425607&oldid=425435]. What do you think? Sock puppet? Unblock? Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:01, 20 April 2008 (EDT)

:It was a good call my friend. We block infinite for names like that. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:53, 21 April 2008 (EDT)
::I know. I never planned on unblocking. I was surprised the user wasn't banned right away. I only asked because I receiced an email from "Diputsho" asking to be unblocked. Thanks for helping though. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 16:03, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

== City/town/county names as article titles ==

In case you don't check the [[Conservapedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#City.2Ftown.2Fcounty_names_as_article_titles.3F|manual of style talk page]] very often, I just wanted to draw your attention to a suggestion I had. [[User:Jinkas|Jinkas]] 21:04, 21 April 2008 (EDT)

==[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]==

You may want to review your reversion, it seems that FiscalConservative's edit was made in good faith and improved the article. He appears to have used the motivations stated by bin Laden (the mastermind of the attacks), whereas the motivation section in the present article seems to be a parody: "Luckily, the president declared a counter war called the "War on Terrorism" before any holy war started" [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:01, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:I don't want to speak toward the removed portions, as I could see how they could be controversial, but what is there right now definitely looks like parody to me. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:05, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::Am I right in guessing the controversial sections relate to the Sikhs being mistaken for Muslims? If so then this would appear to be acceptable content, as from my understanding there were a number of attacks against innocent Muslims following the attacks, and this should be added if there is to be complete coverage of the aftermath. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:08, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

:By putting his edits at the top right under the primary paragraph, he detracts from discussing what actually occurred. He also included a link to an article that states that a Sikh killed several days later 'may' have been the victim of hate crime -- and this is inserted before the section discussing the casualties that occurred from the 9/11. And you call that an improvement? The incredible thing with America is that we are so strong in our desire for freedom for all that even a heinous crime like 9/11 gets barely a ripple in any type of reprisal attacks against those believed to be of similar ethnicities. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:09, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

::No one said that in "our desire for freedom for all" we believe reprisal attacks are more important than the actual casualties, I said that they need to be covered in order to provide a complete recount of the aftermath. How about moving the section and expanding it rather than removing it? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 02:12, 27 April 2008 (EDT)

==Vietnam War Reversion==

Erm, I don't exactly understand what your apprehensions to my edits with the Vietnam article were, especially given the information in question is improperly placed to begin with. Vietnam's economy showcases significant market elements, and to insinuate that Vietnam is a communist country (without any other reference or acknowledgement of it's free-market development post-war) detracts considerably from the article as is given the disregard among the general public to differentiate between a communist government and it’s economic policies, which in Vietnam’s case are clearly not concurrent. [[User:Willink|Willink]] 3:30, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
==I say Psychiatry, You say Psychology, Let's call the whole thing off==
Psychology as the main category for mental health problems etc is incorrect. In fact, "mental health" should be the main category, with psychology and psychiatry as sub-categories (perhaps even with psychotherapy as an additional sub-category). Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis, not a psychological model; therefore it is appropriately placed within the Psychiatry category. Psychologists are *not* always involved with patients who are diagnosed with schizophrenia, whereas psychiatrists *are*. The other types of psychological endeavour (industrial, educational, etc) should be in the Psychology category (and, correctly, are). The Psychiatric Disorders category should be a sub-category of Psychiatry itself. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 06:55, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

:You can go ahead and rework them IF you can change all of them appropriately. We don't want to have a category with some entries in one place and some entries in another. Please be aware though that when there is a subcategory, such as Psychiatric Disorders under Psychiatry, that articles in the subcategory are not also placed in the main category. The general idea behind subcategories is to decrease the number of articles in the main category. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:16, 28 April 2008 (EDT)
::Thank you, Learn together. I shall work out an appropriate schema for this before changing anything further. May God bless you and be with you. [[User:HumbleServant|HumbleServant]] 17:20, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

== Sprawl ==

See Orange talk. Ta.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 01:51, 29 April 2008 (EDT)

== Can you upload The Scream by Edvard Munch? ==

I got the link![http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/munch/munch.scream.jpg] Can you upload for the [[The Scream]] page? {{unsigned|TagoPagdaluhong}}
:Nevermind, I found it--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 20:22, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

== your edits to [[Orthodox Church]] ==

Hi, I noticed your edits to this article. You may not be aware, but one of your edits removed some sources, as well as the reference list at the end. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 15:03, 7 May 2008 (EDT)
:Can I ask why the article is locked? I don't see that edit warring is going on, nor do I see any efforts by you to discuss your changes. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 12:14, 8 May 2008 (EDT)
::Posted a note [[Talk:Orthodox_Church|here]], and I'd appreciated your comment. Cheers! [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 23:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

== Golden Compass article block ==

Is there any way I can edit the article? Or should I post my proposed changes here for you to make? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:34, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

:Put them in the article talk section please for reviews. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:21, 10 May 2008 (EDT)

==Engrish==
Thanks for filling me in. I'm sorry I put up that article on Engrish. I didn't know it was a slur, despite it being offensive However, now I know better to not write articles like that again!
[[User:RKLuffy88|RKLuffy88]]

== Featured articles ==

Please see [[Conservapedia talk:Featured articles]]. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:46, 20 May 2008 (EDT)

==Thurgood Marshall==

This is not meant to sound combative, but why did you go through and change every mention of African American or African to Black? '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 12:50, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:The term African American did not exist during the time of discussion. Black would have been recognized then and is still considered to be acceptable today. I did leave the last African American as it discussed Clarence Thomas and by then the term had entered society. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:56, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

::I understand your reasoning, but that seems a little strange... are we going to only mention people based on the term society used for them? In that case, we could end up with some rather strong racial slurs posted in articles. Even though we would detect and revert, it seems like opening the door to extra work on our part. '''[[user:JDavidson|JDavidson]]'''[[User_talk:JDavidson|'''Leave a message ::BEEP::''']] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

:::That's not what he's saying. What is your point? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

== Nice block ==

Nice block of "Mmmm" last night!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:50, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks Andy ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 09:19, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

==NASA Pictures==
The NASA article needs more pictures, can you upload some? Thanks--[[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] 15:31, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

==Crusades==
You appear to have removed my section about the pogroms against the Jews during the First Crusade in your reorg of [[Crusades]]. Was that a mistake or did you intend to do so? I was going to just assume the former, since it was well-sourced, but I thought it might do to check anyway.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:06, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:It was intentional as it was misplaced. The First Crusade was a success. The reference was to the totality of the Crusades and why they failed. If your source leaves out the pain of Francis of Assisi when he visited the Crusader army based on what he saw or the need of the Pope to excommunicate the Crusaders during a later Crusade, and believes it was only due to not keeping Church holidays, then it won't stay. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:16, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::...you could have added those things, if you wanted, without removing other accurate information, don't you think? Or moved it if you thought it was misplaced? Isn't that the usual thing done with sourced actual information? Are you denying the pogrom that occurred in the Rhine valley, which is what I was asking about?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 02:24, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It depends what you think is accurate. The information was entered based upon the 'failure' of the First Crusade and the reasons for it - while in reality that was the one Crusade that succeeded far beyond what would be expected. It's not my place to try to salvage information under those conditions. If you wish to see what information should be put back into the article in some form, one of the things you should ask yourself is does it belong and why? The previous avenue has been closed. I would hope your desire is to enrich the article with whatever information you find that is naturally a part of the subject and that however that unfolds, it unfolds. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:28, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::I read that several times, but I guess I am just not smart enough. What I get is that you didn't think it was your job, essentially. That's weird, since generally on wikis people try to retain the good contributions of other people.
::::My desire is, naturally, to add information about the Crusades. In this case, I was adding information about the hideous atrocities enacted against Jews during the First Crusade. I don't know if you consider that "naturally a part of the subject," but I hope so.
::::Help me out: can I put that back in, or not?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:12, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It is not my place to try to find somewhere for it to fit. The placement and reason for that placement originally given, was incorrect. If you feel it is has natural placement in another part of the article and matches the article scope and flow then put in those elements that you feel meet that criteria and I will examine it. But please realize the following historical information will be included:
:::::1) The mobs that attacked the Jews had nothing to do with the Crusading armies that eventually fought in the Holy Lands
:::::2) The Church authorities consistently tried to order them to desist, to no avail
:::::3) The Christian townspeople tried to hide the Jews from the approaching mobs
:::::4) When the mobs reached a fortified Christian nation, they were denied access as they were viewed as a bunch of unsavory criminals
:::::5) They then attacked the borders of the Christian nation
:::::6) At the moment it appeared victory was in their grasp as they were breaking through, they oddly got confused and fled, dispersing for good
:::::7) Their sudden defeat and fleeing was viewed as divine justice upon them from God
:::::[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:40, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Uh... okay, cool. You put whatever you want in there, that's fine with me. It's a wiki. I was just going to add the blurb about the pogrom in the Rhine valley, and since I think somewhere in there was assent, I will do so again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:44, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
==Email==
I sent you an email -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:43, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Email me back after you follow the instructions -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah|Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 01:44, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

==Apology for my Edit on [[Al Franken]]==

I sincerely apologise for any harm I caused by suggesting that you hadn't read ''Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them''. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:48, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

== Where does one find the sysop group? ==

I don't know where to find it.
But common sense would dictate that the one who puts a disputed fact into an article is the one who needs to back it up. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 02:59, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:While I certainly respect that you have been given Sysop authority longer than I have, the general concensus among Sysops from when I asked the question before I was given the honor has been that flags are given for questioning only when there is a belief of error. Part of the belief is that we want all editors to actively contribute which means coming alongside and helping to build instead of pointing out to others where they need to do work. It's also best to send a private email to a fellow Sysop as a courtesy before questioning him in public. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:11, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
I
::Fair enough. On second thought, I think the tags are not needed. However, with the citations, I disagree. If you make a claim in court, the burden of proof is on you. It is the same way here, (or should be) regardless of how it has been applied up till now. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 03:15, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I've sent you an email to discuss this further if you wish. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:32, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

== Apology ==

It was wrong of me to reverse your block without contacting you first. I would like to apologize for that. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 15:06, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thank you Tim, and no problem. I am writing you back right now. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:45, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

== Barack Obama Edit ==

You removed a section that I had added to the Presidential Campaign paragraph: "In analyzing the plans of both candidates, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that Senator Obama's plan offered larger tax breaks to low- and middle-income taxpayers. Alternately, McCain's plan, the center found, would result in tax cuts that "primarily benefit those with very high incomes." <ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25133125/ Economists across political spectrum question McCain's portrayal of Obama </ref>" It was clearly referenced, plays a part in the presidential campaign, adds information to the entry, and it was from a nonpartisan center.

