Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

FIFA World Cup

2014-07-02T03:29:42Z

AngusT: /* Gay Marriage and the World Cup */

The '''FIFA World Cup''' is a global [[soccer|association football]] ([[soccer]]) tournament held every four years since 1930 (except during the Second World War). Its scale as a global sporting event is challenged only by the [[Olympics]].

In the current form, the final tournament is contested by 32 nations who, with the exception of the host nation, are required to qualify by beating others from their region in a preliminary tournament. The current holders of the World Cup are Spain, who beat the Netherlands in the 2010 final in South Africa. [[Brazil]] currently holds the record for most wins, with 5. The [[United States]] has never won the competition but reached third place in the first edition. The United States also reached the Round of 16 in the most recent iteration of the tournament.

==Tournament Winners<ref>http://www.sportingchronicle.com/divisions/worldcupwinners.html</ref>==
{|style="background:none"

{|class="wikitable" valign="top"
|-
|Year
|Location
|Winner
|-
|1930
|[[Uruguay]]
|Uruguay
|-
|1934
|[[Italy]]
|Italy
|-
|1938
|[[France]]
|Italy
|-
|1942
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1946
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1950
|Brazil
|Uruguay
|-
|1954
|Swizerland
|[[West Germany]]
|-
|1958
|Sweden
|[[Brazil]]
|-
|1962
|Chile
|Brazil
|-
|1966
|[[England]]
|England
|-
|1970
|Mexico
|Brazil
|-
|1974
|[[West Germany]]
|West Germany
|-
|1978
|[[Argentina]]
|Argentina
|-
|1982
|Spain
|Italy
|-
|1986
|Mexico
|Argentina
|-
|1990
|Italy
|Germany
|-
|1994
|United States
|Brazil
|-
|1998
|[[France]]
|France
|-
|2002
|Japan and South Korea
|Brazil
|-
|2006
|Germany
|Italy
|-
|2010
|South Africa
|[[Spain]]
|-
|2014
|Brazil
|
|}
|
{|class="wikitable"
|-
!5
|[[Brazil]]||1958,1962,1970,1994,2002
|-
!4
|[[Italy]]||1934,1938,1982,2006
|-
!3
|[[Germany]]||1954,1974,1990<ref>Including two titles technically won by West Germany.</ref>
|-
!2
|[[Argentina]]||1978,1986
|-
!2
|[[Uruguay]]||1930,1950
|-
!1
|[[England]]||1966
|-
!1
|[[France]]||1998
|-
!1
|[[Spain]]||2010
|}

==Gay Marriage and the World Cup==
Likely for reasons pointed out by [[Ann Coulter]] in [http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/ a column criticizing how un-American soccer is], the World Cup seems to contradict the well-established theory that countries which legalize gay marriage thereafter witness deterioration in national athletic ability. For instance, Spain legalized gay marriage in 2005, and within three years was rated the #1 team by FIFA, which they have held ever since, winning the World Cup in 2010. The runner-up that year, the Netherlands, had previously legalized gay marriage in 2001. So far, in the 2014 World Cup, of the teams making it to the Round of 16, 6 have legalized gay marriage (Brazil, Netherlands, Uruguay, France, Argentina, and Belgium) as well as the USA, which has seen federal recognition, and legalization for nearly half the population. A further five have some recognition and/or civil unions.The two nations which were the first in the world to legalize the practice, Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003, have so far won all their games in the 2014 tournament. Of the 8 teams in the quarter finals, 5 have legalized gay marriage, while a further 2 have civil unions, making Costa Rica the only team to make it this far that doesn't recognize gay partnerships.

This does lead one to question the morality of soccer as a sport, when compared to the more competitive, American sports such as football and baseball, and perhaps demonstrates that soccer is a sport for gays.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Soccer]]

FIFA World Cup

2014-06-27T15:12:01Z

AngusT: /* Gay Marriage and the World Cup */ clarify

The '''FIFA World Cup''' is a global [[soccer|association football]] ([[soccer]]) tournament held every four years since 1930 (except during the Second World War). Its scale as a global sporting event is challenged only by the [[Olympics]].

In the current form, the final tournament is contested by 32 nations who, with the exception of the host nation, are required to qualify by beating others from their region in a preliminary tournament. The current holders of the World Cup are Spain, who beat the Netherlands in the 2010 final in South Africa. [[Brazil]] currently holds the record for most wins, with 5. The [[United States]] has never won the competition but reached third place in the first edition. The United States also reached the Round of 16 in the most recent iteration of the tournament.

==Tournament Winners<ref>http://www.sportingchronicle.com/divisions/worldcupwinners.html</ref>==
{|style="background:none"

{|class="wikitable" valign="top"
|-
|Year
|Location
|Winner
|-
|1930
|[[Uruguay]]
|Uruguay
|-
|1934
|[[Italy]]
|Italy
|-
|1938
|[[France]]
|Italy
|-
|1942
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1946
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1950
|Brazil
|Uruguay
|-
|1954
|Swizerland
|[[West Germany]]
|-
|1958
|Sweden
|[[Brazil]]
|-
|1962
|Chile
|Brazil
|-
|1966
|[[England]]
|England
|-
|1970
|Mexico
|Brazil
|-
|1974
|[[West Germany]]
|West Germany
|-
|1978
|[[Argentina]]
|Argentina
|-
|1982
|Spain
|Italy
|-
|1986
|Mexico
|Argentina
|-
|1990
|Italy
|Germany
|-
|1994
|United States
|Brazil
|-
|1998
|[[France]]
|France
|-
|2002
|Japan and South Korea
|Brazil
|-
|2006
|Germany
|Italy
|-
|2010
|South Africa
|[[Spain]]
|-
|2014
|Brazil
|
|}
|
{|class="wikitable"
|-
!5
|[[Brazil]]||1958,1962,1970,1994,2002
|-
!4
|[[Italy]]||1934,1938,1982,2006
|-
!3
|[[Germany]]||1954,1974,1990<ref>Including two titles technically won by West Germany.</ref>
|-
!2
|[[Argentina]]||1978,1986
|-
!2
|[[Uruguay]]||1930,1950
|-
!1
|[[England]]||1966
|-
!1
|[[France]]||1998
|-
!1
|[[Spain]]||2010
|}

==Gay Marriage and the World Cup==
Likely for reasons pointed out by [[Ann Coulter]] in [http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/ a column criticizing how un-American soccer is], the World Cup seems to contradict the well-established theory that countries which legalize gay marriage thereafter witness deterioration in national athletic ability. For instance, Spain legalized gay marriage in 2005, and within three years was rated the #1 team by FIFA, which they have held ever since, winning the World Cup in 2010. The runner-up that year, the Netherlands, had previously legalized gay marriage in 2001. So far, in the 2014 World Cup, of the 16 remaining teams, 6 have legalized gay marriage (Brazil, Netherlands, Uruguay, France, Argentina, and Belgium) as well as the USA, which has seen federal recognition, and legalization for nearly half the population. A further five have some recognition and/or civil unions.The two nations which were the first in the world to legalize the practice, Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003, have so far won all their games in the 2014 tournament. This does lead one to question the morality of soccer as a sport, when compared to the more competitive, American sports such as football and baseball.

==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Soccer]]

FIFA World Cup

2014-06-27T14:02:36Z

AngusT:

The '''FIFA World Cup''' is a global [[soccer|association football]] ([[soccer]]) tournament held every four years since 1930 (except during the Second World War). Its scale as a global sporting event is challenged only by the [[Olympics]].

In the current form, the final tournament is contested by 32 nations who, with the exception of the host nation, are required to qualify by beating others from their region in a preliminary tournament. The current holders of the World Cup are Spain, who beat the Netherlands in the 2010 final in South Africa. [[Brazil]] currently holds the record for most wins, with 5. The [[United States]] has never won the competition but reached third place in the first edition. The United States also reached the Round of 16 in the most recent iteration of the tournament.

==Tournament Winners<ref>http://www.sportingchronicle.com/divisions/worldcupwinners.html</ref>==
{|style="background:none"

{|class="wikitable" valign="top"
|-
|Year
|Location
|Winner
|-
|1930
|[[Uruguay]]
|Uruguay
|-
|1934
|[[Italy]]
|Italy
|-
|1938
|[[France]]
|Italy
|-
|1942
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1946
|(No tournament)
|(No tournament)
|-
|1950
|Brazil
|Uruguay
|-
|1954
|Swizerland
|[[West Germany]]
|-
|1958
|Sweden
|[[Brazil]]
|-
|1962
|Chile
|Brazil
|-
|1966
|[[England]]
|England
|-
|1970
|Mexico
|Brazil
|-
|1974
|[[West Germany]]
|West Germany
|-
|1978
|[[Argentina]]
|Argentina
|-
|1982
|Spain
|Italy
|-
|1986
|Mexico
|Argentina
|-
|1990
|Italy
|Germany
|-
|1994
|United States
|Brazil
|-
|1998
|[[France]]
|France
|-
|2002
|Japan and South Korea
|Brazil
|-
|2006
|Germany
|Italy
|-
|2010
|South Africa
|[[Spain]]
|-
|2014
|Brazil
|
|}
|
{|class="wikitable"
|-
!5
|[[Brazil]]||1958,1962,1970,1994,2002
|-
!4
|[[Italy]]||1934,1938,1982,2006
|-
!3
|[[Germany]]||1954,1974,1990<ref>Including two titles technically won by West Germany.</ref>
|-
!2
|[[Argentina]]||1978,1986
|-
!2
|[[Uruguay]]||1930,1950
|-
!1
|[[England]]||1966
|-
!1
|[[France]]||1998
|-
!1
|[[Spain]]||2010
|}

==Gay Marriage and the World Cup==
Likely for reasons pointed out by [[Ann Coulter]] in [http://www.clarionledger.com/story/opinion/columnists/2014/06/25/coulter-growing-interest-soccer-sign-nations-moral-decay/11372137/ a column criticizing how un-American soccer is], the World Cup seems to contradict the well-established theory that countries which legalize gay marriage thereafter witness deterioration in national athletic ability. For instance, Spain legalized gay marriage in 2005, and within three years was rated the #1 team by FIFA, which they have held ever since, winning the World Cup in 2010. The runner-up that year, the Netherlands, had previously legalized gay marriage in 2001. So far, in the 2014 World Cup, of the 16 remaining teams, 6 have legalized gay marriage (Brazil, Netherlands, Uruguay, France, Argentina, and Belgium) as well as the USA, which has seen federal recognition, and legalization for nearly half the population. A further five have some recognition and/or civil unions.The two nations which were the first in the world to legalize the practice, Netherlands in 2001 and Belgium in 2003, are so far undefeated in the 2014 tournament. This does lead one to question the morality of soccer as a sport, when compared to the more competitive, American sports such as football and baseball.
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Soccer]]

Best of the public

2013-07-26T21:48:12Z

AngusT: /* Achievements */ Tebow is absolutely BotP. Brady is clearly not (see Overrated Sports Stars)

[[Image:Constitution.jpg|right|300px]]
The '''"best of the public"''' is a successful approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation that was coined during an interview with [[Andrew Schlafly]], the founder of ''Conservapedia'', that was published on December 3, 2009:<ref>Tom Breen. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487/ns/us_news-faith/ Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation], ''Yahoo! News'', December 03, 2009.</ref>
{{cquote|<big>'''The best of the public is better than a group of experts.'''</big>}}
The concept then became a topic of discussion when Mr. Schlafly appeared on the [[Stephen Colbert|''Colbert Repor''t]] on December 8, 2009.<ref>[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly The Colbert Report Videos: Andy Schlafly], ColbertNation.com, December 08, 2009.</ref>

In early February 2010, [[Supreme Court]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] implicitly endorsed the concept of the "best of the public" with this response to a question by a state college student:<ref>http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/clarence_thomas_rejects_ttt_label_for_his_law_clerks.php</ref>
{{cquote|I think there are smart kids a lot of places. ... [T]here is a bias. If you look at smart bloggers — or self-proclaimed smart bloggers — they referred to my clerks last year as TTT — 'third tier trash.' That's the attitude that you're up against.}}
Another way of expressing this concept is that "extraordinary achievements are attained by ordinary people." The enigmatic [[Christian]] term the "[[Son of Man]]" embodies how inspiration comes from the ostensibly ordinary rather than the esteemed experts. Most [[prophet]]s were also ordinary men.

==Examples==

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] may be the first to adopt the "best of the public" approach for a scholarly project. Other examples of approaches using the "best of the public" include:

===Intellectual examples===

*the [[Bible]]
:*the [[Gospel of Mark|earliest Gospel]] was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy
:*the [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] was possibly written by [[Jesus]]; its intellectual force is at the highest level
*the [[Apostles]]
*Justice [[Robert Jackson]], the finest Supreme Court jurist of the 20th century, did not attend college and never graduated from law school
*pamphleting, as in ''[[Common Sense]]''
*the "Little Free Library" concept to encourage reading and knowledge - "take a book, give a book"
*the solution of one of the greatest unsolved problems of our time, the [[Poincaré conjecture]] (see below)
*[[Ronald Coase]], an originally obscure economist, developed the now-accepted [[Coase theorem]] despite nearly unanimous rejection and opposition by experts
*[[Evariste Galois]], an unknown teenager, developed [[group theory]] and it took the mathematical experts a century to appreciate it
*[[Alexander Hamilton]], the most intellectually productive of the [[Founding Fathers]], was abandoned by his father, orphaned by the premature death of his mother, and then orphaned again by the suicide of his adopted father; he was stigmatized due to his social background and excluded from the local [[British]] school for it.
*the principle of trial by a jury of one's peers
*letters to the editor
*the design of [[Vietnam War]] Memorial (competition won by a college student, featuring ordinary soldiers)
*the design of the St. Louis Arch (competition won by an unknown architect, featuring openness)
*an obscure, unsuccessful author, [[Herman Melville]], wrote the greatest novel in English literature, ''[[Moby-Dick]]''
*an unknown and possibly uneducated playwright, [[William Shakespeare]], produced the greatest plays ever
*The [[Constitution of the United States of America]]. The [[Founding Fathers]], in their wisdom, chose to eschew the idea of "expert" hereditary nobility, but were also wary of the mob rule that could result with pure democracy; thus, they chose a democratic republic instead.
*The [[Electoral College]] was intended to be composed of the best of the public, who would judge who was best qualified to be President.
*'''''Conservapedia''''' posted [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study|errors and flaws]] in a pro-[[evolution]] article by Professor [[Richard Lenski]] (published after a mere 14-day peer review), but [[PNAS]] [[Letter to PNAS|refused to correct the errors]] and Lenski responded with [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog|petulant rants]] insisting his critic lacked "expertise".
*design of the distinctive Coca-Cola glass bottle, which resulted from a public contest in 1915.
*Internet blogs. Anyone can start a blog, and readers read the best blog posts. Such blogs have been responsible for breaking crucial news stories well before the "experts" of the traditional media--for example, the [[Monica Lewinsky]] story and [[Rathergate]]
*Layman Allen devised games like "WFF 'n proof" and Equations which reduced absenteeism, increased math achievement and achieved voluntary integration in the segregated Chicago school system. [http://o.b5z.net/i/u/6035566/f/pdfs/articles/chicagoreader.pdf]
*[[Homeschooled]] students tended to dominate the annual Math Counts competition to such an extent that the competition changed the rules to ban teams of homeschoolers from participating. <ref>http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2760:homeschoolers-count-national-math-competition-bans-homeschoolers&catid=49:people&Itemid=132</ref>
*In 1939, George Dantzig, a graduate student at [[Stanford University]] solved two problems in statistics that were previously considered unsolvable after mistaking them for a homework assignment. Until Dantzig's professor told him what he had done, he was unaware that there was anything special about the problems.<ref>http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp</ref>
*All wikis, such as [[Conservapedia]], are an example of the 'Best of the Public' because their accuracy depends upon the premise thet the public can outdo encyclopedias written by experts.