Can you explain your removal of it from the encyclopedic entry of Barack Obama? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:11, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:The article isn't about a comparative analysis of what each candidate has adopted as their platform. Sticking that in there was out of place. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:14, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Then can I add it to the 2008 presidential elections entry, since that is more about comparative analysis? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:57, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If that article is constructed in that form, then it may be an appropriate entry, but you will need to clean it up first. As it is right now, it says very little. What are the plans of the two candidates? You completely leave that out and instead address only the conclusion of a group to that which you have not even explained. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Thanks ==

Thank you. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==Fixed==
Thanks for replying to me email, it has been fixed now. Not sure what was going on but I was missing the 'edit' button. It appeared back again though.
Thanks though mate!
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:14, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Universe

2008-06-17T20:55:53Z

AdenJ: reverted as string theory and other predict other multiverses outside our universe and in higher dimensions - which are material

[[Universe]] refers to all of material existence or natural things ([[matter]] and [[energy]]).

There have been and continue to be a number of competing ideas about the universe, but most agree that the universe is expanding.
The size, shape, and age of the universe, as well as how it began, are, however, all points of contention.

== Shape ==

The common view among [[cosmology|cosmologists]] is that the universe is a four dimensional Riemannian [[manifold]] whose spatial part of the metric is increasing over time. This is interpreted as an expansion of the universe.

Imagine you are at a random spot on a spotted balloon, when someone inflates the balloon you'll see the spots moving away from you, so it would seem you are at the center of the expansion.
Furthermore, the further away the spots are the faster they move away from you.
This is also true for the universe: the more distant a [[galaxy]] is, the faster it moves away from us.

Further imagine that you are a creature that only exists in two dimensions.
That is, you have width and depth, but no height.
So living on the surface of the balloon, you cannot see the shape of the balloon itself.
If you went for a walk in a straight line, you would actually go around the balloon and end up where you started, despite not being aware that you were travelling in a circle.

The theory goes that the three dimensions of our universe that we can see are like the two dimensions of the surface of the balloon, which wraps around on itself in another dimension, so that if we travelled through space in a straight line, we would eventually return to our starting point. The fourth dimension is [[time]] and [[String theory]] holds the universe exists right up to [[The Tenth Dimension|ten dimensions]].

One consequence of this idea is that the universe therefore has no edge (just like there is no edge to the surface of a balloon) and therefore no center.
Thus for any location in space, it would appear that that location is at the center of the expansion of the universe.

If we were really at the center of the universe, this would support the idea that the [[Earth]] occupies a "special place" in the universe, which would support the biblical idea of [[creation]], even though the [[Bible]] does not claim that the Earth is physically in the center of the universe.
So many scientists find the idea that it only ''looks like'' we are at the center of the universe an attractive one.

However, recent [[redshift]] data showing a series of concentric [[sphere]]s of redshift quantization supports the idea that our [[galaxy]] (the [[Milky Way Galaxy|Milky Way]]) really is at or close to the center of the universe.<ref>Humphreys, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ Our galaxy is the center of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show], ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2):95–104, 2002.</ref>

== Age ==

According to one version of{{fact}} the [[big Bang theory|big bang theory]], the universe erupted into existence from nothing<ref>Discover magazine, in introducing the ideas of [[Alan Guth]], said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.</ref> approximately 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] have developed a number of models which explain the age of the universe as being affected by the time-warping effects of gravity as predicted by [[Einstein]]'s [[General Theory of Relativity]], so that the age of the universe as measured by a hypothetical observer at the edge of the universe might be 14 billion years, but as measured by an observer on Earth is only 6,000 years.<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', 2007.</ref>

== Size ==

A recent calculation placed the visible universe at about 156 billion [[light year]]s across.<ref name="size">[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!] (Space.com)</ref>
This creates a dilemma of faster than light movement, but it is speculated that the expansion of space itself can exceed the [[speed of light]] even if the objects within it moving on their own can not.<ref name="size" />
As an analogy, imagine ants (galaxies), that can't walk faster than 20 centimetres per second, sitting on an elastic cord.
Normally two ants moving away from each other could not exceed a speed of 40cm/s relative to each other (speed of light).
However, if the cord is stretched while the ants are moving (expansion of space), the ants' speed relative to each other can be greater.

Current theories on the universe means that scientists are only able to account for 4% of the matter in the universe, so new theories of dark matter (unseen matter) have been developed to explain this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20360059/ Where is the rest of the universe?]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-16T22:48:20Z

AdenJ:

Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said -

If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --AndrasK 00:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

If the proposed entry is truthful as the liberal style entry is, then I don't mind. In fact, I welcome it. But the proposed entry becomes a magnet for liberal vandalism and liberals won't watch and police their own, then it will be deleted.--Aschlafly 08:25, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a heads up, and it is truthful as far as conservative positions on this site.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 06:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:No comment neccessary! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:26, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::If you are not willing to discuss then you are in no position to delete, it has long been accepted that a person must justify their removals rather than simply doing it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::The material included is indeed Liberal vandalism. The contents will be deleted. If you wish to make accurate and truthful additions, these will be welcomed. If you restore the article as currently written, you will be blocked. Thank you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Please elaborate on exactly what is liberal vandalism, and why the contents you keep deleting are untruthful. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:42, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Constant demands for further and further elaboration of arguments by you and your Liberal chums are not intended to spread enlightenment, nor to answer rational questions, but are purely disruptive in intent. The libellous and untrue nature of the deleted content is obvious to anyone with even half a brain. It has gone, it will stay gone. And if you do not wish to join it, tread carefully. Finis. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:45, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::Perhaps we have just found the first example for the new entry. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::A humourist! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

First off, Bugler, British spellings are not allowed here. Secondly, the article simply summarizes the style used by conservatives on Conservapedia. Please explain how "demonizing negative traits as 'liberal ______'" is not an example of a style used on this website. Saying that my requests for information are "liberal" will only prove my point, and will not contribute to the willingness of you as a conservative to "learn together." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:41, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Also, calling conservative style the antithesis of liberal style actually validates the original point made about conservatives establishing clear dichotomies on any issue. Making claims based on actual examples of conservative argumentation does not "amount to liberal vandalism." --[[User:IlTrovatore|IlTrovatore]] 18:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree and I took a 2 hour (ideological) block for it.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:48, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-16T21:49:07Z

AdenJ:

{{debate}}
== Premise ==

Pharmacists are expected to fill any valid, legal prescription issued by a physician. However, dispensing some drugs, like Plan-B, puts some pro-life pharmacists into a personal moral dilemma. If they do not fill the prescription they are interfering with a doctor-patient relationship, but if they do, they are facilitating something they consider immoral.

== Yes ==

Pharmacists made a choice to work in that profession, and that choice comes with an obligation to support doctor-patient relationships instead of interfering with them. They have no right to prevent a valid, legal prescription from being filled just because they object to it on a personal level. If they can't find employment in a scenario where they will never face that choice, then they need to find another way to make a living. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 15:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, there's a difference between not personally filling a prescription and preventing it from being filled, I'd say. If a pharmacist has moral objections, and stands aside so another pharmacist can fill the prescription, I think that's a lot different than actively stopping someone from receiving a prescription. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:53, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::That only works when there's a non-objecting pharmacist on hand to fill the prescription, so if you're in a one-person pharmacy or they all have the same convictions you're out of luck. When there's no other option the prescription should be filled.
:::As an aside, I'd think I could safely place a bet that the same pharmacists who object to filling Plan-B prescriptions have no problem ringing up cigarettes for their customers. You never see an outcry from smokers who can't get cashiers to sell them tobacco.--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::As I see it, the issue isn't whether the pharmacist has the right to refuse to act against his conscience. Of course he has that right. The issue is whether his employer has the right to fire an employee who refuses to perform the duties for which he was hired. Again, I say: of course the employer has that right. Sometimes, acting according to your conscience carries consequences. If someone worked in the PR department of a tobacco company, and decided that their conscience required them to put the words "OUR PRODUCT WILL KILL YOU!" in every PR release, I would applaud the courage required to put conscience ahead of career--but I would also support the right of the company to fire that person for not doing the job he was hired to do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:18, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::How about a doctor who works at an abortion clinic, who refuses to perform an abortion, because he is pro-life? That would just be stupid, and the same goes for pharmacists. Do your job or find another one. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 17:19, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Lawyers defend murderers and the like, police will arrest people when I am sure sometimes they disagree with the law they are upholding, Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...why should pharmacists be any differant. If you cant stand the heat..... [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:''Army generals make descions that they may have moral problems with...''Ah yes, the Nuremberg defence. "I voz only follovink orders..." [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:27, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thats irrelevant. How about lawyers?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:Lawyers decline to defend murderers who refuse to plead guilty. Lawyers may defend people accused of murder, who may or may not be murderers, There is a difference. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) I suppose I should refine the premise somewhat. A store has the right to sell or not sell a given product, including any type of prescription drug. If Drugstore X has a "no Plan-B" sales policy that's their right, just as they don't have to sell tobacco or adult magazines. If they do offer it for sale, then there should be a way for a patient to get it filled during business hours regardless of who's on duty - Plan-B has a short time window of effectiveness, so telling a customer to come back later can have consequences. A pharmacist who keeps a patient from getting a med when it's available is interfering with the doctor-patient relationship, and should be fired. The only legitimate intervention a pharmacist should be concerned with is drug interactions. I don't want them deciding what I should or shouldn't take because of their personal values, whether it's Plan-B, morphine, etc. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

And, as Bugler pointed out gods law, we live in a society of laws and one of them is that you can fire someone for not doing thier job. Gods law is irrelevant here. My employer could fire me for a transgression, gods law or not. Also, its the doctors that make these descions, not pharamcists as DinsdaleP points out.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 17:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==No==
Christian - or other religion - pharmacists who feel that the handing out of contraceptive pills would encourage or facilitate pre-marital or extra-marital intercourse are not only within their rights, but indeed fulfilling their moral and religious duties, in declining to co-operate. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

A pharmacist is not a machine. He is a human being dispensing certain materials that, used improperly, are highly dangerous. If he has any reason to believe that a prescribing physician has failed to account for the dangers, moral or other, of any prescription, he has the right—he has the duty—not to fill that prescription.

Some of the very ones wanting pharmacists to behave as though they were little more than "automatic pharmacy machines" would likely be among the first to scream for the scalp of any pharmacist who had the bad luck, or the bad sense, to fill a prescription for Viagra (sildenafil/Pfizer) for an elderly man who then died of a [[heart attack]] in the arms of his illicit mistress that very evening. Or if those activists did not so scream, then his widow's [[attorney]] might.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 17:28, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Well said, Terry. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::However, gentlemen, let me pose this question to you: do I, as an employer, have the right to make it clear to prospective employees that I expect them to fulfill certain obligations, and then to fire them if they fail to fulfill those obligations? In short, if I hire someone with the understanding that he will fill all lawful prescriptions, and then he does not, should I be required to continue to employ him? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:37, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::God's law should have priority over that of Caesar. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-16T21:28:32Z

AdenJ: /* Yes */

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-16T21:24:56Z

AdenJ:

Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?

2008-06-16T21:23:12Z

AdenJ:

Index.php

2008-06-16T21:21:13Z

AdenJ: /* Yes */

Talk:Conservative style

2008-06-16T10:24:36Z

AdenJ: New page: Before anyone just goes and deletes this is hould be know that this was said - If that is the case, then you would have no objection to the creation of a "Conservative style" entry? --An...

Conservative style

2008-06-16T10:18:09Z

AdenJ: Undo revision 475310 by Special:Contributions/Bugler (User talk:Bugler)

== Examples of Conservative Style ==

The style of a conservative often includes these characteristics:

* Portrayal of an issue as if all viewpoints on the matter could clearly be classified in one of two ways (e.g. someone is either " pro-[[abortion]]" or "anti-[[abortion]]") 
* Demonizing all negative traits as "[[liberal]]" in some form
* Generalizing [[liberals]] as one group with the same view 
* A belief that any and all problems can be solved with [[conservative]] values 
* Labeling any [[scientific]] study contrary to a [[conservative]] point as [[liberal bias]]
* Blaming larger societal problems on specific minorities such [[Homosexuals]], [[African-American|African-Americans]] or Mexican-Americans
* Appealing to "truth" or "accuracy" when accused of not providing a balanced depiction of an issue

Conservative style

2008-06-16T10:15:18Z

AdenJ:

Conservative style

2008-06-16T10:14:43Z

AdenJ:

== Examples of Conservative Style ==

The style of a conservative often includes these characteristics:

* Portrayal of an issue as if all viewpoints on the matter could clearly be classified in one of two ways (e.g. someone is either " pro-[[abortion]]" or "anti-[[abortion]]") 
* Demonizing all negative traits as "[[liberal]]" in some form
* Generalizing [[liberals]] as one group with the same view 
* A belief that any and all problems can be solved with [[conservative]] values 
* Labeling any [[scientific]] study contrary to a [[conservative]] point as [[liberal bias]]>
* Blaming larger societal problems on specific minorities such [[Homosexuals]], [[African-American|African-Americans]] or Mexican-Americans
* Appealing to "truth" or "accuracy" when accused of not providing a balanced depiction of an issue

Conservative style

2008-06-16T10:13:44Z

AdenJ:

== Examples of Conservative Style ==

The style of a conservative often includes these characteristics:

* Portrayal of an issue as if all viewpoints on the matter could clearly be classified in one of two ways (e.g. someone is either " pro-[[abortion]]" or "anti-[[abortion]]") 
* Demonizing all negative traits as "[[liberal]]" in some form
* Generalizing [[liberals]] as one group with the same view 
* A belief that any and all problems can be solved with [[conservative]] values 
* Labeling any [[scientific]] study contrary to a [[conservative]] point as [[liberal bias]]>
* Blaming larger societal problems on specific minorities such [[Homosexuals]], [[African-Americans]] or [[Mexican-Americans]]
* Appealing to "truth" or "accuracy" when accused of not providing a balanced depiction of an issue

Gas giant

2008-06-16T10:11:09Z

AdenJ:

A '''Gas giant''' is a type of [[planet]]. Gas giants consist of [[gas|gases]] and it is believed that there are [[solid]], super [[dense]] cores at their centre. Examples of Gas giants include [[Jupiter]] and [[Saturn]].

Gas giant

2008-06-16T10:10:53Z

AdenJ: will need to expand this one

A '''Gas Giant''' is a type of [[planet]]. Gas Giants consist of [[gas|gases]] and it is believed that there are [[solid]], super [[dense]] cores at their centre. Examples of Gas Giants include [[Jupiter]] and [[Saturn]].

Strawberry

2008-06-16T10:04:59Z

AdenJ:

A '''Strawberry''' is a small, red [[fruit]] and is a type of [[berry]]. It grows above ground on small bushes and is slightly [[cone]] shaped. It has small yellow seeds which, unlike most berries, are on the outside of the [[fruit]].

Strawberry

2008-06-16T10:03:33Z

AdenJ:

A '''Strawberry''' is a small, red [[fruit]] and is a type of [[berry]]. It grows above ground on small bushes and is slightly [[cone]] shaped.

Strawberry

2008-06-16T10:01:53Z

AdenJ: one from the wanted pages!

A '''Strawberry''' is a small, red [[fruit]] similar to a [[berry]]. It grows above ground on small bushes and is slightly [[cone]] shaped.

User talk:Elkman

2008-06-16T04:11:17Z

AdenJ:

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:05, 1 January 2008 (EST)}}

==Reversions==

I've reverted a number of your edits, as I perceived them as being highly suspicious. The most notable one involved citing state laws and a common saying rather than scientific fact to present the view that criminals cannot be rehabilitated. Please feel free to discuss these further. [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 19:03, 15 February 2008 (EST)
: This is a conservative encyclopedia. As such, character flaws and moral failings need to be pointed out as such. See [[Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia]] items #8 and #13. --[[User:Elkman|Elkman]] 19:10, 15 February 2008 (EST)
::Yes, but making highly controversial statements that fly in the face of scientific research by relying on legislation imposed by politicians many years ago and opinion polls is akin to gossip and original research, neither of which are acceptable in any encyclopedia. If you have any proof that depression and alcoholism are moral weaknesses instead of mental illnesses, or if you have any proof that criminals cannot be rehabilitated then please present it, otherwise that bear in mine that even though Conservapedia is a "conservative encyclopedia", it is also a "trustworthy encyclopedia". [[User:TheGuy|TheGuy]] 19:30, 15 February 2008 (EST)

==Sixties==
Sorry, you have me all wrong. By all means add the info you did but it didnt belong in that particular area. What is written is a run down of the bands of the era, not what they were up to. See what i mean?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:11, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

The Sixties

2008-06-16T03:24:22Z

AdenJ: Undo revision 475161 by Special:Contributions/Elkman (User talk:Elkman) add to the band pages not here

'''The Sixties''' (the '''1960s''') is widely celebrated by [[Leftist]]s and [[Liberal]]s as a decade of progress and freedom. However, it was in reality a decade that saw the origin or the worsening of some of the gravest ills to afflict modern society. Far from being the decade of 'peace and love' it was a period of left-inspired war and terror, including the escalation of the [[Vietnam War]] and the outbreak of the [[Cultural Revolution]]; the 'events' of 1968 in universities across the western world saw a minority rabble of [[Trotskyist]] and [[Maoist]] students try to impose their views on society; and the so-called social revolution of the period saw a massive upsurge in [[sexual immorality]] and the abuse of [[illegal drugs]]. Leftist and other 'trendy' educational theories began their assault upon the education of our children. As history Professor Gerard DeGroot records, "For too long the Sixties has been a sacred zone... Cast aside the rose-tinted spectacles and we see mindless mayhem, shallow commercialism and unbridled cruelty... [While the '60s brought] flowers, music, love and good times... It also brought hatred, murder, greed, dangerous drugs, needless deaths, ethnic cleansing, neo-colonialist exploitation, sound-bite politics, sensationalism, a warped sense of equality, a bizarre notion of freedom, and the end of innocence." Truly, as [[Margaret Thatcher]] noted, "We are reaping what was sown in the sixties... fashionable theories and permissive clap-trap set the scene for a society in which the old virtues of discipline and restraint were denigrated."

==Assault upon religion==
This might be said to be two-pronged. The Sixties saw moves away from revealed to religion amongst young people in favour of a half-baked and quarter-understood mish-mash of eastern mysticism, sexual hedonism and drug abuse of the kind peddled by [[The Beatles]] in their 'Maharishi' phase; [[John Lennon]] of The Beatles went on, in his song ''Imagine'', to celebrate and propagandise a nihilistic and [[Atheism|atheistic]] view of human life. Simultaneously, many Christian priests and ministers themselves undermined Chritianity by a variey of means: from watering down the required standards of Christian behaviour in a misguided attempt to seem 'trendy' and 'relevant', completely overlooking the relevance of Faith; to harnessing the Bible to [[Karl Marx]], in the form of the so-called [[Liberation Theology]] which did much to inspire left-wing [[terrorism]] in [[Latin America]].

==The 'Permissive Society': licence unbridled==
[[Chastity]], restraint, and human values of decency were mocked by the 'gurus' of permissiveness. Instead, the increasing availability of artificial contraception in the form of contraceptive pills, fuelled a wave of promiscuity and the promotion and practice of all forms of perversity. Restrictions on [[pornography]] were eroded or evaded, a seminal event here being the decision of a UK court in 1963 to allow the publication of an unexpurgated version of [[D.H. Lawrence]]'s novel [[Lady Chatterley's Lover]] despite its overt and explicit sexual content. Legal reforms permitted or loosened restrictions on [[homosexuality]], [[divorce]] and [[abortion]], undermining the very fabric of family life. Feminists such as [[Germaine Greer]] launched assaults on traditional male-female relationships, while [[Lesbian separatists]] argued that women (which they spelled ''wimmin'' or ''womyn'') and men should lead entirely seperate lives. The use of foul language and displays of nudity became a commonplace on television in many western nations, with the [[BBC]] in the van.

=='Turn on, tune in, drop out'==

This quotation, by 'counter-culture' guru [[Dr Timothy Leary]], epitomises the attitude of many 1960s nostalgiacs towards [[illegal drugs]]. Drugs have been a perennial problem in societies worldwide, but in the 1960s the problem became much worse. This is because drug-taking, which was previously the covert activity of a tiny minority, perceived as immoral as well as illegal by society, suddenly became portrayed as acceptable in the media. Worse, advocates of 'permissiveness' such as Leary openly recommended the use of mind-altering drugs as a means to access a different, supposedly better, reality. Many, if not most, of these advocates had inadequate personalities which prevented them from participating fully in the richness of real life. However, their pernicious effect upon a generation of impressionable young people has been incalculable.

Drug abuse often went hand in hand with [[left wing]] politics, and the 'joint' or 'reefer' became the trademark of the 1960s student leftist plotting world revolution in his bedsit or student dorm.

==Music and Literature==
The Sixties inspired many modern greats in [[music]] and [[literature]] which endure cross generationally, despite misgivings about their personal morality and the message conveyed:

===Music===
*[[The Beatles]]
*[[The Rolling Stones]]
*[[Led Zeppelin]]
*[[The Doors]]
*[[Jimi Hendrix]]
*[[Pink Floyd]]
*[[Jefferson Airplane]]
*[[Janis Joplin]]
*[[Sergeant Barry Sadler]]

===Writers===
*[[Tom Wolfe]]
*[[Hunter S. Thompson]]
*[[Ken Kesey]]
*[[Alan Ginsburg]]
*[[Aldous Huxley]]

==Successes in the Sixties==
The Sixties however did have some good points. The [[Civil Rights Movement]] gained momentum during this period, which saw the end of segregation of the [[African Americans]]. The societal problems caused by the erosion of restraint inspired campaigners such as [[Mary Whitehouse]] to take a stand for decency and Christian standards. Also in 1969 the [[United States]] scored a remarkable triumph on behalf of the [[Free World]] in the [[Space Race]], overcoming a [[Soviet]] lead earlier in the decade, with two members of the courageous crew of [[Apollo 11]] becoming the first two humans to step on to the [[Moon]]

===Significant Events===
*[[Apollo 11]] lands on the [[Moon]]
*[[Cuban Missile Crisis]]
*[[Cultural Revolution]]
*[[Prague Spring]]
*[[Vietnam War]]
*Assassination of [[John F. Kennedy]]
*Assassination of [[Martin Luther King]]

[[Category:History]]

Character

2008-06-16T02:50:06Z

AdenJ:

'''Character''' refers to the indefinable qualities that make up a person's unique [[personality]], especially those traits that are positive. For example, an honest person is said to have "good character." In this sense, character may be interchangeable with [[reputation]].