===Moral examples===

*[[Mary]], the mother of [[Jesus]]
*[[Stephen]], the first martyr
*Prophets in the [[Old Testament]]
*Lenny Skutnik, the [[Mississippi]] native who dove into the icy [[Potomac River]] to rescue passengers from the crashed airplane on Jan. 13, 1982.<ref>"I wasn't a hero," Lenny Skutnik said. "I was just someone who helped another human being. We're surrounded by heroes. What made this different was that it was caught on film and went all over the world." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202052.html]</ref>

=== Political and legal examples ===

*[[William Penn]]'s approach to colonial [[Pennsylvania]], which even advertised to attract hard-working settlers of all ethnicity and religious beliefs; as a result [[Philadelphia]] quickly became the most prosperous and highly populated city in colonial [[America]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]] embraced and embodied the best of the public in his speeches and political philosophy, and personified it by his own political ascendancy outside of the party establishment
*the recall of the governor, the attorney general, and another top official in North Dakota in 1921 -- who were corrupt politicians devoted to state ownership of industry -- was organized and achieved by someone who never held public office<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/opinion/recalling-the-first-recall.html?pagewanted=1</ref>
*the "[[common law]]" developed over centuries based on many day-to-day judicial decisions, relying on logic, custom and precedent, and such law was considered better than a statute drafted by one or a few experts
*the [[U.S. Constitution]], in its prohibition on nobility and religious tests for office, its frequent elections of House members, and its term limitation on the president.
*the [[Australian]] 2020 summit employed the best of the public by bringing together 1,000 people from all over Australia to discuss and make plans for the country's future.<ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/summit-not-just-another-talkfest/story-e6frg726-1111115465754</ref>

===Musical examples===

*"Battle Hymn of the Republic," the only significant song by Julia Ward Howe, written in the dark during a pre-dawn inspiration
*"I Can See Clearly Now," a massive one-hit wonder by Johnny Nash in 1972
*"You Light Up My Life," the only hit by Debbie Boone, was a tribute to God that topped the charts for many weeks
*"Sunshine" (1971), which was not only a one-hit wonder by Jonathan Edwards, but it was included in his album only because a preferred song had been accidentally erased.<ref>here was a song on the album called ‘Please Find Me,’ and for some reason the engineer rolled over it. It got erased. We spent hours looking for it. We fired the engineer and put ‘Sunshine’ in its place.” [http://www.jonathanedwards.net/general/presskit-biography.php]</ref>
*"Ice Ice Baby" was the "B-side" filler panned by "experts" which became a massive hit because a disc jockey played it by chance; allegedly written by Vanilla Ice when he was 16<ref>"There's just something about the way its hook — a sample from Queen and David Bowie's ''Under Pressure'' — grabs you and flings you out onto the dance floor." [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,318500,00.html]</ref>
*[[American Idol]]
*"[[The Star-Spangled Banner]]," the [[national anthem]] of the United States
*"96 Tears" by Question Mark and the Mysterians reached Number One on the charts, and overshadowed subsequent successes by the band.
*a-ha produced the ground-breaking video and song "Take On Me", despite never charting again for singles, albums, or videos.
*"In the Year 2525", by Zager and Evans, reached number one in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The group had no other Top 40 songs in either country, making them the only group to have this kind of "one-hit wonder" in both countries.
:''(add more one-hit wonders)''

=== Military examples ===

*Eddie Rickenbacker, who had to drop out of school at age 12 in order to support his mother after his father died, became the "American Ace of Aces" with 26 victories in [[World War I]] (despite being relatively old), survived on a life raft for 24 days after his plane went down in [[World War II]] (despite being over 50 years old), and later spoke out for [[conservative]] views; Rickenbacker, a phenomenal race-car driver when WWI broke out, was rejected for flying but then fixed [[Billy Mitchell]]'s car and persuaded him to give Eddie a chance at aviation.<ref>http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/us_rickenbacker.html</ref>

===Athletics===

Anyone can enter, and winning is based solely on skill. Examples include the following:
====Competitions====
*The [[Olympic Games]],<ref>Since 1990 there has been a qualifying requirement of reasonable success at a prior event.</ref> known for setting the most world records. When [[Francois Duvalier]] was the dictator of Haiti, he decided to abandon common sense and instead use [[nepotism]] to select who would compete in the Olympics. High-ranking military officials were sent to represent Haiti regardless of athletic ability, and typically finished last. The International Olympic Committee has since taken steps to ensure all athletes are reasonably qualified, although they do make exceptions in the Summer Olympics for countries with no reasonably qualified athletes in any sport. Today, all countries send their best athletes, rather than use the methods Duvalier used.
*The [[Tour de France]].<ref>In the 1920s it was open to all; now there is a qualifying process for teams.</ref>

====Achievements====
*Arthur Ashe, son of a policeman, at the relatively old age of 31 crushed the nearly invincible 22-year-old Jimmy Connors in 1975 to become the only African American men's Wimbledon singles champion;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/5/newsid_2798000/2798971.stm</ref> Ashe won this upset with an ingenuous strategy of using offspeed volleys unfamiliar to the hard-hitting Connors.
*Dick Fosbury invented the Fosbury Flop despite criticism by all the experts. He won the 1968 Gold Medal with it, and now nearly everyone imitates his style.
*Bob Beamon, an obscure 22-year-old long jumper who barely qualified for the 1968 Olympic finals after fouling out on most attempts, then broke the world record by nearly two feet. In the preceding 30 years, the world record for the long jump had increased by only about 8 inches.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-bob-beamon.html</ref>
*Marion Bartoli, a relatively obscure tennis player with a low seed at [[Wimbledon]], won the women's single title in 2013 without losing a single set the entire tournament, a feat achieved by only five other players in modern history.
*An unsuccessful Olympian, the medical student Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute barrier for the mile, which some experts considered impossible; now the record is 3:43.
*A little-known pitcher, Don Larsen, threw the only perfect game in [[World Series]] history (Game 5, 1956)
*[[David]], a boy of slight build, defeated the most feared warrior of all time, the mammoth [[Goliath]]
*Kurt Warner, one of the greatest football quarterbacks,<ref>Warner is the only quarterback who has led two ''different'', hapless teams to three Super Bowls.</ref> was originally cut by the Green Bay Packers, denied a tryout by the Chicago Bears, and ultimately only given a chance due to another player's injury.
*[[Tim Tebow]], a devout Christian dismissed by the media, led the Denver Broncos to the playoffs his first season as a starter, and was inexplicably traded to the New York Jets, who preferred to play "expert" quarterback Mark Sanchez, costing them the season and finishing a pathetic 6-10.
*The Dallas Mavericks, having few stars, swept the heavily favored Los Angeles Lakers and then crushed the star-studded Miami Heat to win the 2011 [[NBA]] title.
*[[Jeremy Lin]], denied college basketball scholarships, left undrafted by the [[NBA]] and cut by a weak NBA team, joined the 8-15 Knicks and then took them on a seven-game winning streak, including wiping the floor with [[liberal]]-promoted [[Kobe Bryant]] of the favored Lakers
*a very longshot underdog colt, ridden by a [[Kentucky Derby]] rookie, won the fabled race in an enormous upset in 2012.
*[[Matt Cassel]] played backup quarterback to both [[Carson Palmer]] and [[Matt Leinart]] at the [[University of Southern California]]. Both Palmer and Leinart won the [[Heisman Trophy]] for best collegiate player, so Cassel never played for the Trojans except in blowouts. In 2005, he was drafted by the New England Patriots, only to back up Tom Brady when Brady was arguably the best quarterback in the league. In 2008, Brady suffered a season ending injury in the Patriots' first game, but Cassel led them to an 11-5 record, narrowly missing the playoffs. Since Brady had recovered by 2009, Cassel became the full-time starter on the [[Kansas City Chiefs]], and was selected to the Pro Bowl following the 2010 season as one of the best quarterbacks in the AFC.
:''(add more)''

===Science and technology===
*the greatest river engineer ever, James B. Eads, lacked any formal education and his revolutionary successes (such as the Eads Bridge) were opposed by leading experts<ref name="Eads bridge">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/peopleevents/p_jbeads.html</ref>
*perhaps the greatest health program of the 20th century, using a new term he coined for his program ("[[aerobics]]"), was developed by military physician Kenneth Cooper outside of a major medical research facility
*"Moldy" Mary Hunt, a low-level lab worker, used a rotten cantaloupe to facilitate the first ''mass'' production of [[penicillin]].<ref>"Then, in 1943, Mary Hunt, a lab worker in Peoria, Illinois brought in a cantaloupe melon. It was said to have been infected with a 'pretty, golden mould'. This mould was 'Penicillium chrysogeum'. It yielded about 200 times as much penicillin as Fleming's mould. Florey used x-rays to mutate the mould, which eventually gave 1000 times the yield of penicillin from the original." [http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11777&start=0&sid=270d7f1ec3dc7c97bbb3c84a264676cc]</ref>
*the [[free software]] movement and its ongoing development of the [[Linux]] operating system
*the development of a heavier-than-air, [[fixed wing]] aircraft by the [[Wright Brothers]], despite opposition and mockery by aviation "experts."
*[[Henry Ford]]'s mass-production techniques, which turned automobiles from a curiosity into the backbone of American industry despite Ford's lack of formal education.
*the investigation of the [[Challenger Disaster]] by maverick physicist [[Richard Feynman]]
*[[Steve Wozniak]] developed the first popular personal computer from a garage-based operation
*[[Leonardo Da Vinci]] is one of the most well known designers in history, yet was illiterate in Latin, and never attended a university.
*distributed computing projects such as [[Folding@home]] that combine the computing power of hundreds of thousands of standard home PCs to solve computationally intense problems.
*the [[intelligent design]] theory explaining the origins of our universe.
*Tired of being denied a voice in the elite liberal media, [[Conservative media]] finds its voice and is widely popular; [[FOX News]], Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, NewsMax, ''[[National Review]]'', Worldnetdaily.com.
*New astronomical discoveries are regularly reported by amateur astronomers, to then be published by "experts", advancing their careers in the process.
*The leading and most innovative internet browser, [[Firefox]], was developed in a not-for-profit effort outside of the multi-billion-dollar [[Microsoft]] and [[Google]] empires.
*[[Mikhail Kalashnikov]] was drafted by the Russian military, and despite being trained in poetry and literature, eventually was made a firearms designer. He drew upon inspiration from Russian literature, and the Bible to focus on simplicity, and dependability. This simplicity resulted in the atheist experts rejecting his designs, and declaring them unworkable. The experts were however ultimately proven wrong, when one of his designs went on to win an open design contest, and became the single most reliable and prevalent firearm in the world: the [[AK-47]].
*In 1919, philanthropist Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 to the first person to fly a solo, non-stop flight between New York and Paris. Although many wealthy aviation experts attempted to win this prize, it was an unknown amateur pilot named [[Charles Lindbergh]] who won it.
*In 1873, [[homeschooled]] [[Scotland|Scottish]] scientist [[James Clerk Maxwell]] discovered the system of equations bearing his name that describe [[electromagnetism]].
*[[Michael Faraday]], a son of a poor blacksmith, had no formal education and became literate only in age thirteen. However, he discovered that magnetic fields could produce electricity, which no expert had attempted. Faraday later denied all patents, knighthood, and large funerals.

===Finance===

*Studies show that the public does as good a job at picking good stock investments as the experts do. For example, stock market indexes typically outperform funds managed by experts.

===Exploration and discovery===

*Despite billions of research dollars, technical experts and equipment for professional astronomers, amateur astronomers play a crucial role in outer space discoveries. ''See [[Comet Lovejoy]]''
*Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, despite near-unanimous expert opinion that his first voyage was doomed to failure. On his second voyage, he successfully returned to the same place he had previously reached, despite the limited navigational skills of the experts of the time.

===Journalism===
*As noted in Conservapedia's breaking news, the [[lamestream media]] is being replaced by [[YouTube]] videos of breaking news.<ref>Fernandez, Richard. "A Wired World in its Own Mirror." March 11, 2011. Pajamas Media. http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/11/a-wired-world-in-its-own-mirror/?singlepage=true</ref>
*Large media outlets have begun presenting amateur reports from viewers. This began with [[CNN]]'s iReport<ref>http://ireport.cnn.com</ref> and later was adopted by [[Fox News]] (uReport<ref>http://ureport.foxnews.com</ref>) and others.

===Law Enforcement===
*Alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was caught, not by the thousands of police experts swarming uselessly over a shut-down Watertown, MA, but by an individual keeping his eyes open in his own back yard.

== Obstacles Created by Liberal Experts ==

[[Liberal]] and [[Conservative]] experts have self-interest in defending their theories, even if incorrect, and in perpetuating the system that has rewarded and applauded them. Some experts receive prodigious sums by promoting theories that are false or implausible, either in the media or in courtrooms.

Most conservatives who are experts in their own right reasonably fear loss in grants, compensation or awards if they take a position at odds with a [[liberal]] counterpoint, especially one that has gained wide acceptance with the general population.

===Examples===

One expert said about the revolutionary design of the Eads bridge to transport heavy ships by railroad over the [[Mississippi River]]:<ref name="Eads bridge"/>
{{cquote|I deem it entirely unsafe and impracticable.}}
The Eads bridge continues to stand to this day.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_footage.html</ref>

==The Best of the Public and the Invisible Hand==

The concept of best of the public was first articulated on [[Conservapedia]], although the effects have been observed by many great thinkers over the years. In a free society where the best of the public is allowed the latitude to excel, benefits accrue on many levels. [[Adam Smith]], the father of capitalism, observed this principle in effect; in his book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', he described how the best of the public, when given the freedom to generate wealth, could generate a net beneficial and uplifting effect that goes beyond their individual enterprises. Smith called this the "[[Invisible Hand]]." However, he confined his observations to the sphere of economics, whereas the "Best of the Public" principle operates on many different levels.

Marriage and family, for example, serve as an illustration of the principle in the social arena. When marriage is allowed to function without government interference and misguided attempts at social engineering, the result is strong families; the best of the public raise children of superior virtue and character, who in turn grow up to pass those values on to their children. This, in turn, leads to a net positive effect on society known as the [[Invisible Hand of Marriage]].

The same uplifting principle can be seen in any situation in which the best of the public is allowed to freely function and attain its potential. Events like the Olympics and the Tour de France permit the best of the public to strive on a physical level, resulting in many new record-breaking performances. While the principle has seldom (as of yet) been applied to academic endeavors, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] demonstrates the benefits that can result.

==Opposition to the Best of the Public==

===Government restrictions===
History demonstrates that the best of the public can only thrive in a free society. The cream cannot rise to the top if it is weighted down; eagles cannot soar if they are shackled by an oppressive government. This understanding is at the heart of conservative wisdom.

For example: it is only in a [[free market economy]] that the best of the public will be truly free to drive innovation, develop new technologies, and generate new wealth. In an overly-regulated economy, the incentive to excel is greatly reduced. Innovation is replaced by stagnation, and achievement by mediocrity.

===Elite gatekeepers===
Likewise, in an academic environment in which elite "experts" serve as gatekeepers, truly innovative research is frequently squelched in favor of orthodoxy and blind consensus. The chilling effect "scientific experts" can have on honest research was clearly demonstrated by the [[Climategate]] scandal. Even when such "experts" do not actively conspire to suppress dissent, their use of expertise and consensus as a bully pulpit can still silence opposing (and possibly correct) viewpoints.

===Mobs===
It is important to note the difference between "Best of the Public" and "mob rule." Simply allowing the loudest or most numerous voices to prevail is not the same thing as allowing the best of the public to drive achievement. Sites such as [[Wikipedia]] operate on the principle of mob rule, and as a result, are plagued with bias, inaccuracy, and an inability to differentiate between significant insights and trivia.

One of the most pointed illustrations of this difference is the [[United States]] itself. The [[Founding Fathers]], despite not naming it, applied the "Best of the Public" principle in their attempts to craft a new government. Realizing the danger of mob rule, they rejected a pure democracy in favor of a democratic Republic--a system designed to ensure that, while all of the public would have a voice in their new government, the best of the public would guide that government. To insure that only the best of the public was selected, with the exception of members of the [[U.S. House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], officials in the federal government were not directly elected. The framers of the [[U.S. Constitution]] conceived of the [[Electoral College]] as a body of men who would exercise independent judgement in choosing the [[President of the United States|President]] and [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]], not merely cast their ballots as directed by their state's voters. Moreover, electors in most states were initially appointed by state legislatures. Likewise, members of the [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] were originally selected by state legislatures. Judges, ambassadors and other federal officials are chosen by the President and subject to approval by the Senate. Thus, although the people would directly choose their Congressmen, they would only indirectly choose other officials, and this filtering mechanism would ensure that only the best of the public was in charge of the government, rather than having mob rule.

By choosing this compromise, they clearly affirmed that they believed the best of the public was better than a group of experts; in contrast, the nations of Europe still firmly subscribed to the notion that government should be in the hands of elite "experts" (the ruling families and nobility.)

===Obscurity===
The "best of the public" must be able to be heard. There are millions of books published, and even more books self-published without approval of traditional publishing houses. Many authors protest<ref>Paul Biba. [http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/18/self-publishing-e-books-and-legitimacy-part-3-of-a-series/ Self-publishing, E-books, and Legitimacy: Part 3 of a series], teleread.org, September 18th, 2009.</ref><ref>"[http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm Prime Palaver #6]", Eric Flint</ref> that this is the greatest problem with modern publishing.

==Experts versus the Best of the Public==
Some confusion may exist over the difference between an "expert" and the "best of the public." The primary difference lies in the manner in which expertise is obtained. Most "experts" undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts. This always carries the danger of [[groupthink]] and the pressure to conform. Also, academic credentialing consists almost entirely of repeating what professors say, rather than criticizing their errors.<ref>See, e.g., the movie "Dark Matter" for a candid portrayal of academic credentialing.</ref>

For instance, someone interested in obtaining a job in the field of climate science (whom we shall refer to as "Student A") would likely pursue a degree at an established university. In so doing, he would be immersed in the academic subculture of researchers and professors who have already obtained their degrees in that field. He would be subjected to their political views, preconceptions, and biases, and would likely find that these were presented as facts and as an integral part of the subject. Any questioning or dissent on his part might be harshly punished. Ultimately, he would be faced with a difficult choice: abandon his desire to be an accredited expert in that field, dishonestly pretend to believe in the questionable claims of his superiors, or convince himself that those claims were, in fact, the truth.

On the other hand, someone interested in learning about climate science, but not interested in becoming a credentialed expert (we'll call him "Student B,") would likely study a diverse variety of sources. Not confined to the insular and clannish academic subculture, he would speak with a wider range of people, and be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints. This would, in all probability, cause him to examine the claims of the experts with a more critical eye. Ultimately, his studies would not gain him a degree or the official imprimatur of the scientific community, but his understanding of climate science would very likely be more rounded and complete than that of Student A. He very well might disagree with the experts' point of view; at the very least, he would have a much better knowledge of its shortcomings.

A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not an "expert" - he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers. A "best of the public" approach would accept the contributions of both Student A and Student B, since they are both members of the public. However, it would not place Student A's contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning. Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights. Perhaps many ideas coming from people like Student B would be wrong, unprofitable, and therefore rightly rejected; the "best of the public" approach recognizes that not all ideas from the public are better than those of experts. However, it is very likely that some ideas from people like Student B will be true and helpful. This is the difference between the two approaches: such ideas will be heard under the "best of the public" method.

== Solution of the Poincaré Conjecture ==

The solution to the [[Poincaré conjecture]], one of the greatest unsolved math problems of the 20th century, was by the little-known [[Gregori Perelman]] who worked on his own and merely posted his solution on the internet. He had never been offered a permanent job and was critical of the lack of openness among mathematical experts as he described a rare exception:<ref>[http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Perelman-Grigory.html Grigory Perelman Biography (emphasis added)], Encyclopedia of World Biography.</ref>
{{cquote|He actually told me a couple of things that he published a few years later. He did not hesitate to tell me. Hamilton's openness and generosity—it really attracted me. '''I can't say that most mathematicians act like that'''.}}
At great monetary sacrifice, Perelman refused to accept the awards conferred on him by experts after they eventually recognized the brilliance of his proof. A leading expert was accused of improperly trying to take credit for Perelman's work.

The Steklov Institute apparently declined to re-elect Perelman as a member in 2003, supposedly because the experts continued to doubt his proof. Reportedly Perelman has quit mathematics and was "jobless, living with his mother in St. Petersburg, and subsisting on her modest pension." He was quoted as saying:<ref>Mike Ciavarella. [http://imechanica.org/node/3360 Perelman limit case: not a single paper, refuse the Field medal, refuse reviewers], imechanica.org, June 17, 2008.</ref>
{{cquote|I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest. ... It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated.}}

In 2006, the mathematical establishment delivered another backhanded compliment to Perelman's achievement: he was awarded the [[Fields Medal]] on a shared basis with (1) an Obama-supporter who had jointly worked on a number theory problem, (2) a French mathematician-actor, and (3) a younger countryman who had achieved far less. This four-way split of the prize with far less significant achievements was inappropriate. Perelman declined this prize also.

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
* [[Expert Error]]
* [[Independent review]]
* [[Essay:Everyday Heroes]]
* [[Free software movement]]
{{Conservapedia}}
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Conservapedia:Community Portal

2013-07-21T17:50:17Z

AngusT: /* Gun purchasing advice */ new section

<center>''This is the place to discuss issues of interest to the Conservapedia community.''</center>
__NEWSECTIONLINK__
[[Conservapedia:Community Portal/archive1|Archive 1]]

I've put together a blog that applies tenets of the Christian faith to everyday life and our responsibility as citizens. I add a new article every few days and I would love it if you guys could start following and get people to read this. Remember James 2:17- "faith without works is dead." We have to start teaching those who come after us. Here is the link- I don't know how to get this in the News Feed on the main page.

I am an active military officer in my 20s and a combat veteran. It serves me best to keep my identity to myself for now. Below is the link.

http://www.defendingamericanvalues.blogspot.com

== Insults ==

On Dec 16, 2011, I wrote an email to aschlafly@aol.com and conservapedia@zoho.com. No one bothered to answer me, though I asked repeatedly. So, that seems to be an insufficient way of communication, therefore I repeat the text of my email here:

''Hi,

''I use this way of communication as I want to stay away from public mud-slinging. But I expect that something is done about the tone at Conservapedia. Please have a look at this comment by User:Conservative, directed to me:

''http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3AMain_Page&action=historysubmit&diff=945748&oldid=945729

''Excerpt: '''I know you are a so called "liberal Christianity" adherent. Face it liberal Christianity is an immoral, heretical and wimpified version of Christianity that tries to turn God into some kind of permissive Santa Clause. The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!'''

''I once stated that I'm a member of a mainstream Protestant Church (in fact, the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck) But I'm not liberal, pro-abortion, pro-sodomy or pro-adultery!

''It seems to be impossible to get into a productive discussion with User:Conservative: Bullying, intimidating,and outright insulting the target-audience of Conservapedia is nearly always the consequence...

This has been worse enough. But today I read [[Talk:Essay: Militant atheism and short man's syndrome]], where User:Conservative asks: '''''By the way, is your "liberal Christianity" "pastor" a lesbian or sodomite?''''' I fail to see any humor in it and I would expect that such accusations aren't made in a conservative environment.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:11, 1 January 2012 (EST)

Aschlafly, would you please stop to ''trim'' my contributions? Ignoring a problem generally doesn't lead to a satisfactory conclusion! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:02, 2 January 2012 (EST)

::AugustO, I am perfectly willing to apologize if necessary. Let me ask you a few questions for clarification. Is the Protestant denomination you belong to pro-evolution? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to ordain women as pastors? Does the Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership? While I don't agree with this blog's entire contents, I have a feeling the Protestant denomination you belong to is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on this slope] and has a [http://creation.com/truth-decay significant case of "truth decay".] If you could provide additional clarification, it would be appreciated. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:39, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:*The EKKW is one of the more conservative ''Landeskirchen'' of the EKD.
:*Generally in Germany you don't shop for a church - a relict of ''cuius regio eius religio''. So under the tent of a ''Landeskirche'' you will find various, often struggling opinions.
:*'''All such questions should have been asked before you made your insulting remarks.''' You insulted my faith and my church without bothering to make the most basic inquiries.
:*I'm not the first one to be treated this way - [[User:MaxFletcher]] was insulted similarly.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:20, 2 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I have found that liberals are often evasive and don't want to be called liberals. I will ask for further clarification: Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to take a pro-evolution stance? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination that you belong to ordain women as pastors? Do most of the churches in your Protestant denomination you belong to marry homosexuals? Is the Protestant denomination you belong to shrinking in membership?

I did do some cursory investigation into your denomination's stances (unfortunately the sources in English were very scarce and I could only find Wikipedia as a source) and it appears as if your denomination is generally pro-homosexual marriage, ordains women and the denomination you belong to is shrinking in size (But again, I only have one source and I don't take that source as the gospel truth). Given the cultural landscape of Europe, this does not surprise me if it is true.

Lastly, are you pro-evolution, are you for or against the ordination of women, are you for or against homosexuals being able to marry? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:05, 2 January 2012 (EST)

:Funny, I found that conservatives are often straightforward and don't want to be called liberals neither. As for the rest of your comment: it may be that the EKD is less to your liking. But I'm fairly sure that almost all of our brothers and sisters in the various ''Landeskirchen'' would repelled by your statement that the only thing they love more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]. What percentage of Christian in the world do you try to alienate?
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:51, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::::You didn't answer my simple questions regarding your views on evolution, ordination of women, an whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry (I should have said by a church) and if your denomination is declining in membership. I conclude therefore that you are not a conservative and you are liberal and that denomination is generally liberal also and declining in membership. There are consequences to rejecting biblical authority and some of them are: an increase in sex outside of a marriage (specifically marriage between a man and a women which is a legitimate marriage), an increase in abortions and a church that is spiritually dying and declining in membership. Generally speaking, churches/individuals that start the process of rejecting biblical authority drift more and more away from biblical authority and become more and more liberal and licentious. While I may have being wrong about the degree of licentiousness within your denomination and if so I apologize, but it does appear as if it is on the decline spiritually, morally and in membership. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Addendum: The Book of Revelation declares: “To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: 'These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God’s creation. I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.'" Based on your replies, I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 2 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Personal attacks are unbecoming and unproductive. I would suggest you stop, User:Conservative. You have passed the line from satire to the crude and tawdry--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 22:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)
::Camille, you certainly made quite an allegation there. If you are confident your allegation can withstand scrutiny, I suggest you take it up with the owner of the website. We both know your allegation will be ignored/trimmed though, don't we? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:08, 2 January 2012 (EST)

*User:Conservative, you have made up your mind about my belief, and no simple statement of mine will change this. But that doesn't matter: ''I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings.''
*Your ability to condemn your Christian brothers and sisters ('''''I regrettably have to say that you and many if not all of the churches in your denomination are not hot but are very lukewarm and you and those churches have been spit out. '''''), while admitting that you have not much information ('''''I did do some cursory investigation ''''') is truly amazing!
*A statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' is just wrong, insulting, and should be rejected by ''all'' Christians. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:26, 3 January 2012 (EST)

August, I asked you a few simple questions about biblical beliefs and received no reply as to your positions on these matters. For example, I asked if it is right for a church to marry two homosexuals and you gave no reply. You have given me no reason to believe that you are a bona fide Christian. Jesus warned about wolves in sheep's clothing so I see no reason to believe that every person who professes to be Christian is truly a Christian. There are plenty of cases in history of false/heretical people and sects proclaiming to be Christian when they have radically different beliefs than orthodox forms of Christianity.

For example, consider this: "In 1984, David Jenkins, Anglican Bishop of Durham, described Christ’s resurrection as “a conjuring trick with bones” (“English Bishop Calls Christ’s Resurrection Conjuring Trick,” AP, St. Louis Post Dispatch, Oct. 28, 1984). Jenkins also said, “The Christian is not bound up with freak biology or corpses getting up and walking around” and “You don’t have to believe in the virgin birth.” (On July 9, 1984, three days after Jenkins was consecrated bishop, lightning struck his cathedral and caused extensive damage. A spokesman for the fire brigade said that though the roof was fully wired with lightning rods, none of them worked that morning; the smoke detectors in the ceiling did not go off, even though they were tested only a month before; and there was no thunder accompanying the lightning. EP News Service, Dec. 21, 1984)."[http://www.wayoflife.org/files/4fa466c4c219ef7377db25265f553ab7-183.html]

If you were more forthcoming, I might shed my skepticism, but instead you have given me no option but to still retain it. That's your choice. But you have to accept responsibility for the consequences of that choice. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:29, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::: Lieber AugustO hoffe es macht dir nichts aus, wenn ich ihm seine Fragen beantworte (leider nur über Online-Recherche). Falls doch, so entschuldige ich mich und bitte dich meinen Eintrag zu streichen.
::::@ user:conservative: Since I speak German I checked out the website of the EKKW. This is what I found: Women can be ordained. Homosexuals can '''not''' be married. Unfortunately the membership of the EKKW is slightly declining. As for evolution: I could not find any information. As far as I can say, evolution vs. creationism is not that big of a deal in Europe, or at least the German speaking parts. I for one have never seen a discussion about it on TV or in a newspaper. Hope this helped to clarify your questions, so you can go back to the actual argument, which was that AugustO felt insulted by your remarks.
::::AugustO denk doch auch an Lk. 6.29: ''Dem, der dich auf die eine Wange schlägt, halt auch die andere hin, und dem, der dir den Mantel wegnimmt, lass auch das Hemd.'' Herzlich --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 08:25, 3 January 2012 (EST)

@VPropp: Thanks for your contribution! Sorry if I created the impression that I was after a personal apology by User:Conservative. That is somewhat meaningless for me. It is the language I just don't want to encounter in a '''family-friendly encyclopediay'''. I would like User:Conservative to stop spouting invectives without (or even) with reason.

Recently I discussed with friends whether it would be a good idea to steer candidates for conformation to Conservapedia, to help them to improve there knowledge of English (and the little they know already on Greek). We agreed that this wouldn't be a good idea:
*they are more likely to stumble upon articles on homosexuality etc. on Conservapedia than on Wikipedia
*there is a high probability that they get insulted after a short period of editing
*frankly, the ''Popular articles at Conservapedia '' aren't written that well - and I can detect this though I'm not a native speaker!
*finally: what should I answer a catechumen if he asks me whether our pastor is a lesbian or sodomite? Or what he loves most, extramarital sex, pro-abortion policies or gay bathhouses?
It is deeply disturbing that User:Conservative can be sure that all such concerns will be ''ignored/trimmed''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:41, 3 January 2012 (EST)

: Sorry if I misunderstood you AugustO. I can see your point, why you would not want candidates for confirmation working on Conservapedia. But I have to interject a few things: 1. I think a far bigger problem, language wise are not the active users here, but the vandals, who very often post disgusting things in a disgusting language. 2. Conservapedia is, in my opinion, still far more family friendly than Wikipedia. I strongly discourage you from bringing your confirmation candidates to Wikipedia. In my experience, one of the first things teenagers will look up are the articles on reproductive organs. On Wikipedia those articles are accompanied by, at the very least, borderline pornographic images. There is also a lot of extremely vile language on the talkpages, which is usually not reverted, unlike (with as you pointed out, a few exceptions) on Conservapedia.
: If you want to improve their English language skills, there are other playfull methods to do so. For instance: watching English movies, discussing song lyrics, writing essays in English, which you or another member of your congregation could proof read. You can give all of those suggestions a strong Chritian focus rather easily. --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 11:03, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:::Despite his refusal to answer my simple questions, it is obvious that August belongs to a so called "liberal Christianity" denomination and that they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and a denomination in moral, spiritual, and numerical decline. It is also equally obvious to anyone who has read Conservapedia's [[Christian apologetics]], [[evolution]], [[homosexuality]] and [[liberal]] articles that liberal theology is errant. I see no point in wrangling with someone who takes issue with what I am saying, but is unwilling to answer a few simple questions which are a starting point to a fruitful discussion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:46, 3 January 2012 (EST)
:: Dear user:conservative, I'm hesitant to call the EKKW a "liberal Christianity" denomination. Since I just gathered some infos from their website and you just read a very short article on Wikipedia, I think we should hear AugustO out, since he's the one that frequents this chruch and is thus more qualified to make statements about its principles. I'm also not quite sure I agree with the blog post you provided about liberal Christianity denomination being "on the slope". While I can see how ordaining homosexuals can bring sexual depravity to a church, I don't see how this is connected with women being ordained. Unfortunately I have also to add that ''my'' [[catholic church|church]] has had some history of sexual depravity. Regretfully I have to say, that among those depravities was just the one that was mentioned in the blog post. Is my church now on the slope. Is my church liberal? I don't think we should judge whole churches based on the errors of a few of its sheep and shepards. I also am a bit disappointed that you refuse to discuss the issue any further with AugustO Sincerely --[[User:VPropp|VPropp]] 19:12, 3 January 2012 (EST)

The EKKW is perhaps the most conservative church within the EKD. But that doesn't matter - even if I lived a couple of kilometers to the west in an enclave of the EKIR, I should be save from being accused from being a "liberal Christian". Fact is that Protestant churches in Europe generally work in a different way than in the U.S.: you have little choice which church to go to, but this is balanced by a greater spectrum within the membership of a church. And therefore, there often aren't official positions of a church, and rivaling views can be seen within a church (though the idea of "special creation" and especially the idea of a "Young Earth" is a minority position - held by only few people in Europe.)

As I said: this all is irrelevant. I shouldn't read a statement like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]''' in a family-friendly encyclopedia, and I find the various interrogations into my faith - and whether my '''"liberal Christianity" "pastor" '''[is]''' a lesbian or sodomite''' insulting.

I'm not looking for an apology, I'd like the management of this site (this means [[User:Aschlafly]]) to step in and prevent such language. Unfortunately that won't happen - as [[User:Conservative]] has observed so smugly.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:10, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation. I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate. When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline. The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope]. I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology. But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return. I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten. I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:47, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*''August, the EKKW is in spiritual decline and losing members, while Bible believing churches are vibrant and prospering in the world. '' Show me some examples ''Bible believing churches'' in Germany - I would be surprised if their vibrancy and prosperity reaches the degree of my church though she is in ''spiritual decline''. I assume that your ''Bible believing churches'' are as energetic as the ''Question Evolution campaign!''.
:*''Maybe you will find someone interested in talking about you and your dying denomination, but it is not going to be me given your stubbornness and unwillingness to have a fruitful conversation.'' It was you who asked about my denomination, so I assumed that you have some interest in it.
:*''I tried to help you discover the root cause of the problem that you and your church suffer from via some simple questions, but you didn't want to cooperate.'' Sorry, but I don't trust your remote diagnosis.
:*''When a church or individual starts getting slack about biblical authority and clear teachings within the Bible, church history shows they very often decline and enter into moral decline.'' Another hidden attack against my church - and me...
:*''The EKKW and EKD is [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope].'' You obviously aren't well informed. That's generally not a problem, as long as you don't offer advice.
:*''I did say that if I overestimated the amount of moral decline at this juncture, my apologies. However, you didn't want to accept my apology.'' Of course, I would accept an apology. I just don't expect one. And I'm right: this isn't an apology, it's just another insult.
:*''But nonetheless, they are [http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/05/and-here-i-thought-slippery-slope-didnt.html on the slope] and in need of repentance. '' Again, you gave no reason for having confidence in your remote diagnosis.
:*''By the way, I seem to recall that you are the one who picked a fight with me. '' I didn't pick a fight with you, I criticized one of your statements: see [[Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/106#Conundrum|here]]
:*''Then you get mad when I point out the shortcomings of your belief system in return.'' I got ''mad'' because you aren't able to stay on the subject. Try to differ between the ''debate'' and the ''debaters'' - a good argument should be valid without judging the person who makes it.
:*''I wouldn't be surprised if you poke sleeping dogs with sticks in your neighborhood and then complain when you get bitten.'' Sorry, not my sport.
:*''I would suggest throwing your stick in the bushes if you can dish it out, but you get angry when criticism is directed towards your errant beliefs which you obviously cannot defend. '' *LOL*

:So, let's summarize: my church and I are in moral decline, I adhere to errant beliefs, and my pastor has to be a lesbian or a sodomite. And the whole reason for this conclusion: I don't share your beliefs on ''Young Earth Creationism'' and you have read something on wikipedia about the EKKW.