A character may also be a main participant in a [[drama]] or [[comedy]], or a player-controlled personality in a [[video game]].
Character can also refer to a letter in the alphabet or a number, such as a character on a keyboard.

[[category:Sociology]]

Character

2008-06-16T02:45:12Z

AdenJ:

'''Character''' refers to the indefinable qualities that make up a person's unique [[personality]], especially those traits that are positive. For example, an honest person is said to have "good character." In this sense, character may be interchangeable with [[reputation]].

A character may also be a main participant in a [[drama]] or [[comedy]], or a player-controlled personality in a [[video game]].
Character can also refer to a letter in the alphabet, such as a character on a keyboard.

[[category:Sociology]]

Keith Olbermann

2008-06-16T01:48:04Z

AdenJ: sp and wikify

{{merge|Olbermann Watch}}
[[Image:Keith-ratingslie.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Keith Olbermann, liberal commentator]]
'''Keith Olbermann''' is a [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator and activist,
<ref>Keith Olbermann ... is notorious for anti-Bush, anti-conservative rants. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth] </ref>
formerly a sportscaster on ESPN. He currently hosts ''Countdown,'' a nightly news and commentary program on [[MSNBC]]. Olbermann's show is well known for one-sided analysis of the issues, with [[conservatives]] rarely, if ever, appearing to discuss news events.

==Olbermann sees conspiracies==
In a rambling broadcast after the FBI made an arrest of four [[terror]] suspects for plot to attack JFK International Airport and plant explosives to blow up major jet-fuel supply tanks and pipelines,<ref>[http://newyork.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel07/plot060207.pdf Four Individuals Charged in Plot to Bomb John F. Kennedy International Airport], FBI Press Release New York Field Office, June 2 2007.</ref> Olbermanmn charged the [[Bush adminstration]] with [[conspiracy]]. JFK handles on average over 1,000 flights daily. The plotters were assisted by an international network of Muslim extremists from the United States, Guyana, and Caribbean, including senior leadership of [[Jamaat Al Muslimeen]] (“JAM”), which was responsible for a deadly coup attempt in Trinidad in 1990. In Olbermann
's mind

{{Cquote|the so-called plot happens to be revealed the day before the second [[2008 Presidential Election|Democratic presidential]] debate and, as the scandal continues to unfold over the firings of U.S. attorneys and their replacements by political hacks. The so-called plot is announced by the Bush-appointed U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, New York, and by the police chief of New York City, the father of a correspondent for [[Fox News Channel]]." Olbermann further theorized that President Bush was "fomenting yet another war...a new Cold War with Russia, possibly to obscure the unending nightmare in Iraq. <ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/06/05/publiceye/entry2886646.shtml Olbermann Overstates?,] Matthew Felling, ''CBS News'', June 5, 2007.</ref>}}

Matthew Felling of ''CBS News'' noted, "Hammering away at things that aren’t there – or barely there – is a surefire way to dilute your message."

==Nazi salute controversey==
In July of 2006, the [[Anti-Defamation League]] filed a complaint to MSNBC because of Olbermann's repeated use of the [[Nazi]] salute while attacking popular commentator [[Bill O'Reilly]] on his television show and in public.<ref>[http://www.adl.org/media_watch/tv/20060728-MSNBC.htm Anti-Defamation League Letter to MSNBC], July 28, 2006.</ref>

==''24'' controversy==
The '''''24'' controversy''' concerns a January 2007 incident in which [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] political commentator Keith Olbermann attacked the popular FOX television series ''24'."

On the January 16, 2007 edition of Olbermann's show, ''Countdown with Keith Olbermann'', he accused the widely acclaimed ''[[24]]'' of "fearmongering" and being "propaganda designed to keep people thinking about domestic terrorism to keep us scared" asking, "is it a program-length commercial for one political party?" Olbermann asked the rhetorical question, "if the irrational right can claim that the news is fixed to try to alter people's minds or that networks should be boycotted for nudity or for immorality, shouldn't those same groups be saying ''24'' should be taken off of TV because it's naked [[brainwashing]]?"

This was in response to the January 15 broadcast of ''24'' in which a low-grade nuclear weapon is detonated in the [[Valencia]] community of [[Los Angeles]] by a [[terrorist]] group. Fox Commentator [[Cal Thomas]] had written an editorial in which he advised, "Watch the TV drama 24 for what could be our prophetic and imminent future, with a nuclear device exploding in major cities."

On the February 2, 2007 edition of ''Countdown'', Olbermann gave the show the "bronze" in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment.

==See Also==
*[http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N2IwYTc1MTVlMTU0ZDZlN2ViZGI0YzJmZWJiZjBhZTE= Keith Olbermann: "24" is a Right-Wing Plot]

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10206 Olbermann Denounces '24' as Part of Pro-Bush 'Fearmongering' and 'Brainwashing']

*[http://newsbusters.org/node/10224 Olbermann Hates '24', NewsBusters, and All References to Terrorism]

*[http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/syuhas_20070118.html MSNBC's Very Own Conspiracy Nut: Keith Olbermann & Fox's fictional TV show '24']

*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obADH-gUG5o Video of Olbermann's accusations]

==References==
<references/>

==See Also==
:[[Olbermann Watch]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Olbermann, Keith}}

[[Category:Broadcasters|Olbermann, Keith]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists|Olbermann, Keith]]

Butterfly effect

2008-06-16T01:39:11Z

AdenJ: removed silly sentance

The '''Butterfly effect''' is the essence of [[Chaos Theory]]. It holds that a system can be sensitve to intial conditions. Such systems can become unstable over time, such as the [[weather]] and gives rise to the notion that a [[Butterfly]] flapping its wings in [[New York]] can cause a [[hurricane]] in the [[pacific]]<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/beffect.html</ref>.

==In Popular Culture==
The butterfly effect is usually found in [[science fiction]] stories and [[movies]]. It describes the possibility of a person traveling back in time, and inadvertently changing some miniscule thing in the past — such as [[murder|killing]] a [[butterfly]] — that has momentous consequences as time goes by, so that the he returns to a radically altered [[future]].

Most agree that this scenario is impossible. The [[Bible]] describes only [[Jesus]]<ref>"Before [[Abraham]] was born, I am", [[John]] 8:58</ref> and [[God]]<ref>"I the LORD do not change", [[Malachi]] 3:6</ref> as capable of [[time travel]]. Despite this assertion, the Butterfly Effect makes appearances in many [[Hollywood values|Hollywood]] films (most of which have been condemned by the [[Vatican]]). Movies of this type include:

*''[[It's A Wonderful Life]]''
*''[[Back To The Future]]''
*''[[Frequency]]''
*''[[The Butterfly Effect]]''

The [[Butterfly]] effect was also a central theme of [[Isaac Asimov]]'s [[short story]] "A Sound of Thunder", in which a man travels back in time to hunt [[dinosaur]]s, and inadvertently shoots a [[butterfly]] by mistake. This scenario, while plausible enough as a [[science fiction]] story, could certainly never happen in real life.

==See also==
*[[Time travel]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fiction]]

Conservative style

2008-06-16T01:33:52Z

AdenJ: should be formatted like this

== Examples of Conservative Style ==

The style of a conservative often includes these characteristics:

* Portrayal of an issue as if all viewpoints on the matter could clearly be classified in one of two ways (e.g. someone is either " pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion") 
* Demonizing all negative traits as "Liberal [insert word here]" 
* Generalizing [[liberals]] as one group with the same view 
* A belief that any and all problems can be solved with [[conservative]] values 
* Labeling any scientific study contrary to a conservative point as "biased liberal hogwash." 
* Blaming larger societal problems on specific minorities (read Homosexuals, African-Americans, Mexican-Americans etc.)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T00:04:46Z

AdenJ: sp

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/marriage-divorce-99.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" then that says more about you than me.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==

I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-16T00:04:06Z

AdenJ: /* Suggestion... */

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "pe mople should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Still no details from AdenJ, so I'll give you some: the divorce rate in New Zealand is almost as high as the marriage rate! [http://www.stats.govt.nz/products-and-services/Articles/marriage-divorce-99.htm] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am not going to give you details of mine or others marriages and your stats, while true, say nothing about my situation or my friends. I said I am happy and my friends are happy so what reason do you have to suggest I am lying? If your reason is "because they are liberals" than that says more about you than me.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 20:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Wow ==

I don't even know what to say, this essay turns my stomach. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 20:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T23:49:10Z

AdenJ: /* Suggestion... */

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "people should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I. You have basically implied I am a liar based on......well, nothing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T23:41:14Z

AdenJ: /* Suggestion... */

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "people should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: No, that's not all you said. You also claimed "so are many of [your] friends." And there is strikingly little detail about your own marriage, such as the basic number of years you've been married (and how many times). If you and your friends are as liberal as you say, then unfortunately I'm confident there is a lot of marital unhappiness there and many divorces. I'm not asking for the gory details, but I do object to the false portrayal of it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

What? Are you serious? You are doubting what I say based on what? None of my friends have ever been divorced and neither have I. We are all very happy and, actually, I dont know why I even dignify your comment with an answer. Yes it is unfortunate that you are confident you know my life better then I.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T23:19:29Z

AdenJ: /* Suggestion... */

I LOVE the statement that all liberals are unfaithful. My mom and dad have been married for 27 years, and they have never cheated on each other, and have three kids, myself included. --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Your comment is ridiculous and takes literalism to a new level. Nowhere does the essay say that '''all''' Liberals are unfaithful. However, such are [[Liberal]] values by their nature that the likelihood of infidelity, violence, STDs etc is far higher among Liberals than Conservatives. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:18, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:"Transfan", you left out one detail: you seem to have trouble reading and/or thinking, as demonstrated by Bugler's response.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Wow, Andy! LOVE the personal attacks you're dishing out today! --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 16:41, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It is good you are easily amused, Transfan, but it would be even better if you expressed an understanding of your own mistake.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Examples==
Will this essay be expanded to include sourced examples, or will it continue to consist of unverifiable anecdotes? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: We're not going to violate anyone's privacy, but there may be examples that are already published elsewhere that could be sourced. Ronald Reagan's first marriage comes to mind.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Wandering, aren't you going to follow through and post the example of Ronald Reagan's first marriage?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I'm a bit concerned that such an example could be taken the wrong way, Andy. I've known some liberals to make much of Reagan's rulings as governor of California (particularly his self-admitted mistake of signing a bill that expanded abortion.) Isn't it likely that they'd take the opportunity to twist an example of his first marriage into an attack on the man? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not once the details are set forth. I guess Wandering isn't going to follow through on his suggestion, so I suppose I'll have to do this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:04, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Suggestion... ==

The vagaries of life that define the contours of one's romantic life are hard to reduce to an aphorism, and I can't help but think that for every example you put up a counterexample could be found. I'll testify for myself that I'm a liberal grad student, and have been in a committed relationship for five years now (we're talking about marriage), but I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears; I need a challenge, and my girlfriend of five years has always been great fun to debate and learn from. Her counsel is invaluable to me, and her life as a young professional the source of countless exciting conversations, and a great deal of pride for me, for whatever small credit I can claim in her accomplishments (and she mine).