:Don't you see that this is quite ridiculous? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:23, 4 January 2012 (EST)

::I'm intrigued by all this about "liberal" Christianity versus "Bible-believing" churches. User:Conservative, which denominations do you consider to be "liberal"? What about the Church of England, for example? Are you saying that these aren't true Christians? How many "true" Christians would you estimate that there are worldwide? Which do you consider more pressing: evangelising to "liberal" Christians, or to atheists?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:05, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::::CPalmer, there are a lot of denominations and I don't pretend to know all of their doctrinal beliefs nor do I want to take the time to do the requisite research. Plus, there are a lot of non-denomination churches and churches which are split between conservatives and liberals. For example, as far as the Anglicans it is well known there is a struggle going on between Bible believing Anglicans and liberal Anglicans and the flash point in recent times has been the homosexuality issue. Third, it is well known that moderate/liberal churches are losing members in the West and conservative, Bible believing churches are seeing growth. There have been numerous books/articles about this matter and this has been happening for decades. As far as evangelizing, a general principle is that Jesus said to preach to those who had ears to hear and to move on and shake the dust off your feet for heavily resistant populations. But that is a general principle, an atheist who just hit rock bottom might be open so you have to be Spirit led. I think prevention is far more effective when it comes to something like atheism as atheists tend to be very resistant to the gospel. On the other hand, if very tough economic times hit I think the atheist population could see big declines. Men do tend to arrogant when wealthy and tend to be more humble when experiencing economic problems. Next, I don't care to speculate on the amount of bona fide Christians in the world as I am not done a significant amount of research in terms of the current Christian population. I am encouraged though as Bible believing churches have seen significant growth worldwide and they appear to be the fastest growing faith in the world. Here is what I do know: 1) The Apostle Paul said to examine yourself and see if you are a member of the faith. 2) In the Book of Revelation a church body was warned that they were lukewarm and were about to be spit out of Christ's mouth. In addition, the Bible says God rewards those who diligently seek Him. However, information on Christianity is publicly available and church bodies do issue statements of faith, so if you are very interested in this matter, I am sure you can find out estimates of the amount of Bible believing Christians in the world. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:01, 4 January 2012 (EST)
:::Just as I suspected! It appears the reason why August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. I can see why since once it hits Germany, God willing, it will no doubt further accelerate his declining denomination's membership should they decide to be recalcitrant and continue to flout biblical authority. Given Germany's population relative to the European population, it wouldn't be surprised if the members of this young social movement have plans concerning Germany. Since evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the questions, it would certainly be interesting to watch creationist throw spanners into the machinery of German evolutionary indoctrination. Spanner is a word for wrench with Germanic roots. :) Oh, look [http://questionevolutionde.blogspot.com/ HERE], it seems as though Question Evolution! Germany preparations have started! :) I wonder when Germany will see waves of biblical creation material sweep across their land! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:38, 4 January 2012 (EST)

I don't know what gave you the impression that the reason I ''fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' - I criticized two sentences in which you described how to debate atheists, namely:
*''Bring down the banhammer early and often at Christian/creationist forums and wikis when it comes to these types of atheists/evolutionists. It's fun and entertaining! Mr. Militant, Rude and Ignorant Atheist/Evolutionists, don't get sassy with me! Bam! You're out of here! '' and
*''Never read more than a few words or sentences of inane and socially challenged atheist/evolutionist comments before deleting them''
I think that these ideas don't help to have a ''fruitful dialog''. AFAIK, you elaborated these ideas at first without mentioning ''Question Evolution!'', though you published them on the blog of the campaign.

My position to the campaign: I'll judge it by its fruits. And as you stated [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign#Who_is_this_campaign_aimed_to_.3F|here]], this gives me ample time... At the moment, I'm reminded of the ''Hornberger Schiessen''.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:07, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::Did I publish "them"? Secondly, where in the New Testament does it say to have dialogues with rude and militant people? Didn't Jesus talk about not casting pearls before swine and shaking the dust off your feet? Am I missing something? Lastly, I am still not impressed with the fruits of your declining denomination and I have noticed your silence on the issue of marrying homosexuals in the church and other matters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:53, 4 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, some Flickr user by the username "atheism" has a rather [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3360230417/ unique picture] relative to criticizing Darwinism. User: Atheism also has pictures taken in Germany in his/her photostream as can be seen [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3676931503/in/photostream HERE] and [http://www.flickr.com/photos/evolution_atheism/3666454904/in/photostream HERE]. Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany? Do you think User: Atheism knows fellow creationists in Germany? There may be some Bible believing churches in Germany. If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:27, 4 January 2012 (EST)

:*'' Am I missing something? '' Yes, the point: whether you were convinced by my arguments is secondary, the statement ''August0 fired the first shot in this small series of exchanges is that he is upset about the [[Question evolution! campaign]]'' is just not true.
:*''Do you think the creationist "User: Atheism" has been to Germany?'' And to Greece, the Netherlands and France. Looks like a guided tour - the probability that he could engage some people living there in a discussion on creationism is fairly small.
:*''If so, I would guess there is a good chance they are growing.'' One of the main problems with your arguments - you take your ''guesses'' as something to bolster your ''convictions''!
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:16, 5 January 2012 (EST)
:::It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach. I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though. Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much. Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case. However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:40, 5 January 2012 (EST)

*''It does appear as if you didn't take a poke at me and merely criticized my approach.'' Indeed.
*''I do stand by my approach as far as dealing with militant atheists who are rude though.'' Your prerogative. But it won't strengthen your position, doesn't help to evolve debating skills, and can be often seem to be overly defensive. BTW, how to you deal with rude Christians?
*''Second, because I had limited information about your church in Germany at the time of my initial comments, I do think I should have had a more measured response at the time and I assumed too much.'' Yes, you should have had a more measured response - but not only because of your lack of knowledge! Before writing sentences like '''The only thing "liberal Christianity" loves more than extramarital sex and pro-abortion policies is [[gay bathhouses]]!''' you should ask yourself whether this is something you want to read in a family-friendly environment.
*''Given that my atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles have factual content which is upsetting to liberals, I do get my share of attacks, but I needn't have a hair trigger in terms of letting someone have it with both barrels which is what happened in your case.'' Especially under attack you should try to show the superiority of your position by levelheaded responses.
*''However, given that it appears as if your denomination appears to flout what the Bible says about homosexuality and other issues and is losing membership, it does appear as if it is in need of repentance.'' A ''non sequitur''. Yes, not all is well in the EKD, and even not in the EKKW. And I'm generally willing to discuss the problems, though I don't see any benefit in doing so with you: it would put to much strain on you to make yourself acquainted with the situation so that you can provide fruitful advice. Generalities and tautologies are easy to come by.

As a conclusion from my experiences: when asking about the religious beliefs of somebody, you should be as polite as possible, as this is a sensitive area. And even if you think that your interlocutor isn't honest about his beliefs, you shouldn't insult him - as you may alienate those readers who share his ''pretended'' belief.

Not spouting vitriol against anyone who doesn't share your beliefs completely doesn't make you lukewarm.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:53, 6 January 2012 (EST)
::AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:58, 8 January 2012 (EST)

::::Conservative, you seem a bit obsessed with gay bathhouses, gay marriage, and homosexuality in general...is there something that you would like to share with the class? --[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 09:26, 9 January 2012 (EST)

== Deletion of debate aboute 15 questions ==

User:Conservative deleted [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists.]] and stated as the reason for this action ‎''if you want to keep deleting my posts to this debate page fine - bye page!''

This comment strikes me as a little juvenile, especially for an administrator (''I'll take my ball and go home''), therefore I created [[Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists]]. The debate is important, as the '''15 questions''' are featured all over Conservapedia and not showing the attempts to answer them could lead to accusations of censorship.

To avoid further tit-for-tat, I try to get a moderated debate.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 08:17, 12 January 2012 (EST)

::::It is interesting that he justified deleting it based on the fact that his repeated comments (calling me a "shyster") were deleted. It seems that these are the 15 questions that no biologist ("evolutionist" is a rather empty neologism) is '''allowed''' to answer...--[[User:RudrickBoucher|RudrickBoucher]] 21:28, 12 January 2012 (EST)

== 90/10 block of Rudrick Boucher ==

[[User:RudrickBoucher]] was blocked for '''two years''' for breaking the [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3ARudrickBoucher 90/10 rule]. As he is a first-time offender this seems to be an extraordinary long ban - and therefore smacks of ideological censorship.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:15, 14 January 2012 (EST)

:I do find the 90/10 rule a bit of a strange one. Considering how so many articles here are protected, in many cases for no apparent reason it seems, and how the [[Conservapedia:Editing etiquette]] encourages a cautious approach to editing with an emphasis on discussing changes first, the best contributor could be someone who actually violates the 90/10 rule, because they are careful to ensure there is agreement about the change they want to make or simply that they can't edit the article due to protection. Then of course there are the debate pages which are clearly venues for people to talk about issues. The ratio of talk page to article edits alone is a very poor measure of the value of a contributor. It does seem one rule that can easily be abused. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:14, 14 January 2012 (EST)

==Page protect requests==
What is the point of getting a page protect request granted from the site owner so editors can work collaboratively on a sub page, only to have the site owners action undone and opening of a key article to vandals and revert wars? Does the unlocking sysop's action encourage collaborative editing by good faith users, forcing them to waste their time that could be used contributing content, rather than revert warring with trolls? What recourse do good faith editors have for sysop actions from sysops that are incommunicado? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:05, 28 January 2012 (EST)

== We should be nicer ==

After seeing all the ranting and harsh words to Liberals, Democrats, and Conservative users that are trying to fix something that's wrong (that category includes me), I want to share 2 Bible passages:

1 John 3:11-15 NIV
11 For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another. 12 Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous. 13 Do not be surprised, my brothers and sisters, if the world hates you. 14 We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death. 15 Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life residing in him.

Proverbs 15:1
1 A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

-[[User:JonnyAmerican|JonnyAmerican]] 10:23, 5 April 2012 (EDT)

== Libertarians ==

I noticed that the rules of conservapedia state the libertarian views are considered "conservative". Presumably, this would apply to economic issues only as their views on social issues are typically quite liberal. I don't have a problem with this, seeing as I am a libertarian myself and have essentially agreed to disagree on the social stuff and focus on the economic stuff. But, since we allow libertarians, who are fiscally conservative/socially liberal, would we allow groups like Peronists, who are fiscally liberal/socially conservative? I forget the link where I saw libertarians specifically mentioned as allowed, but I'll try to find it. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 09:33, 14 April 2012 (EDT)

==Mediawiki features==
Wondering if these features are implemented here:
*<nowiki><categorytree></nowiki>
*page transclusion, e.g.:
:{{Wikiproject:Ex-gay movement/Members}}
Thanks, [[User:LJoseph|LJoseph]] 00:44, 12 May 2012 (EDT)

== Requesting well-written response ==

Having recently found the wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religiosity_and_intelligence Religiosity and intelligence], I found myself in the strange situation of not knowing where to look for another perspective. Clearly they misinterpret the results of the few studies cited, but it would be very interesting to see if any studies provide different results or at least discuss the accuracy of the cited studies. It would be great to see an article [[Religiosity and intelligence]] on Conservapedia to provide a rebuttal to the other wiki. -- [[User:Jehoshaphat|Jehoshaphat]] 00:20, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:Clearly there is a link. Newton was a devout Christian and look what he achieved!! Whether the link is causative or merely correlative is hard to say. On the one hand God is likely to look with favour on his adherents, but on the other it may be that intelligent people are just more likely to believe in God. I am not aware of any biblical references that will help you with your research, but others may be able to assist. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 07:14, 9 August 2012 (EDT)
:::see: [[Atheism and intelligence]]. I hope that helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:37, 7 September 2012 (EDT)

== Proposed update to Mediawiki 1.18.x ==

This is a redux of User:Conservative's suggestion to update Mediawiki to version 1.18.x (where x is any release version that is stable). His rational for this is to allow support for Extension:Wikilog (a wiki blogging device), and to update the php script used to create titles (so AT&T shows up instead of AT%20T in search, etc).

==Pros==
*I agree, as it will also allow for the installation of various extensions, that I find are incredibly useful on a wiki community, such as [http://www.uesp.net/wiki/User:Nx/vandalbrake VandalBrake] (a extension that slows down vandals significantly, but still lets them lodge complaints, etc [The original link is apparently blacklisted: rhymes with nationalpikcy]), the WIGO extension, by Nx again, and even core reversion deletion. The update itself is a simple, clicking proccess that ASchafly could spend a matter of minutes configuring.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:10, 25 September 2012 (EDT)
==Cons==

==Vote==
This is not open for voting yet 

== question ==

I'm pretty sure that on wikipedia there is the ability to see the number of page views, does this website allow you to do anything similar? [[User:Cmurphynz|Cmurphynz]] 08:59, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
:Yes. Please look at the very bottom of each page in the white "margin". Also please look at [[Special:PopularPages]], which gives a sorted list. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:05, 4 October 2012 (EDT)
==Editor retention==
Do we have any statistics on editor retention? I know that the [[Special:Statistics]] page says that 719 people have edited in the past 91 days, but I suspect that this includes spammers and sockpuppets who are promptly blocked. What is the current size of our editor corps? What can we do to retain more editors or to recognize and reward editors for their service?

Wikipedia has a "Wikimania" conference. Has CP considered a face-to-face event to encourage comraderie among our volunteers? Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 11:58, 16 November 2012 (EST)
==Main Page proposal==
Currently only two editors control most of the content for the main page. Rather than promote the great content of Conservapedia, the main page promotes off-wiki content. Obvious suggestions, such as noting the passing of Senator [[Daniel Inouye]], do not receive serious consideration. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_index/119#Main_Page_Right Other proposals have been ignored.] I have just proposed on [[Talk:Main Page]] that we establish a three person committee to filter and edit main page items. If there is a disagreement about an item, they can vote to decide the issue. Because this would be a lot of day-to-day work, I propose that people would serve on the committee for 9 months, with staggared terms. So, every calendar quarter, the membership of the Committee would be different. People would volunteer and Andy would select among the volunteers. Nobody would be selected to serve a second time until all volunteers had a chance to serve once. I would welcome the thoughts of others on this plan. Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 09:15, 18 December 2012 (EST)
: Please leave your comments [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Main_Page#Formal_Proposal_to_Establish_a_Main_Page_Committee here.] Thanks, [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 14:14, 20 December 2012 (EST)

== Conservative Hypocrisy (Please read FULLY before judging/deleting/blocking ==
I know I'm new here and that my opinions have already run counter to a few of the more senior users here; however I'd like to reiterate how much I respect the work you're doing and my desire to help make this site a respected alternative to wikipedia. Now, onto the point of this post.
One of the biggest and most frequent complaints I've seen on this site in my time here, first just as a read and now as an editor, seems to have been the lack of a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. Now, I know that this has been a very unpopular topic, but I also think it's a large enough issue to require addressing if we want to be taken seriously by the center/undecided population in the political, social and religious aspects of society. The true conservatives already agree with what is being presented on this site and will no matter what, we need to gain acceptance from those who are not already on our side in order to expand.
Now, does gaining that acceptance mean we have to weaken our stances or compromise our beliefs? Not in the least. I merely suggest that it means we need to be honest and open about all of the truth, not just the parts we like.
So, if anyone is still reading with an open mind at this point, here my suggestion for a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page. We already have pages on [[RINO]]s, [[PLINO]]s and [[XINO]]s as well as personal biography pages on public figures who claim to be conservative while demonstrating the complete opposite through their actions. Like it or not, these are all examples (to my understanding of the definition of the word hypocrisy) of [[Conservative Hypocrisy]].
As far as I can tell, I'm going about making this suggestion in the right way and in the right place, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert on wiki-etiquette, so please feel free to move it to the proper place and let me know if I've made a mistake. Thank you for your time and I hope to hear some feedback in the near future, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 11:19, 7 April 2013 (EDT)
::I find it very hard to believe that no one has any opinion on this so I'm assuming it just got missed... I'll give it 24 more hours and if there's still no objection or comment I'm going to start working on drafting a [[Conservative Hypocrisy]] page according to the outline I described above. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 23:18, 8 April 2013 (EDT)
:::You can write a page concerning the abandonment of conservative principles by some, but the answer is no for a "conservative hypocrisy" page. This was attempted by trolls and thugs several years ago when they tried to force their way on the site, and it won't be allowed now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::I think you missed my point while actually making my point for me at the same time... I haven't been here long, yet I've already seen the trolls and thugs repeatedly bring it up and attempt vandalization through the fact that the page doesn't exist. If we make the page, present the facts and admit while that conservatives as a whole are not perfect, we are still much better than the alternatives, we take that power away from them. Please reread my initial post, take some time to contemplate 1 John 1:10 and/or Romans 3:23 and then if you still believe we should not publicly admit the shortcomings of some of our conservative brothers and sisters in order to make this site a more accepted and viable alternative to wikipedia, then I'll drop the subject. Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:54, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:::The answer is still no. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:11, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
::Thank you for being open minded enough to give my suggestion a full 17 minutes and 5 words worth of your time. As promised, I won't bring it up again. Sincerely, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 10:02, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== Moving / renaming pages ==

Please could someone explain how to rename pages on CP so as to preserve the editing history. I know it can be done on WP but I guess it isn't done the same way on CP. (I know it can be done on WP because I couldn't figure out how to do it on CP, so I looked up how to do it on WP, then I saw that their method doesn't apply to CP - a button is missing or something.) I want to do this because I've been studying British History at school and I want to change the names of pages about their Prime Ministers to those that people would recognise, e.g. Marquess of Rockingham instead of Charles Wentworth-Watson, Duke of Portland instead of William Cavendish-Bentinck, etc. This would make CP easier to use for studying British History. Thanks to anyone who can help me here. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 17:06, 13 April 2013 (EDT)
:Is any sysop monitoring this page? If so, please could you answer my question. [[User:StaceyT|StaceyT]] 20:35, 10 May 2013 (EDT)

==over 12 hours of not being able to edit==
I posted this problem last week elsewhere and never received a response, just as I received no response from the email I sent when it happened the week before that... So I guess I'll try it here. From 10am to 1030pm (Eastern Time) I was unable to edit any page on this site, including my own user and user:talk pages. It occurred suddenly while I was removing dead end pages and according to my "block records" I have never been blocked, yet this is at least the 4th time it has happened. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks, [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 22:56, 22 April 2013 (EDT)

== Public notice to evolutionists - 6/1/2013 ==

The Sherman tank(s), also known as [[User: Conservative]] :), is/are not going to be bogged down in the talk page [http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/articles/hedgerowbreakout.aspx hedgerows] fighting pointless, low priority battles with insincere, evolutionist posers who are too afraid to debate the creationist [[VivaYehshua]] (the biology major at a university) on the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists. See: [[VivaYehshua]].

I/we hear the pings of your sniper fire in the recent changes log of CP, but your rifle fire is having no effect! I/we are not bogged down!

Do not get you hopes up that I/we will be checking the Community Portal frequently or at all. I/we reserve the right to read the Community Portal or post in the Community Portal whenever I/we are so inclined. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:58, 1 June 2013 (EDT)
:News from a Question evolution campaign blog: On June 3, 2013, VivaYehshua said he was pleased that evolutionist were afraid to debate him via a debate offer that has repeatedly been given to evolutionists.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/evolutionists-failed-to-overturn.html]
::VivaYehshua's ability to make evolutionists quake in their boots (especially Fergus Mason) is becoming more widely known.[http://templestream.xanga.com/771564827/top-problems-with-evolutionary-teaching-today/] :)[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

== QuestyCaptcha ==
I noticed that in the RC, there's been a large amount of spammers. Perhaps implementing QuestyCaptcha, a system that uses questions that Mr. Schlafly chooses, could stem the onslaught. It works excellently at my wiki. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:10, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

== VivaYehshua vs. Fergus Mason. VivaYehshua won hands down and effortlessly ==

Mr. Mason, anytime you want your head back, just agree to debate VivaYehshua and actually carry through with the debate this time. Unless of course, you are still a quivering bowl of jelly! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:23, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Mr DeMy*er, any time you want a book published ask me to write it for you, instead of some cretard loser. $2,000 plus tax and your "15 Questions" book will be done by the end of the month.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:56, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
: Haha, all the evolutionists I have ever met are like this, they run away from fights at every chance. [[User:RowanO|RowanO]] 11:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Rowan, I turned up for the debate and instantly got banned by another moderator. Ken tends to forget that little detail.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:58, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
It has been agreed that debating this person is not a reason for being blocked, I think your hatred is a valid reason for a block, you are a coward and a bully. I am seriously considering reporting user:Conservative to UK immigration and having him declared "Persona non Grata" in the UK--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 11:22, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Patmac, you are an endless source of amusement! How many people do you think go by the name of [[User: Conservative]] on their passports when entering the UK. :) Second, Fergus Mason agreed to debate VivaYehshua. Now all he has to do to remove his stain of intellectual weakness, cowardice and dishonor is carry through on his promise and debate VivaYehshua. Unless of course, Fergus is afraid of being soundly thrashed in a debate and having the debate widely distributed. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:15, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Patmac, are you going to get Scotland Yard on this case or are you going to report [[User: Conservative]] to Interpol for high crimes and misdemeanors instead? You are acting like a yappy, little dog that is all bark and no bite. Patmac, liberalism is rapidly heading towards financial bankruptcy in the West and will collapse under its own weight. It happened in the Soviet Union and it will happen to Western nations which ignore the lessons of Greece and what is starting to be played out in California. Empty threats by members of teetering ideologies are not impressive in the least. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:00, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::Unsurprisingly patmac has been blocked user:c so he will not be able to respond. It's a shame really, I would have loved to hear the British Home Secretary's reply to any communication from him. I reckon I would have heard her laughing here where I live in the UK 40 miles from London, in fact I suspect you would have heard the laughing all the way over in the US. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 13:40, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
:::::Patmac, I looked up and suddenly saw your signature turn red. I didn't ask Karajou to declare you "Persona non Grata". He did this on his own accord. I do find it to be a case of poetic justice though considering your empty threat to get me/us banned from the UK. For all you know, I/we could be in the UK right now eating fish and chips and washing it down with Mackeson Stout! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

Nice try, Ken. I see you forgot to mention that Viva (who isn't a christian, by the way) is still banned from Shock's pathetic chatroom. That makes your "debate challenge" a farce, rendered all the more farcical by your cowardly refusal to debate me yourself. Here's me, willing to take time off from writing my latest book to debate you, and you're too gutless. You must really enjoy the company of those bunnies.--[[User:MFerguson|MFerguson]] 13:54, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::::::User:C, considering the current debacle surrounding Patmac, I would suggest avoiding mention of him for the time being (especially given your highly provocative relationship with him)[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:01, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
Fergus, you don't know what you are talking about and I/we also don't believe you are being sincere.

First, trinitarian Messianic Jews like VivaYehshua, recognize that Jesus was God and the Savior of mankind. Also, in most forms of Messianic Judaism salvation is by God's grace (I am assuming many of them also believe that true faith will have works).

Second, in the past you claimed that VivaYehshua did not like the 15 questions for evolutionists. I/we talked to VivaYehshua and he does like the 15 questions for evolutionists. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kZvzbhWK0c HERE] is a video of Shockofgod and VivaYehshua on the Question Evolution Campaign which includes the 15 questions for evolutionists. So why should I believe your claim that Viva has been banned from the Shockofgod's chatroom? I/we don't believe this. VivaYehshua is now attending a university for biology and he is working too. I/we think he is merely busier and in the chatroom less. Shockofgod is still reachable through (twitter, YouTube channel, blog) and so there is no reason why you can't get in contact with VivaYehshua and/or Shockofgod.

Fergus, just admit it. You agreed to debate VivaYehshua and then you cowardly backed down! I/we wouldn't even consider debating a cowardly and obscure evolutionist such as yourself until you keep your promise to debate VivaYehshua. First socks Fergus and then shoes! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:10, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::By the way Patmac, I/we know why you became so enraged and had your childish, little "I'll get you banned from the UK" temper tantrum. That cat that gets hit by the shoe yelps the loudest! You know that what I/we said about [[evolution|Darwinism]] and [[liberal Christianity]] are true. See: [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] and [[Liberal Christianity and irrationalism]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:31, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

:Mackeson Stout!!? C'mon Cons; try and refer to what you know, not what you've had to search for. (And while I am at it - what has [[Liberal Christianity and marital infidelity]] got to do with the subject being discussed? Oh! I see. It's a bit of triumphalism creeping in - taunting the person who can't answer back - is that a Conservative trait or a conservative trait. To my knowledge it is not a Christian trait. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 23:33, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

[[User:Conservative]] I thought you did not have any time in the next couple of years to engage in - or even read for that matter - conversations such as this. This is very much like the type of discussion you would find on a talk page, is it not? Are you going back on your promise, are you not as busy as you thought you would be or have your commitments been lessened? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 23:55, 3 June 2013 (EDT)
::Wilcox, tied up the Fergus Mason loose end today. May be checking recent changes less frequently. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:31, 4 June 2013 (EDT)
:::AlanE, the underlying issue is I offered valid criticism of so called [[liberal Christianity]] via facts/studies and the best Patmac could do is say "I am offended", "you are hateful", etc. etc. I am offended, etc. etc. is not a rational defense that regates facts/reality. It is a petulant display of immaturity. It is lame - just like his I will get you barred out of the UK lameness. I am offended is #5 of [[liberal style]]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:17, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

== Creationists GROWING. Atheists flagging ==

[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/atheist-wiki-lacks-internet-machismo.html Creationist group's influence GROWING. Atheist wiki flagging]

==It might be helpful==
not to oversight everything, derpy :) [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:13, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
:Helpful to whom? :) I heard that Karajou is going to take a minute or two to learn how to use the oversight tool today. :) It looks like his archnemisises Fergus and Ace will soon have their drivel be put in Davey Jones' locker from now on. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:29, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
[[File:Señor-Dawkins-in-his-intellectual-bunnyhole.jpg|thumb|Here's an picture that's here for some reason.]]
::Helpful to everyone here at the project who has enough machismo to stand behind their edits and actions rather than duck into a bunny hole when challenged. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 16:59, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
:::Brendon, a mighty wave of Karajou oversighting is coming to Fergus's and Ace's prattle! "For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill." - [[Sun Tzu]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
::::I didn't mean you, you silly derp! I meant that oversighting edits caused by reversions of spammers and trolls clouds judgement for future administrative decisions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:03, 9 June 2013 (EDT)
[[File:Submarine.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|Karajou will soon be able to torpedo the prattle of Fergus and Ace without warning via oversighting and send it to Davey Jones' locker where it will never be seen again by mortal men.]]

== Long haired, creationist sweethearts vs. godless lesbians ==
{{threadlock|1=Evolutionists, please see: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-president-of-equatorial-guinea-has.html Long haired, creationist sweethearts vs. godless lesbians] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:21, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
:From the article entitled ''The President of Equatorial Guinea has warned African leaders not to tolerate, accept or allow the issue of homosexuality to get roots in their countries. Also, 7 reasons why homosexuals have lower moral standards. Our Question Evolution! Campaign group is raising its standards'': "[[Lesbianism and obesity|Obese, godless and evolutionist lesbians]], you need to repent and be more like the godly women of the Bible. Sarah, the beautiful wife of Abraham (the father of faith) who called her husband master (1 Peter 3:6), was slim . Queen Esther had favor in the king's eyes and no doubt she was a slim lady as well! Mary, the mother of Jesus, no doubt had a slim figure and no artist has dared to suggest otherwise. Mary Magdalene was slim and the world's artist attest to this fact as well.

:If lesbianism is so great and the homosexuality lifestyle is healthful, then why are so many lesbians so fat?"[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-president-of-equatorial-guinea-has.html] See also: [[Lesbianism and obesity]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 15 June 2013 (EDT)
}}

== Gun purchasing advice ==

Having recently acquired a handgun permit in New York state (not an easy thing to do, I assure you; it seems I've been at it for years!) I can now legally purchase a handgun to go along with my collection of rifles. Does anyone have any advice on what sort of gun I should buy? Any informed opinion, especially if Biblically inspired, would be most appreciated. Thanks. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 13:50, 21 July 2013 (EDT)

Best of the public

2013-07-11T15:27:21Z

AngusT: /* Achievements */

[[Image:Constitution.jpg|right|300px]]
The '''"best of the public"''' is a successful approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation that was coined during an interview with [[Andrew Schlafly]], the founder of ''Conservapedia'', that was published on December 3, 2009:<ref>Tom Breen. [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34270487/ns/us_news-faith/ Blessed are the conservative in Bible translation], ''Yahoo! News'', December 03, 2009.</ref>
{{cquote|<big>'''The best of the public is better than a group of experts.'''</big>}}
The concept then became a topic of discussion when Mr. Schlafly appeared on the [[Stephen Colbert|''Colbert Repor''t]] on December 8, 2009.<ref>[http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly The Colbert Report Videos: Andy Schlafly], ColbertNation.com, December 08, 2009.</ref>

In early February 2010, [[Supreme Court]] Justice [[Clarence Thomas]] implicitly endorsed the concept of the "best of the public" with this response to a question by a state college student:<ref>http://abovethelaw.com/2010/02/clarence_thomas_rejects_ttt_label_for_his_law_clerks.php</ref>
{{cquote|I think there are smart kids a lot of places. ... [T]here is a bias. If you look at smart bloggers — or self-proclaimed smart bloggers — they referred to my clerks last year as TTT — 'third tier trash.' That's the attitude that you're up against.}}
Another way of expressing this concept is that "extraordinary achievements are attained by ordinary people." The enigmatic [[Christian]] term the "[[Son of Man]]" embodies how inspiration comes from the ostensibly ordinary rather than the esteemed experts. Most [[prophet]]s were also ordinary men.

==Examples==

The [[Conservative Bible Project]] may be the first to adopt the "best of the public" approach for a scholarly project. Other examples of approaches using the "best of the public" include:

===Intellectual examples===

*the [[Bible]]
:*the [[Gospel of Mark|earliest Gospel]] was likely written by a non-Apostle who witnessed the events as a young boy
:*the [[Epistle to the Hebrews (Translated)|Epistle to the Hebrews]] was possibly written by [[Jesus]]; its intellectual force is at the highest level
*the [[Apostles]]
*Justice [[Robert Jackson]], the finest Supreme Court jurist of the 20th century, did not attend college and never graduated from law school
*pamphleting, as in ''[[Common Sense]]''
*the "Little Free Library" concept to encourage reading and knowledge - "take a book, give a book"
*the solution of one of the greatest unsolved problems of our time, the [[Poincaré conjecture]] (see below)
*[[Ronald Coase]], an originally obscure economist, developed the now-accepted [[Coase theorem]] despite nearly unanimous rejection and opposition by experts
*[[Evariste Galois]], an unknown teenager, developed [[group theory]] and it took the mathematical experts a century to appreciate it
*[[Alexander Hamilton]], the most intellectually productive of the [[Founding Fathers]], was abandoned by his father, orphaned by the premature death of his mother, and then orphaned again by the suicide of his adopted father; he was stigmatized due to his social background and excluded from the local [[British]] school for it.
*the principle of trial by a jury of one's peers
*letters to the editor
*the design of [[Vietnam War]] Memorial (competition won by a college student, featuring ordinary soldiers)
*the design of the St. Louis Arch (competition won by an unknown architect, featuring openness)
*an obscure, unsuccessful author, [[Herman Melville]], wrote the greatest novel in English literature, ''[[Moby-Dick]]''
*an unknown and possibly uneducated playwright, [[William Shakespeare]], produced the greatest plays ever
*The [[Constitution of the United States of America]]. The [[Founding Fathers]], in their wisdom, chose to eschew the idea of "expert" hereditary nobility, but were also wary of the mob rule that could result with pure democracy; thus, they chose a democratic republic instead.
*The [[Electoral College]] was intended to be composed of the best of the public, who would judge who was best qualified to be President.
*'''''Conservapedia''''' posted [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study|errors and flaws]] in a pro-[[evolution]] article by Professor [[Richard Lenski]] (published after a mere 14-day peer review), but [[PNAS]] [[Letter to PNAS|refused to correct the errors]] and Lenski responded with [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog|petulant rants]] insisting his critic lacked "expertise".
*design of the distinctive Coca-Cola glass bottle, which resulted from a public contest in 1915.
*Internet blogs. Anyone can start a blog, and readers read the best blog posts. Such blogs have been responsible for breaking crucial news stories well before the "experts" of the traditional media--for example, the [[Monica Lewinsky]] story and [[Rathergate]]
*Layman Allen devised games like "WFF 'n proof" and Equations which reduced absenteeism, increased math achievement and achieved voluntary integration in the segregated Chicago school system. [http://o.b5z.net/i/u/6035566/f/pdfs/articles/chicagoreader.pdf]
*[[Homeschooled]] students tended to dominate the annual Math Counts competition to such an extent that the competition changed the rules to ban teams of homeschoolers from participating. <ref>http://theaquilareport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2760:homeschoolers-count-national-math-competition-bans-homeschoolers&catid=49:people&Itemid=132</ref>
*In 1939, George Dantzig, a graduate student at [[Stanford University]] solved two problems in statistics that were previously considered unsolvable after mistaking them for a homework assignment. Until Dantzig's professor told him what he had done, he was unaware that there was anything special about the problems.<ref>http://www.snopes.com/college/homework/unsolvable.asp</ref>
*All wikis, such as [[Conservapedia]], are an example of the 'Best of the Public' because their accuracy depends upon the premise thet the public can outdo encyclopedias written by experts.