But that's my choice. Others may see it the other way. I wouldn't reduce my own taste to a generic lesson for the populace, any more than I would try to foist my preference for brunettes on the world either!-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 16:59, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: ''I would never consider marrying a conservative woman. A woman who thinks that her only goals in life revolve around family and the home would bore me to tears'' Why think that? There are many, many examples of Conservative women who render your hoary old stereotype a... hoary old stereotype. And giving birth and raising a family at home doesn't require a brain removal, you know. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:01, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::Of course not! I know that. But the conservative women I've met - as conservative is defined on this website - seem to think that it does. Submission, and all that. [[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Your candid comments are appreciated, but "submission" is a stereotype rather than a conservative value. Many "grad school" relationships do not last 10, 20 and ultimately 50 years of marriage. To the extent one party to the relationship insists on [[liberal]] values, there can be lots of unhappiness that follow for ''both'' parties to the relationship down the road.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Thanks for telling me my relationship is going to fail. I didn't know "sniping at your ideological opponents" was a conservative value," but now I guess I do. And I think your aphorism is best reduced to "people should make sure their life goals match, regardless of political persuasion." That seems to be much more accurate, and a lot less needlessly hurtful, no?
::::As for "submission is a stereotype," let's investigate. Can a "conservative" woman in your mind have a job?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 18:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Wow, AShepard, you insult conservative women, to which no one takes offense, but woe to anyone who even slightly challenges your views! Perhaps you're right you're better off finding a liberal spouse, because a conservative one wouldn't be able to stand your reactions (and absurd stereotypes)!

::::: Sure, you and wife can have a job, as you obviously expect. And then a child arrives, and there is the issue of who is going to take care of the child. Often liberal women want the man to provide at least half that care, whereupon there is juggling your job with that, and juggling the wife's job with her half. The stress hits fourfold from that awkward arrangement, careers suffer, the child frequently gets sick in group care, nerves start to snap, and the marriage begins to feel the strain. And that's if all goes well! The situation can be even worse if no child arrives, as before long the spouses can grow apart.

::::: It's not a formula for success. I wish everyone the best who tries. I also do my best to let them know what's in store for them so they don't go down a road they'd rather not travel.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

I am a moderate and so is my partner (Moderate in NZ is liberal in the states) and so are many of our friends but we have a wonderful life. Same with our friends also. In fact, we have gotten happier as time goes on.
Also, small point, I dont think a liberal would want to marry a conservative.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 18:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: I'm sure there are counterexamples. I'm also sure you're not telling us the whole story about marriages by [[liberals]] among people in NZ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Hmmmmm well I am not telling you any stories about marrige in NZ, whole or otherwise. All I know is my liberal (and atheist I might add) partner and I are very happy.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Universe

2008-06-15T22:46:40Z

AdenJ: /* Shape */

The [[universe]] is everything there is in regards to material existence.
There have been and continue to be a number of competing ideas about the universe, but most agree that the universe is expanding.
The size, shape, and age of the universe, as well as how it began, are, however, all points of contention.

== Shape ==

The common view among [[cosmology|cosmologists]] is that the universe is a four dimensional Riemannian [[manifold]] whose spatial part of the metric is increasing over time. This is interpreted as an expansion of the universe.

Imagine you are at a random spot on a spotted [[balloon]], when someone inflates the balloon you'll see the spots moving away from you, so it would seem you are at the center of the expansion.
Furthermore, the further away the spots are the faster they move away from you.
This is also true for the universe: the more distant a [[galaxy]] is, the faster it moves away from us.

Further imagine that you are a creature that only exists in two dimensions.
That is, you have width and depth, but no height.
So living on the surface of the balloon, you cannot see the shape of the balloon itself.
If you went for a walk in a straight line, you would actually go around the balloon and end up where you started, despite not being aware that you were travelling in a circle.

The theory goes that the three dimensions of our universe that we can see are like the two dimensions of the surface of the balloon, which wraps around on itself in another dimension, so that if we travelled through space in a straight line, we would eventually return to our starting point. The fourth dimension is [[time]] and [[String theory]] holds the universe exsists right up to [[The Tenth Dimension|ten dimensions]].

One consequence of this idea is that the universe therefore has no edge (just like there is no edge to the surface of a balloon) and therefore no center.
Thus for any location in space, it would appear that that location is at the center of the expansion of the universe.

If we were really at the center of the universe, this would support the idea that the [[Earth]] occupies a "special place" in the universe, which would support the biblical idea of [[creation]], even though the [[Bible]] does not claim that the Earth is physically in the center of the universe.
So many scientists find the idea that it only ''looks like'' we are at the center of the universe an attractive one.

However, recent [[redshift]] data showing a series of concentric [[sphere]]s of redshift quantization supports the idea that our [[galaxy]] (the [[Milky Way Galaxy|Milky Way]]) really is at or close to the center of the universe.<ref>Humphreys, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ Our galaxy is the center of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show], ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2):95–104, 2002.</ref>

== Age ==

According to one version of{{fact}} the [[big Bang theory|big bang theory]], the universe erupted into existence from nothing<ref>Discover magazine, in introducing the ideas of [[Alan Guth]], said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.</ref> approximately 14 billion years ago, and has been expanding ever since.

[[Young Earth Creationism|Young-Earth creationists]] have developed a number of models which explain the age of the universe as being affected by the time-warping effects of gravity as predicted by [[Einstein]]'s [[General Theory of Relativity]], so that the age of the universe as measured by a hypothetical observer at the edge of the universe might be 14 billion years, but as measured by an observer on Earth is only 6,000 years.<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', 2007.</ref>

== Size ==

A recent calculation placed the visible universe at about 156 billion [[light year]]s across.<ref name="size">[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!] (Space.com)</ref>
This creates a dilemma of faster than light movement, but it is speculated that the expansion of space itself can exceed the [[speed of light]] even if the objects within it moving on their own can not.<ref name="size" />
As an analogy, imagine ants (galaxies), that can't walk faster than 20 centimetres per second, sitting on an elastic cord.
Normally two ants moving away from each other could not exceed a speed of 40cm/s relative to each other (speed of light).
However, if the cord is stretched while the ants are moving (expansion of space), the ants' speed relative to each other can be greater.

Current theories on the universe means that scientists are only able to account for 4% of the matter in the universe, so new theories of dark matter (unseen matter) have been developed to explain this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20360059/ Where is the rest of the universe?]</ref>

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative

2008-06-15T22:38:32Z

AdenJ: /* Suggestion... */

Butterfly effect

2008-06-15T21:02:11Z

AdenJ:

The '''Butterfly effect''' is the essence of [[Chaos Theory]]. It holds that a system can be sensitve to intial conditions. Such systems can become unstable over time, such as the [[weather]] and gives rise to the notion that a [[Butterfly]] flapping its wings in [[New York]] can cause a [[hurricane]] in the [[pacific]]<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/beffect.html</ref>.

==In Popular Culture==
The butterfly effect is usually found in [[science fiction]] stories and [[movies]]. It describes the possibility of a person traveling back in time, and inadvertently changing some miniscule thing in the past — such as [[murder|killing]] a [[butterfly]] — that has momentous consequences as time goes by, so that the he returns to a radically altered [[future]].

Movies of this type include:

*''[[It's A Wonderful Life]]''
*''[[Back To The Future]]''
*''[[Frequency]]''
*''[[The Butterfly Effect]]''

The [[Butterfly]] effect was also a central theme of [[Isaac Asimov]]'s [[short story]] "A Sound of Thunder", in which a man travels back in time to hunt [[dinosaur]]s, and inadvertently shoots a [[butterfly]] by mistake. This scenario, while plausible enough as a [[science fiction]] story, could certainly never happen in real life.

==See also==
*[[Time travel]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fiction]]

Butterfly effect

2008-06-15T21:01:34Z

AdenJ: Much better. Describes what The Butterfly Effect pertains too

The '''Butterfly effect''' is the essence of [[Chaos Theory]]. It holds that a system can be sensitve to intial conditions. Such systems can become unstable over time, such as the [[weather]] and gives rise to the notion that a [[Butterfly]] flapping its wings in [[New York]] can cause a [[hurricane]] in the [[pacific]]<ref>http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/beffect.html</ref>.

==In Popular Culture==
The butterfly effect is usually found in [[science fiction]] stories and [[movies]]. It describes the possibility of a person traveling back in time, and inadvertently changing some miniscule thing in the past — such as [[murder|killing]] a [[butterfly]] — that has momentous consequences as time goes by, so that the he returns to a radically altered [[future]].

Movies of this type include:

*''[[It's A Wonderful Life]]''
*''[[Back To The Future]]''
*''[[Frequency]]''
*''[[The Butterfly Effect]]''

The Butterfly effect was also a central theme of Isaac Asimov's [[short story]] "A Sound of Thunder", in which a man travels back in time to hunt [[dinosaur]]s, and inadvertently shoots a butterfly by mistake. This scenario, while plausible enough as a science fiction story, could certainly never happen in real life.

==See also==
*[[Time travel]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Fiction]]

User talk:Aggrieved

2008-06-15T03:03:12Z

AdenJ: /* == Administrative action == */

{{Welcome}} -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 11:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:The topic of the debate was "Which is worse?". Your comments appeared unrelated. If you want to complain that you (or your sock) isn't allowed to post "relevant information", the burden of proof is on you to establish its relevance. This is not an opinion blog. Try everything2 if that's what you want.

:Or start a debate like "[[Conservapedia:Is Expelled fair?|Is Expelled fair?]]" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Guantanamo Bay releasees ==

Sir, you just called me a liar with regard to released Gitmo prisoners going right back to the battlefield and doing the exact same thing all over again that they landed at Gitmo for in the first place: killing Americans.

You had better do one of three things:

# Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them.
# Retract your last comment and apologize to me.
# Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration.

No need for you to reply on my talk page; I shall set a watch on this one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ok, Terry, if you want to take such a combative tone, let's get more specific - what you said was that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", yes? I take it you have proof of this, yes?

:Now, why is it '''I''' who has to prove an allegation? You prove yours first. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 18:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::When my life is at stake, you can repose one hundred percent confidence that I will be combative.

::You show me an ironclad reference about someone who landed at Gitmo for longer than a couple of years, got out, and did not go right back to doing the thing whereof he stood accused, and we'll go from there.

::And mind your tone when you talk to me. I'm an administrator and you're not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Deghayes
:::You might want to apologize for threatening to block him now. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, and if you have some free time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Guantanamo_detainees_known_to_have_been_released
::::Happy researching! [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:06, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

<- Murat Kurnaz [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's a story (from Fox News no less) that says 7% of the 500 released are "confirmed or suspected" by the Pentagon of returning to the war [http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/is-gitmo-turning-sheep-herders-into-jihadists/]. As I understand it, the original claim on main page talk was that released prisoners aren't typically going back, although in the list above the demand is for a citation that they're innocent. Presumably the former is the issue, and this ought to resolve it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:David Hicks, I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks in my backyard recently. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:10, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

# I don't know who David Hicks is, so that name is irrelevant.
# The reason that some of you might not have heard of any terrorist attacks in your backyard might ''be'' Guantanamo. You shut that down, and you ''will'' hear of a terrorist attack in your backyard. Or mine.
# The case of Omar Deghayes is incomplete. Notice that ''if'' that Wikipedia entry is accurate, then he still faces extradition to Spain.
# I suspect that some people suffer from yet another "fundamental flaw of presumption," in this case that everything that a lawyer says, in or out of court, is always true, complete, and correct to best of said lawyer's knowledge and belief.
# That 7% statistic is probably conservative in a way that normally doesn't impress me. And that's a far cry from the ''zero'' that some people have been presuming.

We deal here, if I may so observe, with two competing probabilities with distinctly different levels of cost. One is having somebody languish in prison for a few years. The other is to have a million Americans dead. Which would you rather?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry, if you dont know who David Hicks even is how can you through around accusations that everyone from Gitmo has turned out back on the battlefield? David Hicks WAS a prisoner and David Hicks WAS released and now lives quietly in Australia. You seem to have little knowledge on the subject so don't insult those who do know.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh for heaven's sake Terry, how could you have an interest in this subject and NOT know who [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks David Hicks] is? It was a HUGE, international news story - both his detainment in Afghanistan (because he was a white westerner) and his trial (because Australia had to decide if they would allow him to be tried by a US military tribunal). If there has been one Guantanamo Bay detainee in the past six years whose name might actually be known by the general public, it would be his. I advise you know something - anything - about a topic before you make such wild claims again in the future.. His case was ANYTHING but irrelevant to the entire saga of Guantanamo Bay, as you'll learn if you read the linked article. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Terry - it is you who have made an unsubstantiated assertion, not I. Again I ask you for proof of your assertion. I note you have found it impossible to come by. It is easier to prove my case, much easier. Try [http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,2275535,00.html Murat Kurnaz], for example, living in Germany since his release. David Hicks is alive and well in Australia. There are countless numbers of them who have '''not''' returned to combat Terry, and while I am certainly not denying that ''some'' have returned to combat, your claim that "to a man, every one of them" has done so is obviously completely incorrect. The [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/45738.htm Dept. of State's official report] clearly says that "some detainees upon their release are returning to combat" (search for the phrase, no way to provide a hard link) - I imagine that if they could have made your claim, they would have been much happier, but they couldn't, so they didn't. Because it's not true.

:::: Clearly, you are wrong, and childish attempts to bully me with your 'superior sysopship' don't change reality, sadly. Do you admit that you are wrong, and do you apologize? I would also ask you to mind your tone, thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I admit no such thing. Those cases you've cited are still open, as far as I'm concerned. And I ought to block you just for using words like "childish" even if it ''is'' on your talk page. Retract that remark right now or you ''will'' get blocked just for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:So until they die having committed no further terrorist act you will not be convinced that a single person released from Guantanamo has not returned (or turned) to being a terrorist? David Hicks was one of the most publicised trials (to the best of my knowledge being the first). I would be surprised if anyone could claim knowledge about Guantanamo or its prisoners without knowing his name. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Also we're talking about whether those released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield, not whether Guantanamo was effective or whether or not its prisoners were innocent. Please keep on topic. Your second and third points above (when you used numbers) are wholly irrelevant, and as for the 7% statistic you challenged someone to show that one person did not return to combat (allowing 99.8% to return - ?), even if you increase the stat fivefold to 35% your position is still very flawed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::"to a man, every one of those "released" people has turned up doing exactly the same thing again—killing Americans." - those are your own words, Terry, and they are ''wrong''. Additionally, "then he still faces extradition to Spain.". You might be interested in this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/446518.html [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I said no such thing as the above, and you know it. I ought to tell you to stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration. That I haven't until now is that earlier you provided some information that might have been helpful. Your latest comments are not helpful.

I remind everyone that the war is not over yet, and will not be over until some person or group of persons, having a legitimate claim to speak for all Muslims everywhere, publicly repudiates the Medina ''Surat'' of the Koran, the ones containing all the fighting words. Words like "Fight and slay the infidels wheresoever ye find them." And even then it's going to take a lot of convincing, because lying is a part of how a Muslim deals with non-Muslims. The Arabs call it ''taquiyya''. [[Josef Goebbels]] no doubt had another name for it.

I have ''yet'' to see anyone mentioned who didn't get off on technicalities. I'm not conceding ''anything'' until I see a report of someone who was absolutely peaceful and still is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry - here is the difflink to where [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=474270 you made the claim]. I'm sorry, but you said it. And don't try moving the goalposts - we're only debating one thing here - your claim that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again". And nothing else. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:You also obviously have no clue about Islam, because it is not an organised religion (such as Catholicism) and therefore no person can ever legitimately speak for all Muslims everywhere. Also please note that you started threatening a user because he disputed you stating that all of those released have returned to the battlefield, not that all those released were originally innocent. Please try and keep on topic. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:49, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
*TerryH, it seems you came here to discuss something with User:Aggrieved, but have been mugged by wikistalkers. May I give short blocks to some of these more notorious trolls? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:HenryS, I would politely ask that you stay out of this. The "wikistalkers" at least know what they are talking about. The idea that someone could make a claim about released combatants and not know who David Hicks is beggars belief, and I would gently suggest that you leave us to finish this debate amongst ourselves. Thanks a million for your concern. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::[Edit conflict] He threatened to block a user if he couldn't provide the name of a person who was released from Guantanamo and who did not return from combat. Many people such as myself viewed this as an unfair challenge and try to prevent any damage by providing names to Aggrieved. TerryH then chose to argue against the information we provided. This is not wikistalking or trolling, it is a debate and an attempt to prevent a user being blocked for what we perceive as an unfair cause. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== == Administrative action == ==

'''''ATTENTION'''''

This user is now blocked for two weeks.

He had the bad sense to make demands of me on [[Talk:Main_Page]].

Users Wandering, StatsMsn, and AdenJ: Stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration, or you'll get the same thing that this user got. And don't you ever, '''''EVER''''', tell another administrator what to do on this site. I'm going to watch this page for another twenty-four hours. You have that long to apologize.

HenryS, thanks for the offer of assistance. But as you can see, about all that need you to do is to bear witness.

And anyone else who reads this page: The issue here is a lot larger than some people seem to realize or want to acknowledge. It's a lot bigger than somebody who got off on a technicality, and someone else on whom some Spanish judges took pity while not repeat ''not'' acquitting that someone of guilt for his offenses. It's also about unreliable sources, and about news organs that pretend to be objective when in fact they are the house organs for the Democratic Party or even for Al-Qa'ida (I speak here of Al-Jazeera, but the way some other news organs have been acting...well, you get the idea).

And that's why, as a contributor, I don't concede ''anything'' as regards detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

And as an administrator, I don't tolerate public expressions of contempt for my ''position'' as an administrator.

Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
: What do I have to apologize for? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:37, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::For meddling in a quarrel that was not yours, and expressing your own contempt of an administrator in the process. And you're doing it all over again. Stop it right now, or get blocked for three days.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::This was never a quarrel with administration, this was an argument between two users about whether or not those released from Guantanamo returned to the battlefield. We provided numerous examples of cases where [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=474273 your statement] was wrong, the most notable being David Hicks. You chose to ignore these and try to shift the debate to one about their innocence before their detention, not afterwards. You threatened to block Aggrieved if he failed to provide supporting evidence, he and others have done so on this page, however you have chosen not to address it.

::Contempt of the administration is when someone actively derides those in charge, not when (s)he has a disagreement with someone who has been granted administrative powers. You want to block me for pointing this out, go ahead. However, keep in mind that at the end of the day the only way this encyclopedia is going to succeed is if all users are given the same rights in debates, and sysops only use their privileges to block those who break the rules, not those they disagree with. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is. I never called you are liar, never asked you to apologise or anything. I am at a loss to what I would be apologising for..?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::And you don't think you're actively deriding me? And am I not one of those in charge around here?

:::Yes, I now know who David Hicks is. He's an active supporter of terrorism, and appears on his way to getting off on a technicality that the US Supreme Court unwisely handed him. That does not make him innocent; only one who gamed and beat the system.

:::Besides, this issue is a whale of a lot bigger than you seem to want to admit. The potential deaths of a million Americans ought to be big enough. But the systematic fraud perpetrated by the Fourth Estate on the consuming public is a bigger one. We're done accepting twisted news as truth. We have our own standards. And part of that is a critical examination—I say again, a ''critical examination''—of every story that gets published anywhere, and ''exactly'' what that story actually says, not what some people would like to believe that it said.

:::That's enough arguing. You're now down to twenty-three hours. Start thinking, and thinking fast.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:55, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I did not deride you, you said all the men from Gitmo were back on the fighting front. I disagreed and posted a link. That is all.
So, please, what do you want me to apologise for?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 23:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Aggrieved

2008-06-15T02:42:01Z

AdenJ: /* == Administrative action == */

{{Welcome}} -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 11:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:The topic of the debate was "Which is worse?". Your comments appeared unrelated. If you want to complain that you (or your sock) isn't allowed to post "relevant information", the burden of proof is on you to establish its relevance. This is not an opinion blog. Try everything2 if that's what you want.

:Or start a debate like "[[Conservapedia:Is Expelled fair?|Is Expelled fair?]]" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Guantanamo Bay releasees ==

Sir, you just called me a liar with regard to released Gitmo prisoners going right back to the battlefield and doing the exact same thing all over again that they landed at Gitmo for in the first place: killing Americans.

You had better do one of three things:

# Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them.
# Retract your last comment and apologize to me.
# Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration.

No need for you to reply on my talk page; I shall set a watch on this one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ok, Terry, if you want to take such a combative tone, let's get more specific - what you said was that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", yes? I take it you have proof of this, yes?

:Now, why is it '''I''' who has to prove an allegation? You prove yours first. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 18:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::When my life is at stake, you can repose one hundred percent confidence that I will be combative.

::You show me an ironclad reference about someone who landed at Gitmo for longer than a couple of years, got out, and did not go right back to doing the thing whereof he stood accused, and we'll go from there.