===Moral examples===

*[[Mary]], the mother of [[Jesus]]
*[[Stephen]], the first martyr
*Prophets in the [[Old Testament]]
*Lenny Skutnik, the [[Mississippi]] native who dove into the icy [[Potomac River]] to rescue passengers from the crashed airplane on Jan. 13, 1982.<ref>"I wasn't a hero," Lenny Skutnik said. "I was just someone who helped another human being. We're surrounded by heroes. What made this different was that it was caught on film and went all over the world." [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/12/AR2007011202052.html]</ref>

=== Political and legal examples ===

*[[William Penn]]'s approach to colonial [[Pennsylvania]], which even advertised to attract hard-working settlers of all ethnicity and religious beliefs; as a result [[Philadelphia]] quickly became the most prosperous and highly populated city in colonial [[America]]
*[[Ronald Reagan]] embraced and embodied the best of the public in his speeches and political philosophy, and personified it by his own political ascendancy outside of the party establishment
*the recall of the governor, the attorney general, and another top official in North Dakota in 1921 -- who were corrupt politicians devoted to state ownership of industry -- was organized and achieved by someone who never held public office<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/23/opinion/recalling-the-first-recall.html?pagewanted=1</ref>
*the "[[common law]]" developed over centuries based on many day-to-day judicial decisions, relying on logic, custom and precedent, and such law was considered better than a statute drafted by one or a few experts
*the [[U.S. Constitution]], in its prohibition on nobility and religious tests for office, its frequent elections of House members, and its term limitation on the president.
*the [[Australian]] 2020 summit employed the best of the public by bringing together 1,000 people from all over Australia to discuss and make plans for the country's future.<ref>http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/summit-not-just-another-talkfest/story-e6frg726-1111115465754</ref>

===Musical examples===

*"Battle Hymn of the Republic," the only significant song by Julia Ward Howe, written in the dark during a pre-dawn inspiration
*"I Can See Clearly Now," a massive one-hit wonder by Johnny Nash in 1972
*"You Light Up My Life," the only hit by Debbie Boone, was a tribute to God that topped the charts for many weeks
*"Sunshine" (1971), which was not only a one-hit wonder by Jonathan Edwards, but it was included in his album only because a preferred song had been accidentally erased.<ref>here was a song on the album called ‘Please Find Me,’ and for some reason the engineer rolled over it. It got erased. We spent hours looking for it. We fired the engineer and put ‘Sunshine’ in its place.” [http://www.jonathanedwards.net/general/presskit-biography.php]</ref>
*"Ice Ice Baby" was the "B-side" filler panned by "experts" which became a massive hit because a disc jockey played it by chance; allegedly written by Vanilla Ice when he was 16<ref>"There's just something about the way its hook — a sample from Queen and David Bowie's ''Under Pressure'' — grabs you and flings you out onto the dance floor." [http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,318500,00.html]</ref>
*[[American Idol]]
*"[[The Star-Spangled Banner]]," the [[national anthem]] of the United States
*"96 Tears" by Question Mark and the Mysterians reached Number One on the charts, and overshadowed subsequent successes by the band.
*a-ha produced the ground-breaking video and song "Take On Me", despite never charting again for singles, albums, or videos.
*"In the Year 2525", by Zager and Evans, reached number one in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The group had no other Top 40 songs in either country, making them the only group to have this kind of "one-hit wonder" in both countries.
:''(add more one-hit wonders)''

=== Military examples ===

*Eddie Rickenbacker, who had to drop out of school at age 12 in order to support his mother after his father died, became the "American Ace of Aces" with 26 victories in [[World War I]] (despite being relatively old), survived on a life raft for 24 days after his plane went down in [[World War II]] (despite being over 50 years old), and later spoke out for [[conservative]] views; Rickenbacker, a phenomenal race-car driver when WWI broke out, was rejected for flying but then fixed [[Billy Mitchell]]'s car and persuaded him to give Eddie a chance at aviation.<ref>http://www.acepilots.com/wwi/us_rickenbacker.html</ref>

===Athletics===

Anyone can enter, and winning is based solely on skill. Examples include the following:
====Competitions====
*The [[Olympic Games]],<ref>Since 1990 there has been a qualifying requirement of reasonable success at a prior event.</ref> known for setting the most world records. When [[Francois Duvalier]] was the dictator of Haiti, he decided to abandon common sense and instead use [[nepotism]] to select who would compete in the Olympics. High-ranking military officials were sent to represent Haiti regardless of athletic ability, and typically finished last. The International Olympic Committee has since taken steps to ensure all athletes are reasonably qualified, although they do make exceptions in the Summer Olympics for countries with no reasonably qualified athletes in any sport. Today, all countries send their best athletes, rather than use the methods Duvalier used.
*The [[Tour de France]].<ref>In the 1920s it was open to all; now there is a qualifying process for teams.</ref>

====Achievements====
*Arthur Ashe, son of a policeman, at the relatively old age of 31 crushed the nearly invincible 22-year-old Jimmy Connors in 1975 to become the only African American men's Wimbledon singles champion;<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/july/5/newsid_2798000/2798971.stm</ref> Ashe won this upset with an ingenuous strategy of using offspeed volleys unfamiliar to the hard-hitting Connors.
*Dick Fosbury invented the Fosbury Flop despite criticism by all the experts. He won the 1968 Gold Medal with it, and now nearly everyone imitates his style.
*Bob Beamon, an obscure 22-year-old long jumper who barely qualified for the 1968 Olympic finals after fouling out on most attempts, then broke the world record by nearly two feet. In the preceding 30 years, the world record for the long jump had increased by only about 8 inches.<ref>http://www.infoplease.com/spot/summer-olympics-bob-beamon.html</ref>
*Marion Bartoli, a relatively obscure tennis player with a low seed at [[Wimbledon]], won in 2013 without losing a single set the entire tournament, a feat achieved by only five other players in modern history.
*An unsuccessful Olympian, the medical student Roger Bannister broke the 4-minute barrier for the mile, which some experts considered impossible; now the record is 3:43.
*A little-known pitcher, Don Larsen, threw the only perfect game in [[World Series]] history (Game 5, 1956)
*[[David]], a boy of slight build, defeated the most feared warrior of all time, the mammoth [[Goliath]]
*Kurt Warner, one of the greatest football quarterbacks,<ref>Warner is the only quarterback who has led two ''different'', hapless teams to three Super Bowls.</ref> was originally cut by the Green Bay Packers, denied a tryout by the Chicago Bears, and ultimately only given a chance due to another player's injury.
*[[Tim Tebow]], a devout Christian dismissed by the media, led the Denver Broncos to the playoffs his first season as a starter, and was inexplicably traded to the New York Jets, who preferred to play "expert" quarterback Mark Sanchez, costing them the season and finishing a pathetic 6-10.
*The Dallas Mavericks, having few stars, swept the heavily favored Los Angeles Lakers and then crushed the star-studded Miami Heat to win the 2011 [[NBA]] title.
*[[Jeremy Lin]], denied college basketball scholarships, left undrafted by the [[NBA]] and cut by a weak NBA team, joined the 8-15 Knicks and then took them on a seven-game winning streak, including wiping the floor with [[liberal]]-promoted [[Kobe Bryant]] of the favored Lakers
*a very longshot underdog colt, ridden by a [[Kentucky Derby]] rookie, won the fabled race in an enormous upset in 2012.
*[[Matt Cassel]] played backup quarterback to both [[Carson Palmer]] and [[Matt Leinart]] at the [[University of Southern California]]. Both Palmer and Leinart won the [[Heisman Trophy]] for best collegiate player, so Cassel never played for the Trojans except in blowouts. In 2005, he was drafted by the New England Patriots, only to back up Tom Brady when Brady was arguably the best quarterback in the league. In 2008, Brady suffered a season ending injury in the Patriots' first game, but Cassel led them to an 11-5 record, narrowly missing the playoffs. Since Brady had recovered by 2009, Cassel became the full-time starter on the [[Kansas City Chiefs]], and was selected to the Pro Bowl following the 2010 season as one of the best quarterbacks in the AFC.
:''(add more)''

===Science and technology===
*the greatest river engineer ever, James B. Eads, lacked any formal education and his revolutionary successes (such as the Eads Bridge) were opposed by leading experts<ref name="Eads bridge">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/peopleevents/p_jbeads.html</ref>
*perhaps the greatest health program of the 20th century, using a new term he coined for his program ("[[aerobics]]"), was developed by military physician Kenneth Cooper outside of a major medical research facility
*"Moldy" Mary Hunt, a low-level lab worker, used a rotten cantaloupe to facilitate the first ''mass'' production of [[penicillin]].<ref>"Then, in 1943, Mary Hunt, a lab worker in Peoria, Illinois brought in a cantaloupe melon. It was said to have been infected with a 'pretty, golden mould'. This mould was 'Penicillium chrysogeum'. It yielded about 200 times as much penicillin as Fleming's mould. Florey used x-rays to mutate the mould, which eventually gave 1000 times the yield of penicillin from the original." [http://www.qi.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=11777&start=0&sid=270d7f1ec3dc7c97bbb3c84a264676cc]</ref>
*the [[free software]] movement and its ongoing development of the [[Linux]] operating system
*the development of a heavier-than-air, [[fixed wing]] aircraft by the [[Wright Brothers]], despite opposition and mockery by aviation "experts."
*[[Henry Ford]]'s mass-production techniques, which turned automobiles from a curiosity into the backbone of American industry despite Ford's lack of formal education.
*the investigation of the [[Challenger Disaster]] by maverick physicist [[Richard Feynman]]
*[[Steve Wozniak]] developed the first popular personal computer from a garage-based operation
*[[Leonardo Da Vinci]] is one of the most well known designers in history, yet was illiterate in Latin, and never attended a university.
*distributed computing projects such as [[Folding@home]] that combine the computing power of hundreds of thousands of standard home PCs to solve computationally intense problems.
*the [[intelligent design]] theory explaining the origins of our universe.
*Tired of being denied a voice in the elite liberal media, [[Conservative media]] finds its voice and is widely popular; [[FOX News]], Drudge Report, Breitbart.com, NewsMax, ''[[National Review]]'', Worldnetdaily.com.
*New astronomical discoveries are regularly reported by amateur astronomers, to then be published by "experts", advancing their careers in the process.
*The leading and most innovative internet browser, [[Firefox]], was developed in a not-for-profit effort outside of the multi-billion-dollar [[Microsoft]] and [[Google]] empires.
*[[Mikhail Kalashnikov]] was drafted by the Russian military, and despite being trained in poetry and literature, eventually was made a firearms designer. He drew upon inspiration from Russian literature, and the Bible to focus on simplicity, and dependability. This simplicity resulted in the atheist experts rejecting his designs, and declaring them unworkable. The experts were however ultimately proven wrong, when one of his designs went on to win an open design contest, and became the single most reliable and prevalent firearm in the world: the [[AK-47]].
*In 1919, philanthropist Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 to the first person to fly a solo, non-stop flight between New York and Paris. Although many wealthy aviation experts attempted to win this prize, it was an unknown amateur pilot named [[Charles Lindbergh]] who won it.
*In 1873, [[homeschooled]] [[Scotland|Scottish]] scientist [[James Clerk Maxwell]] discovered the system of equations bearing his name that describe [[electromagnetism]].
*[[Michael Faraday]], a son of a poor blacksmith, had no formal education and became literate only in age thirteen. However, he discovered that magnetic fields could produce electricity, which no expert had attempted. Faraday later denied all patents, knighthood, and large funerals.

===Finance===

*Studies show that the public does as good a job at picking good stock investments as the experts do. For example, stock market indexes typically outperform funds managed by experts.

===Exploration and discovery===

*Despite billions of research dollars, technical experts and equipment for professional astronomers, amateur astronomers play a crucial role in outer space discoveries. ''See [[Comet Lovejoy]]''
*Christopher Columbus discovered the New World, despite near-unanimous expert opinion that his first voyage was doomed to failure. On his second voyage, he successfully returned to the same place he had previously reached, despite the limited navigational skills of the experts of the time.

===Journalism===
*As noted in Conservapedia's breaking news, the [[lamestream media]] is being replaced by [[YouTube]] videos of breaking news.<ref>Fernandez, Richard. "A Wired World in its Own Mirror." March 11, 2011. Pajamas Media. http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/03/11/a-wired-world-in-its-own-mirror/?singlepage=true</ref>
*Large media outlets have begun presenting amateur reports from viewers. This began with [[CNN]]'s iReport<ref>http://ireport.cnn.com</ref> and later was adopted by [[Fox News]] (uReport<ref>http://ureport.foxnews.com</ref>) and others.

===Law Enforcement===
*Alleged Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was caught, not by the thousands of police experts swarming uselessly over a shut-down Watertown, MA, but by an individual keeping his eyes open in his own back yard.

== Obstacles Created by Liberal Experts ==

[[Liberal]] and [[Conservative]] experts have self-interest in defending their theories, even if incorrect, and in perpetuating the system that has rewarded and applauded them. Some experts receive prodigious sums by promoting theories that are false or implausible, either in the media or in courtrooms.

Most conservatives who are experts in their own right reasonably fear loss in grants, compensation or awards if they take a position at odds with a [[liberal]] counterpoint, especially one that has gained wide acceptance with the general population.

===Examples===

One expert said about the revolutionary design of the Eads bridge to transport heavy ships by railroad over the [[Mississippi River]]:<ref name="Eads bridge"/>
{{cquote|I deem it entirely unsafe and impracticable.}}
The Eads bridge continues to stand to this day.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/eads/sfeature/sf_footage.html</ref>

==The Best of the Public and the Invisible Hand==

The concept of best of the public was first articulated on [[Conservapedia]], although the effects have been observed by many great thinkers over the years. In a free society where the best of the public is allowed the latitude to excel, benefits accrue on many levels. [[Adam Smith]], the father of capitalism, observed this principle in effect; in his book ''[[The Wealth of Nations]]'', he described how the best of the public, when given the freedom to generate wealth, could generate a net beneficial and uplifting effect that goes beyond their individual enterprises. Smith called this the "[[Invisible Hand]]." However, he confined his observations to the sphere of economics, whereas the "Best of the Public" principle operates on many different levels.

Marriage and family, for example, serve as an illustration of the principle in the social arena. When marriage is allowed to function without government interference and misguided attempts at social engineering, the result is strong families; the best of the public raise children of superior virtue and character, who in turn grow up to pass those values on to their children. This, in turn, leads to a net positive effect on society known as the [[Invisible Hand of Marriage]].

The same uplifting principle can be seen in any situation in which the best of the public is allowed to freely function and attain its potential. Events like the Olympics and the Tour de France permit the best of the public to strive on a physical level, resulting in many new record-breaking performances. While the principle has seldom (as of yet) been applied to academic endeavors, the [[Conservative Bible Project]] demonstrates the benefits that can result.

==Opposition to the Best of the Public==

===Government restrictions===
History demonstrates that the best of the public can only thrive in a free society. The cream cannot rise to the top if it is weighted down; eagles cannot soar if they are shackled by an oppressive government. This understanding is at the heart of conservative wisdom.

For example: it is only in a [[free market economy]] that the best of the public will be truly free to drive innovation, develop new technologies, and generate new wealth. In an overly-regulated economy, the incentive to excel is greatly reduced. Innovation is replaced by stagnation, and achievement by mediocrity.

===Elite gatekeepers===
Likewise, in an academic environment in which elite "experts" serve as gatekeepers, truly innovative research is frequently squelched in favor of orthodoxy and blind consensus. The chilling effect "scientific experts" can have on honest research was clearly demonstrated by the [[Climategate]] scandal. Even when such "experts" do not actively conspire to suppress dissent, their use of expertise and consensus as a bully pulpit can still silence opposing (and possibly correct) viewpoints.

===Mobs===
It is important to note the difference between "Best of the Public" and "mob rule." Simply allowing the loudest or most numerous voices to prevail is not the same thing as allowing the best of the public to drive achievement. Sites such as [[Wikipedia]] operate on the principle of mob rule, and as a result, are plagued with bias, inaccuracy, and an inability to differentiate between significant insights and trivia.

One of the most pointed illustrations of this difference is the [[United States]] itself. The [[Founding Fathers]], despite not naming it, applied the "Best of the Public" principle in their attempts to craft a new government. Realizing the danger of mob rule, they rejected a pure democracy in favor of a democratic Republic--a system designed to ensure that, while all of the public would have a voice in their new government, the best of the public would guide that government. To insure that only the best of the public was selected, with the exception of members of the [[U.S. House of Representatives|House of Representatives]], officials in the federal government were not directly elected. The framers of the [[U.S. Constitution]] conceived of the [[Electoral College]] as a body of men who would exercise independent judgement in choosing the [[President of the United States|President]] and [[Vice President of the United States|Vice President]], not merely cast their ballots as directed by their state's voters. Moreover, electors in most states were initially appointed by state legislatures. Likewise, members of the [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] were originally selected by state legislatures. Judges, ambassadors and other federal officials are chosen by the President and subject to approval by the Senate. Thus, although the people would directly choose their Congressmen, they would only indirectly choose other officials, and this filtering mechanism would ensure that only the best of the public was in charge of the government, rather than having mob rule.

By choosing this compromise, they clearly affirmed that they believed the best of the public was better than a group of experts; in contrast, the nations of Europe still firmly subscribed to the notion that government should be in the hands of elite "experts" (the ruling families and nobility.)

===Obscurity===
The "best of the public" must be able to be heard. There are millions of books published, and even more books self-published without approval of traditional publishing houses. Many authors protest<ref>Paul Biba. [http://www.teleread.org/2009/09/18/self-publishing-e-books-and-legitimacy-part-3-of-a-series/ Self-publishing, E-books, and Legitimacy: Part 3 of a series], teleread.org, September 18th, 2009.</ref><ref>"[http://www.baen.com/library/palaver6.htm Prime Palaver #6]", Eric Flint</ref> that this is the greatest problem with modern publishing.

==Experts versus the Best of the Public==
Some confusion may exist over the difference between an "expert" and the "best of the public." The primary difference lies in the manner in which expertise is obtained. Most "experts" undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts. This always carries the danger of [[groupthink]] and the pressure to conform. Also, academic credentialing consists almost entirely of repeating what professors say, rather than criticizing their errors.<ref>See, e.g., the movie "Dark Matter" for a candid portrayal of academic credentialing.</ref>

For instance, someone interested in obtaining a job in the field of climate science (whom we shall refer to as "Student A") would likely pursue a degree at an established university. In so doing, he would be immersed in the academic subculture of researchers and professors who have already obtained their degrees in that field. He would be subjected to their political views, preconceptions, and biases, and would likely find that these were presented as facts and as an integral part of the subject. Any questioning or dissent on his part might be harshly punished. Ultimately, he would be faced with a difficult choice: abandon his desire to be an accredited expert in that field, dishonestly pretend to believe in the questionable claims of his superiors, or convince himself that those claims were, in fact, the truth.