::And mind your tone when you talk to me. I'm an administrator and you're not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Deghayes
:::You might want to apologize for threatening to block him now. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, and if you have some free time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Guantanamo_detainees_known_to_have_been_released
::::Happy researching! [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:06, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

<- Murat Kurnaz [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's a story (from Fox News no less) that says 7% of the 500 released are "confirmed or suspected" by the Pentagon of returning to the war [http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/is-gitmo-turning-sheep-herders-into-jihadists/]. As I understand it, the original claim on main page talk was that released prisoners aren't typically going back, although in the list above the demand is for a citation that they're innocent. Presumably the former is the issue, and this ought to resolve it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:David Hicks, I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks in my backyard recently. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:10, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

# I don't know who David Hicks is, so that name is irrelevant.
# The reason that some of you might not have heard of any terrorist attacks in your backyard might ''be'' Guantanamo. You shut that down, and you ''will'' hear of a terrorist attack in your backyard. Or mine.
# The case of Omar Deghayes is incomplete. Notice that ''if'' that Wikipedia entry is accurate, then he still faces extradition to Spain.
# I suspect that some people suffer from yet another "fundamental flaw of presumption," in this case that everything that a lawyer says, in or out of court, is always true, complete, and correct to best of said lawyer's knowledge and belief.
# That 7% statistic is probably conservative in a way that normally doesn't impress me. And that's a far cry from the ''zero'' that some people have been presuming.

We deal here, if I may so observe, with two competing probabilities with distinctly different levels of cost. One is having somebody languish in prison for a few years. The other is to have a million Americans dead. Which would you rather?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry, if you dont know who David Hicks even is how can you through around accusations that everyone from Gitmo has turned out back on the battlefield? David Hicks WAS a prisoner and David Hicks WAS released and now lives quietly in Australia. You seem to have little knowledge on the subject so don't insult those who do know.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh for heaven's sake Terry, how could you have an interest in this subject and NOT know who [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks David Hicks] is? It was a HUGE, international news story - both his detainment in Afghanistan (because he was a white westerner) and his trial (because Australia had to decide if they would allow him to be tried by a US military tribunal). If there has been one Guantanamo Bay detainee in the past six years whose name might actually be known by the general public, it would be his. I advise you know something - anything - about a topic before you make such wild claims again in the future.. His case was ANYTHING but irrelevant to the entire saga of Guantanamo Bay, as you'll learn if you read the linked article. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Terry - it is you who have made an unsubstantiated assertion, not I. Again I ask you for proof of your assertion. I note you have found it impossible to come by. It is easier to prove my case, much easier. Try [http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,2275535,00.html Murat Kurnaz], for example, living in Germany since his release. David Hicks is alive and well in Australia. There are countless numbers of them who have '''not''' returned to combat Terry, and while I am certainly not denying that ''some'' have returned to combat, your claim that "to a man, every one of them" has done so is obviously completely incorrect. The [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/45738.htm Dept. of State's official report] clearly says that "some detainees upon their release are returning to combat" (search for the phrase, no way to provide a hard link) - I imagine that if they could have made your claim, they would have been much happier, but they couldn't, so they didn't. Because it's not true.

:::: Clearly, you are wrong, and childish attempts to bully me with your 'superior sysopship' don't change reality, sadly. Do you admit that you are wrong, and do you apologize? I would also ask you to mind your tone, thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I admit no such thing. Those cases you've cited are still open, as far as I'm concerned. And I ought to block you just for using words like "childish" even if it ''is'' on your talk page. Retract that remark right now or you ''will'' get blocked just for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:So until they die having committed no further terrorist act you will not be convinced that a single person released from Guantanamo has not returned (or turned) to being a terrorist? David Hicks was one of the most publicised trials (to the best of my knowledge being the first). I would be surprised if anyone could claim knowledge about Guantanamo or its prisoners without knowing his name. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Also we're talking about whether those released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield, not whether Guantanamo was effective or whether or not its prisoners were innocent. Please keep on topic. Your second and third points above (when you used numbers) are wholly irrelevant, and as for the 7% statistic you challenged someone to show that one person did not return to combat (allowing 99.8% to return - ?), even if you increase the stat fivefold to 35% your position is still very flawed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::"to a man, every one of those "released" people has turned up doing exactly the same thing again—killing Americans." - those are your own words, Terry, and they are ''wrong''. Additionally, "then he still faces extradition to Spain.". You might be interested in this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/446518.html [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I said no such thing as the above, and you know it. I ought to tell you to stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration. That I haven't until now is that earlier you provided some information that might have been helpful. Your latest comments are not helpful.

I remind everyone that the war is not over yet, and will not be over until some person or group of persons, having a legitimate claim to speak for all Muslims everywhere, publicly repudiates the Medina ''Surat'' of the Koran, the ones containing all the fighting words. Words like "Fight and slay the infidels wheresoever ye find them." And even then it's going to take a lot of convincing, because lying is a part of how a Muslim deals with non-Muslims. The Arabs call it ''taquiyya''. [[Josef Goebbels]] no doubt had another name for it.

I have ''yet'' to see anyone mentioned who didn't get off on technicalities. I'm not conceding ''anything'' until I see a report of someone who was absolutely peaceful and still is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry - here is the difflink to where [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=474270 you made the claim]. I'm sorry, but you said it. And don't try moving the goalposts - we're only debating one thing here - your claim that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again". And nothing else. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:You also obviously have no clue about Islam, because it is not an organised religion (such as Catholicism) and therefore no person can ever legitimately speak for all Muslims everywhere. Also please note that you started threatening a user because he disputed you stating that all of those released have returned to the battlefield, not that all those released were originally innocent. Please try and keep on topic. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:49, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
*TerryH, it seems you came here to discuss something with User:Aggrieved, but have been mugged by wikistalkers. May I give short blocks to some of these more notorious trolls? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:HenryS, I would politely ask that you stay out of this. The "wikistalkers" at least know what they are talking about. The idea that someone could make a claim about released combatants and not know who David Hicks is beggars belief, and I would gently suggest that you leave us to finish this debate amongst ourselves. Thanks a million for your concern. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::[Edit conflict] He threatened to block a user if he couldn't provide the name of a person who was released from Guantanamo and who did not return from combat. Many people such as myself viewed this as an unfair challenge and try to prevent any damage by providing names to Aggrieved. TerryH then chose to argue against the information we provided. This is not wikistalking or trolling, it is a debate and an attempt to prevent a user being blocked for what we perceive as an unfair cause. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== == Administrative action == ==

'''''ATTENTION'''''

This user is now blocked for two weeks.

He had the bad sense to make demands of me on [[Talk:Main_Page]].

Users Wandering, StatsMsn, and AdenJ: Stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration, or you'll get the same thing that this user got. And don't you ever, '''''EVER''''', tell another administrator what to do on this site. I'm going to watch this page for another twenty-four hours. You have that long to apologize.

HenryS, thanks for the offer of assistance. But as you can see, about all that need you to do is to bear witness.

And anyone else who reads this page: The issue here is a lot larger than some people seem to realize or want to acknowledge. It's a lot bigger than somebody who got off on a technicality, and someone else on whom some Spanish judges took pity while not repeat ''not'' acquitting that someone of guilt for his offenses. It's also about unreliable sources, and about news organs that pretend to be objective when in fact they are the house organs for the Democratic Party or even for Al-Qa'ida (I speak here of Al-Jazeera, but the way some other news organs have been acting...well, you get the idea).

And that's why, as a contributor, I don't concede ''anything'' as regards detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

And as an administrator, I don't tolerate public expressions of contempt for my ''position'' as an administrator.

Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
: What do I have to apologize for? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:37, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::This was never a quarrel with administration, this was an argument between two users about whether or not those released from Guantanamo returned to the battlefield. We provided numerous examples of cases where [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=474273 your statement] was wrong, the most notable being David Hicks. You chose to ignore these and try to shift the debate to one about their innocence before their detention, not afterwards. You threatened to block Aggrieved if he failed to provide supporting evidence, he and others have done so on this page, however you have chosen not to address it.

::Contempt of the administration is when someone actively derides those in charge, not when (s)he has a disagreement with someone who has been granted administrative powers. You want to block me for pointing this out, go ahead. However, keep in mind that at the end of the day the only way this encyclopedia is going to succeed is if all users are given the same rights in debates, and sysops only use their privileges to block those who break the rules, not those they disagree with. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is. I never called you are liar, never asked you to apologise or anything. I am at a loss to what I would be apologising for..?
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Aggrieved

2008-06-15T02:40:29Z

AdenJ: /* == Administrative action == */

{{Welcome}} -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|12px]] [[User:Deborah]] [[Special:Contributions/Deborah|(contributions)]] [[User_talk:Deborah|(talk)]] 11:39, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

:The topic of the debate was "Which is worse?". Your comments appeared unrelated. If you want to complain that you (or your sock) isn't allowed to post "relevant information", the burden of proof is on you to establish its relevance. This is not an opinion blog. Try everything2 if that's what you want.

:Or start a debate like "[[Conservapedia:Is Expelled fair?|Is Expelled fair?]]" --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:49, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

== Guantanamo Bay releasees ==

Sir, you just called me a liar with regard to released Gitmo prisoners going right back to the battlefield and doing the exact same thing all over again that they landed at Gitmo for in the first place: killing Americans.

You had better do one of three things:

# Provide a citation for your allegation that a significant proportion of Guantanamo detainees have turned out to be innocent of the war crimes imputed to them.
# Retract your last comment and apologize to me.
# Prepare to face blockage for contempt of the administration.

No need for you to reply on my talk page; I shall set a watch on this one.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ok, Terry, if you want to take such a combative tone, let's get more specific - what you said was that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again", yes? I take it you have proof of this, yes?

:Now, why is it '''I''' who has to prove an allegation? You prove yours first. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 18:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::When my life is at stake, you can repose one hundred percent confidence that I will be combative.

::You show me an ironclad reference about someone who landed at Gitmo for longer than a couple of years, got out, and did not go right back to doing the thing whereof he stood accused, and we'll go from there.

::And mind your tone when you talk to me. I'm an administrator and you're not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 18:59, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_Deghayes
:::You might want to apologize for threatening to block him now. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:01, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh, and if you have some free time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Guantanamo_detainees_known_to_have_been_released
::::Happy researching! [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:06, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

<- Murat Kurnaz [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Here's a story (from Fox News no less) that says 7% of the 500 released are "confirmed or suspected" by the Pentagon of returning to the war [http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/05/08/is-gitmo-turning-sheep-herders-into-jihadists/]. As I understand it, the original claim on main page talk was that released prisoners aren't typically going back, although in the list above the demand is for a citation that they're innocent. Presumably the former is the issue, and this ought to resolve it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 19:09, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:David Hicks, I haven't heard of any terrorist attacks in my backyard recently. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:10, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

# I don't know who David Hicks is, so that name is irrelevant.
# The reason that some of you might not have heard of any terrorist attacks in your backyard might ''be'' Guantanamo. You shut that down, and you ''will'' hear of a terrorist attack in your backyard. Or mine.
# The case of Omar Deghayes is incomplete. Notice that ''if'' that Wikipedia entry is accurate, then he still faces extradition to Spain.
# I suspect that some people suffer from yet another "fundamental flaw of presumption," in this case that everything that a lawyer says, in or out of court, is always true, complete, and correct to best of said lawyer's knowledge and belief.
# That 7% statistic is probably conservative in a way that normally doesn't impress me. And that's a far cry from the ''zero'' that some people have been presuming.

We deal here, if I may so observe, with two competing probabilities with distinctly different levels of cost. One is having somebody languish in prison for a few years. The other is to have a million Americans dead. Which would you rather?--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry, if you dont know who David Hicks even is how can you through around accusations that everyone from Gitmo has turned out back on the battlefield? David Hicks WAS a prisoner and David Hicks WAS released and now lives quietly in Australia. You seem to have little knowledge on the subject so don't insult those who do know.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 19:32, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Oh for heaven's sake Terry, how could you have an interest in this subject and NOT know who [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks David Hicks] is? It was a HUGE, international news story - both his detainment in Afghanistan (because he was a white westerner) and his trial (because Australia had to decide if they would allow him to be tried by a US military tribunal). If there has been one Guantanamo Bay detainee in the past six years whose name might actually be known by the general public, it would be his. I advise you know something - anything - about a topic before you make such wild claims again in the future.. His case was ANYTHING but irrelevant to the entire saga of Guantanamo Bay, as you'll learn if you read the linked article. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Terry - it is you who have made an unsubstantiated assertion, not I. Again I ask you for proof of your assertion. I note you have found it impossible to come by. It is easier to prove my case, much easier. Try [http://books.guardian.co.uk/extracts/story/0,,2275535,00.html Murat Kurnaz], for example, living in Germany since his release. David Hicks is alive and well in Australia. There are countless numbers of them who have '''not''' returned to combat Terry, and while I am certainly not denying that ''some'' have returned to combat, your claim that "to a man, every one of them" has done so is obviously completely incorrect. The [http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/45738.htm Dept. of State's official report] clearly says that "some detainees upon their release are returning to combat" (search for the phrase, no way to provide a hard link) - I imagine that if they could have made your claim, they would have been much happier, but they couldn't, so they didn't. Because it's not true.

:::: Clearly, you are wrong, and childish attempts to bully me with your 'superior sysopship' don't change reality, sadly. Do you admit that you are wrong, and do you apologize? I would also ask you to mind your tone, thank you. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I admit no such thing. Those cases you've cited are still open, as far as I'm concerned. And I ought to block you just for using words like "childish" even if it ''is'' on your talk page. Retract that remark right now or you ''will'' get blocked just for that.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:27, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:So until they die having committed no further terrorist act you will not be convinced that a single person released from Guantanamo has not returned (or turned) to being a terrorist? David Hicks was one of the most publicised trials (to the best of my knowledge being the first). I would be surprised if anyone could claim knowledge about Guantanamo or its prisoners without knowing his name. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::Also we're talking about whether those released from Guantanamo have returned to the battlefield, not whether Guantanamo was effective or whether or not its prisoners were innocent. Please keep on topic. Your second and third points above (when you used numbers) are wholly irrelevant, and as for the 7% statistic you challenged someone to show that one person did not return to combat (allowing 99.8% to return - ?), even if you increase the stat fivefold to 35% your position is still very flawed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:33, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::"to a man, every one of those "released" people has turned up doing exactly the same thing again—killing Americans." - those are your own words, Terry, and they are ''wrong''. Additionally, "then he still faces extradition to Spain.". You might be interested in this: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/world/story/446518.html [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 19:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

I said no such thing as the above, and you know it. I ought to tell you to stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration. That I haven't until now is that earlier you provided some information that might have been helpful. Your latest comments are not helpful.

I remind everyone that the war is not over yet, and will not be over until some person or group of persons, having a legitimate claim to speak for all Muslims everywhere, publicly repudiates the Medina ''Surat'' of the Koran, the ones containing all the fighting words. Words like "Fight and slay the infidels wheresoever ye find them." And even then it's going to take a lot of convincing, because lying is a part of how a Muslim deals with non-Muslims. The Arabs call it ''taquiyya''. [[Josef Goebbels]] no doubt had another name for it.

I have ''yet'' to see anyone mentioned who didn't get off on technicalities. I'm not conceding ''anything'' until I see a report of someone who was absolutely peaceful and still is.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 19:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Terry - here is the difflink to where [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=next&oldid=474270 you made the claim]. I'm sorry, but you said it. And don't try moving the goalposts - we're only debating one thing here - your claim that "to a man, every one of those released detainess has turned up doing exactly the same thing again". And nothing else. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 19:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:You also obviously have no clue about Islam, because it is not an organised religion (such as Catholicism) and therefore no person can ever legitimately speak for all Muslims everywhere. Also please note that you started threatening a user because he disputed you stating that all of those released have returned to the battlefield, not that all those released were originally innocent. Please try and keep on topic. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 19:49, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
*TerryH, it seems you came here to discuss something with User:Aggrieved, but have been mugged by wikistalkers. May I give short blocks to some of these more notorious trolls? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 19:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:HenryS, I would politely ask that you stay out of this. The "wikistalkers" at least know what they are talking about. The idea that someone could make a claim about released combatants and not know who David Hicks is beggars belief, and I would gently suggest that you leave us to finish this debate amongst ourselves. Thanks a million for your concern. [[User:Aggrieved|Aggrieved]] 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::[Edit conflict] He threatened to block a user if he couldn't provide the name of a person who was released from Guantanamo and who did not return from combat. Many people such as myself viewed this as an unfair challenge and try to prevent any damage by providing names to Aggrieved. TerryH then chose to argue against the information we provided. This is not wikistalking or trolling, it is a debate and an attempt to prevent a user being blocked for what we perceive as an unfair cause. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 20:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== == Administrative action == ==

'''''ATTENTION'''''

This user is now blocked for two weeks.

He had the bad sense to make demands of me on [[Talk:Main_Page]].

Users Wandering, StatsMsn, and AdenJ: Stay out of other users' quarrels with the administration, or you'll get the same thing that this user got. And don't you ever, '''''EVER''''', tell another administrator what to do on this site. I'm going to watch this page for another twenty-four hours. You have that long to apologize.

HenryS, thanks for the offer of assistance. But as you can see, about all that need you to do is to bear witness.

And anyone else who reads this page: The issue here is a lot larger than some people seem to realize or want to acknowledge. It's a lot bigger than somebody who got off on a technicality, and someone else on whom some Spanish judges took pity while not repeat ''not'' acquitting that someone of guilt for his offenses. It's also about unreliable sources, and about news organs that pretend to be objective when in fact they are the house organs for the Democratic Party or even for Al-Qa'ida (I speak here of Al-Jazeera, but the way some other news organs have been acting...well, you get the idea).

And that's why, as a contributor, I don't concede ''anything'' as regards detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

And as an administrator, I don't tolerate public expressions of contempt for my ''position'' as an administrator.

Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 22:30, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
: What do I have to apologize for? [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 22:37, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

All I did was try and explain who David Hicks is.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 22:40, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

User talk:Aggrieved

2008-06-14T23:37:43Z

AdenJ: oops

User talk:Aggrieved

2008-06-14T23:32:10Z

AdenJ: /* Guantanamo Bay releasees */

Hunter S. Thompson

2008-06-14T21:14:46Z

AdenJ: HST was no liberal, or at least could not be called a liberal

'''Hunter Stockton Thompson'''<ref> Louis Proyect called him a "conveyor of conventional liberal thought." [http://www.counterpunch.org/proyect02232005.html] </ref> was a self-described "Gonzo" journalist whose writing was based on the notion that truth is stranger than any fiction. His work consciously blurred the line between the real and the imaginary. In ''[[Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas]]'', he described his writing as "A savage journey into the heart of the American Dream."

Much of his writing in ''Rolling Stone'' magazine dealt with contemporary politics; Thompson had an active intolerance for almost all politicians across the spectrum, with the exception of [[Democrat]] [[George McGovern]]. His open hatred for [[Richard Nixon]] was especially pronounced despite the fact that he interviewed [[Richard Nixon]] and discussed football with him at length. He compiled his dispatches for ''Rolling Stone'' magazine during the 1972 campaign into the book, ''Fear and Loathing: On the Campaign Trail '72''. He became close friends with Rolling Stone editor Jann Wenner.

Thompson once ran for sheriff of Pitkin County, [[Colorado]] on a platform that advocated the legalization of illegal [[drugs]] and wishing to keep big business out of Aspen (which he proposed to rename 'Fat City') and his home town of Woody Creek. His political movement was dubbed 'Freak Power,' as Thompson was calling on the marginalized sections of society to be his main support base. Both major parties tried to keep Thompson out of office although Thompson lost by a small margin.

Thompson was portrayed as the character of Duke in the [[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning comic strip ''[[Doonesbury]]'', and was portrayed by [[Johnny Depp]] in a film version of ''[[Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas]]''.

Some have expressed the belief that Thompson attracted attention in the drug culture because he was as a person what many people wanted to be -- a rebel.

Thompson, a lifelong gun enthusiast, committed [[suicide]] by by a self-inflicted gunshot wound in 2005.
He is survived by his son Juan Thompson.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Thompson, Hunter S}}
[[Category:Journalists|Thompson, Hunter S]]
[[Category:Authors]]

Prehistoric painting

2008-06-14T04:28:20Z

AdenJ: nothing to suggest they are hoaxes.

'''Painting''' as an [[art]] form is known to have been practiced all over the world since the [[Upper Paleolithic]] period<ref>[http://www.tate.org.uk/collections/glossary/definition.jsp?entryId=435 ''Painting'']. Glossary. The Tate Collection. Tate.org.uk. 14 May 2008</ref>, with fine examples of cave paintings claimed to be ancient<ref>The dating of cave paintings is often done by dating material found near the paintings, which has obvious defects as a measure of the age of the painting itself.</ref> being discovered in Lascaux and the Ardèche Valley in [[France]] which demonstrate the conscious use of skill and creative imagination: "They are not stick figures or squiggles. Lines are clear and filled with tints. The animals are vibrant. By utilizing cave features, some of the renderings even have perspective."<ref>[http://www.beyondbooks.com/art11/2.asp ''Painting before 1300'']. History of Painting. BeyondBooks.com. 14 May 2008</ref> These paintings were made using [[pigment]]s inherent in variously coloured earths and powdered rock applied directly to the cave walls and usually depict [[animal]]s, although there are also some human figures. Some claim that the oldest known paintings are at the Grotte Chauvet in France. They are very simply engraved and painted using red ochre and black pigment and depict a collection of [[horse]]s, [[rhinoceros]], [[lion]]s, [[buffalo]], and [[mammoth]].

It is said that the oldest paint in America was found in a cave in [[Baja California]]. <ref> [http://www.elmundo.es/2002/12/12/ciencia/1292233.html Descubierta en una cueva de México la pintura rupestre más antigua de América] In Spanish. </ref>

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Art]]
[[Category:Painting]]