On the other hand, someone interested in learning about climate science, but not interested in becoming a credentialed expert (we'll call him "Student B,") would likely study a diverse variety of sources. Not confined to the insular and clannish academic subculture, he would speak with a wider range of people, and be exposed to a wider range of viewpoints. This would, in all probability, cause him to examine the claims of the experts with a more critical eye. Ultimately, his studies would not gain him a degree or the official imprimatur of the scientific community, but his understanding of climate science would very likely be more rounded and complete than that of Student A. He very well might disagree with the experts' point of view; at the very least, he would have a much better knowledge of its shortcomings.

A traditional, expert-dominated inquiry would dismiss the contributions of Student B, since he has not an "expert" - he has not received the official approval of the gatekeepers. A "best of the public" approach would accept the contributions of both Student A and Student B, since they are both members of the public. However, it would not place Student A's contributions on a pedestal and make them sacrosanct and immune to questioning. Student B would be free to bring in HIS expertise as well; as a result, the ensuing discussion would be much less one-sided and more comprehensive, and thus far more likely to result in accurate and truthful insights. Perhaps many ideas coming from people like Student B would be wrong, unprofitable, and therefore rightly rejected; the "best of the public" approach recognizes that not all ideas from the public are better than those of experts. However, it is very likely that some ideas from people like Student B will be true and helpful. This is the difference between the two approaches: such ideas will be heard under the "best of the public" method.

== Solution of the Poincaré Conjecture ==

The solution to the [[Poincaré conjecture]], one of the greatest unsolved math problems of the 20th century, was by the little-known [[Gregori Perelman]] who worked on his own and merely posted his solution on the internet. He had never been offered a permanent job and was critical of the lack of openness among mathematical experts as he described a rare exception:<ref>[http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Mi-So/Perelman-Grigory.html Grigory Perelman Biography (emphasis added)], Encyclopedia of World Biography.</ref>
{{cquote|He actually told me a couple of things that he published a few years later. He did not hesitate to tell me. Hamilton's openness and generosity—it really attracted me. '''I can't say that most mathematicians act like that'''.}}
At great monetary sacrifice, Perelman refused to accept the awards conferred on him by experts after they eventually recognized the brilliance of his proof. A leading expert was accused of improperly trying to take credit for Perelman's work.

The Steklov Institute apparently declined to re-elect Perelman as a member in 2003, supposedly because the experts continued to doubt his proof. Reportedly Perelman has quit mathematics and was "jobless, living with his mother in St. Petersburg, and subsisting on her modest pension." He was quoted as saying:<ref>Mike Ciavarella. [http://imechanica.org/node/3360 Perelman limit case: not a single paper, refuse the Field medal, refuse reviewers], imechanica.org, June 17, 2008.</ref>
{{cquote|I can't say I'm outraged. Other people do worse. Of course, there are many mathematicians who are more or less honest. But almost all of them are conformists. They are more or less honest, but they tolerate those who are not honest. ... It is not people who break ethical standards who are regarded as aliens. It is people like me who are isolated.}}

In 2006, the mathematical establishment delivered another backhanded compliment to Perelman's achievement: he was awarded the [[Fields Medal]] on a shared basis with (1) an Obama-supporter who had jointly worked on a number theory problem, (2) a French mathematician-actor, and (3) a younger countryman who had achieved far less. This four-way split of the prize with far less significant achievements was inappropriate. Perelman declined this prize also.

== References ==

{{reflist|2}}

==See also==
* [[Expert Error]]
* [[Independent review]]
* [[Essay:Everyday Heroes]]
* [[Free software movement]]
{{Conservapedia}}
{{Conservatism}}
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

User talk:Brenden

2013-06-18T00:28:13Z

AngusT: /* I'll tell you what */ new section

{{Useful links}}
[[User talk:Brenden/Archive]]

== Regarding the Anonymous page ==

I've looked into the Anon/WBC incident before for an essay on freedom of speech as it relates to Internet culture, and while both WBC and Anon showed their typical lack of civility and good manners towards each other they didn't violate the 1st Amendment in any way. I might have made a mistake in the report, though, so if you could show me where one side or the other violated 1st Amendment rights I'd be happy to concede the point. [[User:JGrant|Blessings of the Almighty on you :)]] 16:25, 3 October 2012 (EDT)

== Seeing as you've blocked me in the past for sometimes having a less-than-cheerful attitude... ==

....you'll love [http://conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/PaulDiFoglio this guy's] stream of edit comments. Hugs and kisses, [[User:MattyD|MattyD]] 21:00, 31 October 2012 (EDT)

== What the hell are you doing? ==

Why have you just unblocked this user - you better have a good reason! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:23, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:No need to block non-malicious morons. Just let them know that they are being ignored.[[User:Brenden|Brenden]] 17:39, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

::DON'T DO IT AGAIN~! Look at the history you moron! [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:46, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

You've just made yourself look a total idiot. I can't believe I was the one who recommended for promotion. [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 17:58, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
:::[Comments retracted by poster]<del>Thank you, EJamesW </sarcasm>[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 18:00, 2 November 2012 (EDT)</del>

What does </sarcasm> mean?

Does that mean you're trying to be sarcastic? But you can't think of anything witty or amusing to type?

Brenden, why don't you just say sorry and leave it at that? (Have you looked at the history of User:Reactionary22, you will see that I gave this guy a chance to respond and chandged his block settings.)

I suppose some Christians never can admit they're wrong...

[[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 18:17, 2 November 2012 (EDT)

:Ease up E, Brendan has done the same on more than one occasion. Normally we frown upon adjusting others' blocks but no harm, no foul.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:04, 2 November 2012 (EDT)
::My apologies, I failed to take a look at the history, and the tone you took kind of distracted me from looking. Sorry about that.[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:54, 3 November 2012 (EDT)
==Editing==
Editing is fully restored. Sorry I didn't notice this earlier.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:55, 11 November 2012 (EST)
:Thanks, Mr. Schlafly[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 00:39, 12 November 2012 (EST)

==Conservative==
If you have a personal problem with a sysop, you take it up with Aschlafly. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:12, 19 November 2012 (EST)

== Personal Honeypot ==

Just registered. I think an interesting experiment/test could be to add a few articles copied from wikipedia into the wiki after deleting all the spam and see if the content of those articles changes what is being written in the spam. Dvergne 23:57, 17 December 2012 (EST)
:I also think we should start and anti-spam squad here to help combat the spam by collecting the IP's and the like and adding those to such sites as Stopforumspam. I also think that copying the spam IP block list from wikipedia is a good Idea as I imagine they would have to have pretty good countermeasures against spam over there. Dvergne 00:02, 18 December 2012 (EST)
==Thanks==
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. My only concern is accuracy and credibility. I think that sometimes, people can't see how a stranger will react to their writing because we all have internal writing voices which remember all of our intentions rather than what is on the page. [[User:Wschact|Wschact]] 01:34, 6 January 2013 (EST)

:Thank you for your tireless work against vandals. Your efforts are appreciated. :-) Regards, [[User:Taj|Taj]] 17:27, 13 January 2013 (EST)

== Spambots ==

It seems the spambots are active again. I might start to port over the new spambot IP blocks from Wikipedia again, as that seamed to be quite efficient at stopping them for a while last time. [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 06:29, 3 February 2013 (EST)

:I think I might upgrade that to very active! Have you been getting much spam at your honeypot mate? [[User:Dvergne|Dvergne]] 19:27, 3 February 2013 (EST)
::It's been ok-ish. I blocked most of the ranges that were targeting my honeypot. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:50, 3 February 2013 (EST)

== I removed your latest round of "personal attacks removed" censorship ==
I think it is poor form to edit talk page comments left by others. If an editor wishes to run afoul of the rules by speaking their mind, it should be their freedom to do so. If that editor happens to be immune to the rules (as with the user in this case), then I think their unfettered comments should stand as testimony to their true nature. Thanks --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 21:16, 7 February 2013 (EST)
:Well, the last time that specific user left his comments, a lot of people were offended. While I agree, that generally, it is inappropriate to censor users, in certain cases, especially when personal attacks are involved, it should be fine. Furthermore, the use of such tags, causes the poster understand that such attacks are not welcome on Conservapedia.

Thanks for your input anyways, though. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 22:04, 7 February 2013 (EST)

== Editing should work now ==

Try now - your account has been promoted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:25, 19 February 2013 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:59, 19 February 2013 (EST)

==Maybe you're right==

I still retain my suspicion, but if that contributor wants to reregister we should let him. I probably should have enabled account recreation after the block. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:34, 1 March 2013 (EST)

==AlanE==
Thanks Brenden. I needed that! [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 21:20, 6 March 2013 (EST)
:NP [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 21:30, 6 March 2013 (EST)

== Reverting admins ==

Hi Brenden. You do not have the authority to undo admin's blocks. If you have an issue, you raise it. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 15:30, 7 March 2013 (EST)
:KK got it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:47, 12 March 2013 (EDT)

== Block ==

Thanks. [[User:JohanZ|JohanZ]] 11:56, 9 April 2013 (EDT)
:No problem[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:25, 9 April 2013 (EDT)

== CameronD ==

Sorry I had been playing around with my signature I have now corrected it. [[User:CameronD|CameronD]] 13:45, 12 April 2013 (EDT)

== Unleash the <s>Kraken</s> Bot! ==
If you really do have the ability to implement some technical means to protect this wiki from a certain user's flagrant deletion sprees, I implore you to do so. Asking him to stop won't do a thing. He literally is incapable of changing his ways. --[[User:DonnyC|DonnyC]] 22:57, 23 April 2013 (EDT)
:Well I do hope that asking him to change will help him overcome his irritating habit of deleting pages, I am prepared to create a bot. Unfortunately, I have no experience with the MW api, sooo, I see a lot of googling, and asking for technical help in my foreseeable future. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:42, 24 April 2013 (EDT)

==User:C Reply==
I have no intention of leaving, but between C's actions and [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] choosing to ignore the problem(as well as any message I write to him now), it's hard to stay motivated to keep trying to make the site better. I'll stick around for now and continue to fight for this site, but I have this sinking feeling that it is only a matter of time before I'm perma-banned. Thanks for the support though, hopefully those of us who actually care will be able to prevail in the end. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 14:24, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
:On a related note... am I the only one who sees the hypocrisy in C's repeated use of the 90/10 rule as a reason for banning (including the block of [[User:FWilliamM|FWilliamM]] a mere 40 minutes after your unbanning him) when 38% of his own last 500 edits were to talk pages? [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 00:28, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::I do try to unblock the users unfairly blocked by that admin. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 01:17, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
:::I know you do and my earlier comment wasn't aimed at you. I was just frustrated with his antics last night and needed to express that to someone. Thank you for doing what you can. [[User:Fnarrow|Fnarrow]] 08:32, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

That is enough from both of you. Brendan, you have no business or authority unblocking users because of a pet peeve against Conservative, especially when I look into the matter and discover they are proven trolls previously blocked for hostility. User Fnarrow, your whining about being bullied is now over and done with. You chose to come into the site, and you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise. This site is an encyclopedia; it is not a site where anyone can cause a fight with anyone else. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:51, 27 April 2013 (EDT)
::: Karajou, I've always respected you, and found you to be a fair, and rational person, despite whatever ideological differences we may have. On the other hand, I must protest that contrary to what you said about FNarrow, ''"you chose to put yourself into conflict with another user when you could have chosen otherwise."'' is actually an incorrect take on what happened. FNarrow was according to his contributions, merely being a productive editor, when s/he was provoked by User:C's ad-hominem attacks, and blatant violation of the Commandments. As per my authority to undo blocks placed by a superior, I feel, (and I'm pretty sure that Mr. Schlafly agrees with me), that blocks placed to censor users, and to subvert the policies here, are worthy of an immediate unblock. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 14:44, 27 April 2013 (EDT)

::::This edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=1036560] says a lot in support of my argument; this individual also created three additional accounts via a Philippine proxy in order to cause an attack on user Conservative...and you unblocked two of those socks. What you and FNarrow need to do is not only read the Conservapedia Commandments, but read and heed the warnings at the bottom of my user page. Everyone coming in is going to respect this website and the people in it, or they are out. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:04, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Respect,K.? Ha!! Whose wife was implied to be a slut, K; and by whom, and who stood by and let that worm, Cons, get away with it? Who said one thing on Gmail and something else in public when he realised he had to show solidarity with a certain Mexican "gentleman" who backed a coward who has not bothered to do what he said he would do. I am still here, K. Where did Markman go when he realised he had given himself some work to do?

Just one question - why, if lack of citations is such a crime, wasn't I pulled up in 2007? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 02:55, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

Sorry Brenden for smeering your page with my anger. One takes the opportunity when it arises. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 03:12, 28 April 2013 (EDT)
::@User:Karajou
I don't have the checkuser ability, so I cannot tell if the people I block and unblock are socks. As per respecting the website, and the people (Especially user:C), I do try to respect the person, even if I cannot respect their actions. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:37, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

==Fnarrow infinite block==
I am a friend of Fnarrow and he asked me to post the copy of this email which he sent to cpwebmaster@conservapedia.com on the user talk pages ofa few people whom he said had always been fair to him. <blockquote>
I got banned for a day and then Karajou immediately changed it to infinite for no apparent reason immediately after it expired. I have cut the dead end pages by nearly half during my short time there and feel i have made substantive improvements to other articles during that time. While i have had disagreements with Karajou and Conservative, i have always been respectful and adhered to the Conservapedia commandments. Finally, I never had a chance to respond to my accuser and did nothing to deserve this treatment. Please forward this to Mr. Schlafly for review.
Thank you, Fnarrow
</blockquote>
If my opinion counts for anything, Frank really is a great and passionate guy who could add a lot of valuable knowledge to yosite. That is all, please keep up the great work. [[User:JSandler|JSandler]] 14:35, 28 April 2013 (EDT)

== If you hide another civil discussion I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website ==

If you hide another civil discussion that I am having with another editor again, I will ask that you be removed from the website. Thank you. I am sure Karajou and others would agree with me on this matter if I bring up this matter with other Admins. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:12, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:How dare you? You insulted Patmac, and a vast host of other anglicans, you dragged me into this fight, and if you don't tone down your insults, I will bring it up with Mr. Schlafly, who certainly agrees that your words are unnacceptable. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:14, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::I don't consider my post to you daring. And I do mean to carry out what I said I would do should you do it again. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:15, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::That discussion was civil? Calling user:Patmac a untrue christian, who is also a "lying evolutionist"? Really? I have brought this matter with the site's owner already. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:19, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
::::Stating untruths about the conversation is not going to further your cause. In fact, you are making things worse. For example, I expressly did not answer Pacmac's question on whether or not he was a Christian which is why he repeated this question. You are digging for yourself a deeper hole. I would suggest you stop digging. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:::::Since when is it your right to be implying that any user is not a "True Christian"? And furthermore, can you justify User:Conservative/Patmac dodged this issue?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:32, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

Brenden, you shouldn't have pushed it so far. All C probably meant was that "no true Christian" would advocate this or that. You'd have to be an idiot to take that personally (in fact, you'd have to be an imbecile not to realize that 'be an idiot' was just a figure of speech).

It may seem unfair that sometimes admins get greater leeway when it comes to personal remarks, but getting into a pissing contest over it will never be productive. If you're really worried about fairness, I suggest you consider all the people in totalitarian dictatorships who have NO ACCESS to the Internet and no way to express themselves without a swift ride to prison. Getting blocked on a pro-freedom site for [[personal remarks]] hardly compares.

Chill out, and come back refreshed. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 23:48, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==It is nothing to do with like or dislike ==
It is nothing to do with like or dislike. It is for your own good. This is a fight you will NOT win. Rob Smith tried this and he now edits at ratwiki, he is an ex-person here. Keep this up and you will be as well. Davidspencer 16:23, 17 May 2013 (EDT)
:Thank you, David. I'm sorry for my choice of words now, but I must say, what User:Conservative did was not acceptable, and I tried to do my best to halt it before it returned to another user:C vs other sysops wheel war like last week. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:27, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Thanks Brenden ==
I do appreciate it, but don't want to cause disruption--[[User:Patmac|Patmac]] 16:41, 17 May 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Ryancsh==
I don't see why user page edits should not be understood as talk page edits for purposes of enforcing the 90/10 rule. I'm thinking of indefinitely banning Ryancsh for being a parodist anyway. Look up "Ryan Cash" on google, it seems to be some kind of an internet joke. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 11:25, 5 June 2013 (EDT)
:I searched up Ryan Cash, and saw that the second result points to a certain "Sonichu.com". However, I don't see how a website dedicated to provoking the creator of "sonichu" has any connection with Conservapedia or editing at Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:41, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

==Re:Rafael==

Considering his past record (see relevant block log) I think that if anything his block was not long enough. Increased length of block to one week. If this was his first offense then maybe it could have ended with a warning. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 14:10, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:Given the fact that you have been chastised for being overly block-happy, I would strongly suggest not touching Rafael again, until Mr. Schlafly condones it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:39, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
==Schmoozing with the enemy==

Good day,

I couldn't help but notice that you are not only frequenting a website dedicated solely for the purpose of attacking Conservapedia (everybody knows which website I'm talking about), but that you are also talking with the other liberals there about me. Care to elaborate? - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 15:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT)
:If you see my goals I stated on my talkpage at that website, you will have your questions answered. As for speaking about you, I don't make assumptions on your motivations, but I have seen your blocking record, and I am frankly less than convinced on your sincerity. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 15:32, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

==Swordsman==

Look up "Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?‎" You'll find Swordsman as there in the discussion about the Catholic Church and evolution. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:45, 16 June 2013 (EDT)

==Mark Kirk==

The idea that the stroke damaged his judgement does not sound unreasonable to me. I think that the main problem with the edit you reverted is that it treats this idea as a fact rather than a likely yet unproven possibility. I changed the wording [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mark_Kirk&diff=1056953&oldid=1056927 accordingly]. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 04:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:The likelyhood of a stroke changing a person's political views are not supported by any reliable neuroscience research. I'm removing it as it seems to be at the best, an unproven claim. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:27, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

==Go to the talk page at the other wiki both of us frequent==

There's a surprise for you there. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 19:55, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:Do you mean Twigo or my talk page? [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:59, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::Your talk page. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 20:01, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

== I'll tell you what ==

Why don't you ask Andy if he thinks it's impossible that damage to the brain can make someone liberal. If he says it's impossible, I'll remove that part of Kirk's article myself. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 20:28, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

User talk:AngusT

2013-06-18T00:04:35Z

AngusT: /* "liberal" */

{{welcome|sig=[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 00:48, 14 December 2009 (EST)}}

AngusT, remember that the [[Conservapedia Commandments]] forbid excessive talk. Repeatedly arguing on talk pages is a blockable offense under the [[90/10 Rule]]. Please be sure you make substantive contributions as well as discussions. Thank you.--[[User:Wuhao1911|Wuhao1911]] 19:46, 3 January 2010 (EST)

== Editing ==

Please be sure you give citations and explain removal of already vetted facts. If you remove a citation, please replace it with another. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:33, 19 April 2010 (EDT)
:I removed a broken link and the "facts" it supported. The site in question, even if the link worked, as for an obviously socialist group called the United States Institute for Peace. I don't think this is a reliable source by Conservapdia standards, but I could be wrong. The article as it stands basically accuses Pinochet of murdering thousands of innocent people, something communist apologetic liberals like to say but which has never been proved. The [[Pinochet]] article gives a much more accurate account than the Allende one, so it seems that one should to be edited for accuracy. In my opinion, Conservapedia shouldn't jump on the anti-Pinochet bandwagon like so many leftists in this country. I welcome your input in this area. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 16:26, 19 April 2010 (EDT)

==Lindbergh==

Hi. Thanks for [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Best_of_the_public&curid=104391&diff=817382&oldid=813906&rcid=900986 pointing this out] about "Lucky Lindy". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:27, 15 September 2010 (EDT)
:You're welcome. I'm a little surprised he wasn't mentioned already! [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 10:08, 16 September 2010 (EDT)

== Argumentum Ad Hominem ==

Please avoid name calling, as you did at [[Talk:Main Page]]. If you are not aware of the rules, please take a look at them again. Calling brits "whiney", and insulting them is against the rules. Thank you.
{{warning}}
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 12:20, 14 February 2012 (EST)

== "liberal" ==

After browsing some of your contributions, I have found your edits to be less than satisfactory. Attaching the accusation of "liberal" to completely non-partisan articles was a favored tactic of parodists, so I have my reservations about your edits. Consider yourself warned. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:58, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
----
:I don't know what you're talking about, but I would ask you not to post accusations or "warnings" on my talk again. Or anything, for that matter. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 20:04, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Mark Kirk

2013-06-17T23:58:06Z

AngusT: /* Stroke and Changes in Political views */

==Stroke and Changes in Political views==
There are no sources that state a stroke will cause a change in political views. Since you support it, then you are responsible for finding a citation. If after 1 week of this message, you do not provide a citation from a trustworthy source that strokes cause a change in political views, then I will remove it. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 13:48, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:There are plenty of sources that show a stroke can affect the brain in all sorts of ways. Both cognitively [http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/LifeAfterStroke/RegainingIndependence/EmotionalBehavioralChallenges/Cognitive-Challenges-After-Stroke_UCM_309904_Article.jsp] including problem solving issues, which can be political, as well as personality-wise [http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/LifeAfterStroke/RegainingIndependence/EmotionalBehavioralChallenges/Personality-Changes-After-Stroke_UCM_309905_Article.jsp]. It even specifically mentions "guilt, despair, anger, shame and depression" exactly what homosexuals suffer from. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 19:51, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
::The articles you cited do not support the assumption that strokes change your political views. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 19:53, 17 June 2013 (EDT)
:::You're right. I'm sure he embraced two of the most ridiculous notions we've ever come across based on logic and reason. Strokes can affect the way you think. Your political views are an important aspect of a person's thinking; maybe even the most important. Why would they be exempt from such changes? [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 19:58, 17 June 2013 (EDT)

Talk:Mark Kirk

2013-06-17T23:51:12Z

AngusT:

Essay:Greatest Conservative TV Shows

2013-06-16T21:15:41Z

AngusT: /* The greatest conservative television shows */

==The greatest conservative television shows==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Title
!Original run
!Network
!TV rating
!Description
|-
|''[[The Brady Bunch]]''
|1969-1974
|[[ABC]]
| TV rating G
|Wholesome sitcom, although highly unlikely, suburban [[Los Angeles]] [[blended family]]-a widow ([[Florence Henderson]]) with three daughters and a widower ([[Robert Reed]]) with three sons.
|-
|''[[Family Ties]]''
|1982-1989
|[[NBC]]
| TV rating PG
|Dramaedy series about how hardworking [[conservative]] children, eg. Michael J. Fox, outsmart their [[liberal]], ex-[[hippie]], underachieving parents.
|-
|''[[Broken Arrow (TV series)|Broken Arrow]]''
|1956-1958
|[[ABC]]
|TV NR/PG
|A compassionate Indian agent, Tom Jeffords, played by John Lupton, forges a friendship with the [[Apache]] [[Indian]] Cochise, portrayed by Michael Ansara; set in [[Arizona]]
|-
|''Sugarfoot''
|1957-1961
|ABC
|NR/PG
|Will Hutchins plays young "do-gooder" Tom "Sugarfoot" Brewster, a novice lawyer who roams the Old West "on the side of law and order," according to the theme song of the [[Warner Brothers]] series; Sugarfoot eschews guns until pushed to the brink and even refuses alcohol and instead orders "sarsparialla with a dash of cherry" when he enters a saloon.
|-
|''Death Valley Days''
|1952-1973
|Syndicated
|NR/PG
|Historically-based dramatic western presentations hosted at different times by Stanley Andrews, [[Ronald Reagan]], Robert Taylor, and Dale Robertson. It ran at times under other titles, such as ''Trails West'', with Ray Milland.
|-
|''[[Faye Emerson's Wonderful Town]]''
|1951-1952
|[[CBS]]
|
|Once a daughter-in-law of [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] and a wife of Skitch Henderson, Faye Emerson presents the most memorable songs associated with various cities, mostly in the United States; in its day, this was one of the most expensive programs to present to the public.
|-
|''Lawman''
|1958-1962
| ABC
|
|John Russell as Marshal Dan Troop; Peter Brown as deputy Johnny McKay, and Peggie Castle as Lily; this Warner Brothers series sought to maintain highest script quality so as not to be "just another western."
|-
|''Black Saddle''
|1959-1960
|ABC
|
|Peter Breck plays Clay Culhane, a gunfighter-turned-lawyer who seeks to help those in need of legal representation; co-starring Russell Johnson as Marshal Gib Scott
|-
|''Laramie''
|1959-1963
|NBC
|NR
|John Smith and Robert Fuller portray ranch partners Slim Sherman and Jess Harper; many episodes focus on their close friendship, which also extended off the set; Hoagy Carmichael appeared the first season as their housekeeper; Spring Byington filled that role in the last two seasons.
|-
|''State Trooper''
|1956-1959
|Syndicated
|NR
|Rod Cameron adventure/drama anthology series, forgotten to most today, based on case files of the [[Nevada]] state troopers; law and justice always prevail. Many episodes have surprise endings and unusual titles.
|-
| ''Our Man Higgins''
|1962-1963
|ABC
|G
|Stanley Holloway plays an English butler for an American family in a situation comedy with a dose of "culture clash". Frank Maxwell and Audrey Totter played the parents, and [[Ricky Kelman]] was the son, Tommy MacRoberts.
|-
|''The Office''
|2005-
|NBC
|TV PG
|Mockery of liberal ideology and [[political correctness]] in an office setting, without a liberal [[laugh track]]. The main character repeatedly encounters contradictions and absurdities as he tries to conform to liberal expectations. The show was most popular when its humor was conservative, and has declined in quality and popularity as its conservative humor has been diluted. Steve Carell played the main character for six years and was denied an Emmy Award by liberals every time despite being by far the funniest actor on television.
|-
|''The Apprentice''
|2004-
|NBC
|NR
|Liberals stopped watching when they realized that [[Donald Trump]] might be conservative.
|-
|''The Six Million Dollar Man''
|1974-1978
|ABC
|PG
|Capitalism at its finest - technological advances improving life; starring Lee Majors
|-
|''The Cosby Show''
|1984-1992
|NBC
|TV G
|Promoting good family values.
|-
|''Bonanza''
|1959-1973
|NBC
|NR/G
|Western promoting good neighborliness and the pursuit of just causes, with Lorne Greene, Dan Blocker, Pernell Roberts, and Michael Landon
|-
|''The Rifleman''
|1958-1963
|ABC
|NR/G
|Western with emphasis on fair play and giving people a second chance; starring Chuck Connors, Johnny Crawford, and Paul Fix. [http://www.amctv.com/videos#type=all&filter=rb-video-browser-num_items%3D10%26module_id_base%3Drb-video-browser%26rb-video-browser-show%3D4182%26rb-video-browser-content_type%3D&page=1&post_id=71306 The Rifleman]
|-
|''The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet''
|1952-1966
|ABC
|
|Long running comedy show epitomizing 1950s stable families and family values
|-
|''American Idol''
|2002-
|[[Fox Network|Fox]]
|TV PG
|Allows the best of the public to come to the fore musically
|-
|''Dog the Bounty Hunter''
|2004-2012
|[[A & E]]
|PG
|A public prayer to [[Jesus]] launches each new bounty mission; good guys enforcing law and order.
|-
|''[[24]]''
|2001-2010
|Fox
|TV 14
|Jack Bauer protects America at all costs against all terrorists, whether Muslim, European, Chinese, African, and even the US government.
|-
|''[[Top Gear]]''
|2002-
|[[BBC]]
|TV PG
|A British TV show about all types of cars. It is a fun show which celebrates individual freedom, capitalism, and private-sector innovation. It is also often politically incorrect and pokes fun at the belief in global warming.
|-
|''[[Justified]]''
|2010-
|FX Network
|TV MA
|Deputy US Marshal Raylan Givens, a 19th-century-style tough cowboy lawman, enforces his own brand of justice when dealing with criminals of all kinds in the hill country of eastern Kentucky. His boss, the Chief Deputy US Marshal Art Mullen, is played by Nick Searcy, a noted conservative actor. The most recent season has frequent reflections on Christianity and being loved and saved by God.
|-
| ''[[The Waltons]]''
|1972-1981
|CBS
|G
|A family with strong Christian values overcomes hardship in rural America during the Depression and U.S. involvement in World War II and extends charity to strangers while also honoring military service; starring Richard Thomas, Ralph Waite, Michael Learned, Will Geer, and Ellen Corby
|-
| ''[[The Lawrence Welk Show]]''
|1955-1982
|ABC; Syndicated
|G
|A family oriented variety show that appealed to Midwestern values
|-
|''Chuck''
|2007-
|NBC
|PG
|Emphasizes family values, honor, and a respect for our nation's servicemen.
|-
|''[[JAG]]''
|1995-1996; 1997-2005
|NBC; CBS
|PG/PG13
|Also emphasizes pro-military honor and respect. Title means Judge Advocate General, which deals with people charged with crimes committed while in the U.S. military.
|-
|''[[Little House on the Prairie]]''
|1974-1983
|NBC
|TV G
|A show that celebrates family values and the courage of the 1870s-1880s pioneers, starring Michael Landon and based on [[Laura Ingalls Wilder]]'s books.
|-
|''Highway To Heaven''
|1984-1989
|NBC
|TV PG
|[[Michael Landon]] comes back to Earth as an angel to help many people, aided by [[Victor French]], both from NBC's previous ''Little House on the Prairie"
|-
|''Touched by an Angel''
|1994-2003
|CBS
|TV PG
|A popular drama about an angel in human form who visited troubled people in crisis. It was highly ranked for four seasons and ran for nine seasons. Principal star: Della Reese
|-
|''Life is Worth Living''
|1952-1957
|Dumont TV; ABC
|TV G
|Emmy Award winning show dealing with moral issues hosted by Archbishop [[Fulton J. Sheen]]; from 10 to 30 million people watched the show weekly.
|-
|''7th Heaven''
|1996-2007
|[[Warner Brothers]]
|TV PG
|The family of a Christian minister deals with moral and controversial themes, approached from a socially and politically conservative Protestant viewpoint. It has the distinction of having been the longest-running family drama in U.S. television history; starring Stephen Collins.[http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1028153,00.html]
|-
|''Life Goes On''
|1989-1993
|ABC
|G/PG
|Follows the experiences of a young man with Down Syndrome and recognizes the dignity of people with developmental disabilities and the joy and love they give to their families and others.
|-
|''Dragnet''
|1967-1970
|NBC
|TV rating PG
|Starring Jack Webb as Sgt. Joe Friday and his partner solving actual cases from the files of the Los Angeles Police Department. Great use of law enforcement jargon by the officers while educating the public on the Rule of Law. Showed fine examples of moral conduct, honor of self/others and sacrifice for the good of the public.
|-
|''Adam-12''
|1968-1975
|NBC
|TV rating PG
|Spinoff of Webb-produced "Dragnet", also based on actual cases and more than one per episode, this time focusing on LAPD street patrol officers Peter Malloy and James (Jim) Reed. Same good examples as "Dragnet". Was remade into a limited (L.A. and N.Y.C.) syndication show in 1989-1991 with unknown main players, new characters and situations. None of the original series' three main players (Martin Milner, Kent McCord, William Boyett) ever fell victim to Hollywood Values, (ex. they stayed married to their same wives, with nine children between them. Milner had 4, McCord had 3 and Boyett (who died in 2004 at 77) had 2 and became a grandfather twice over). One episode, "Baby" in 1969, was said to be based on Kent McCord's own real life wife's birth of one of their own children that year.
|-
|''Emergency!''
|1972-1977, with TV specials, "The Final Rescues", periodically from fall 1977-1979.
|NBC
|TV rating PG
|Webb's second spin-off from "Dragnet" is a medical drama about the Los Angeles County Fire Department, its paramedics and the activities of Rampart General Hospital.
|-
|''Quincy, M.E.''
|1976-1983
|NBC
|TV rating PG
|Follows the now late Jack Klugman as Los Angeles County's Medical Examiner on suspicious cases (eg. deaths) and medical mistakes that were previously thought to have been solved but later found to have had more about them than what was originally thought, but that these facts were often hidden by [[bureaucracy]].
|-
|''CHiPS''
|1977-1983
|NBC
|TV rating PG
|Rick Rosner (California Highway Patrol member)-produced light motorcycle dramedy mix on mostly Los Angeles' freeways, beaches and streets, operating through L.A.'s CHP Central station.
|-
|''Hardcastle & McCormick''
|1983-1986
|ABC
|TV rating NY (PG ?)
|Los Angeles County Superior Court's Milton C. Hardcastle (Brian Keith) goes after about 200 cases who walked away on technicalities with help of a former race car driver turned criminal, Mark McCormick (Daniel Hugh Kelly).
|-
|''The Commish''
|1991-1996
|ABC
|TV rating NR (PG ?)
|Former New York City PD detective Tony Scali (Michael Chicklis) moves upstate to a small town PD and uses creativity instead of much violence to fight crime in the fictious city of Eastbridge, N.Y. He has the same amount of genuine concern (love) for his family as he does for his city and its police force.
|-
|''Parking Wars''
|2008-
|A & E
|PG
|Demonstrates the offensiveness of overbearing government bureaucracy while maintaining a respect for law officers.
|-
|''Pawn Stars''
|2009-
|History Channel/A & E
|TV PG
|Shows how two parties can **mutually and fairly benefit** from a negotiated free-market transaction, independent of any government "assistance".
|-
|''The Bob Newhart Show''
|1972-1978
|CBS
|TV G
|A mockery of how insane people may become in a secular world.
|-
|''Hawaii-Five-O''
|1968-1980
|CBS
|PG
|Even in what might be expected to be a lazy, hazy paradise, the law is still the law, with Jack Lord and James MacArthur.
|-
|''Daniel Boone''
|1964-1971
|NBC
|G
|As the title music sang, "he fought for America, to make all Americans free", with Fess Parker in the starring role.|
|-
|''Adam''
|1983
|NBC
|TV NR
|TV made film on the abduction and murder of [[John Walsh]]'s son Adam in 1981 and his crusade for missing and exploited children. Followed by a sequel, ''Adam: His Song Continues'' (1986).
|-
|''America's Most Wanted''
|1988-2011
|Fox TV
|TV NR/PG13
|[[John Walsh]] hosts news documentary of well known suspects and fugitives, their crimes and captures. Was the real life father of above mentioned Adam Walsh and subject of above mentioned TV films named for him.
|-
|''MacGyver''
|1985-1992
|ABC
|TV PG
|The main character played by Richard Dean Anderson uses Yankee ingenuity to solve various problems and escape the clutches of his enemies; the series eschews violence until absolutely necessary.
|-
|''The Equalizer''
|1985-1989
|CBS
|TV PG-13
|Spy drama follows Robert McCall ([[Edward Woodward]]) through [[New York City]] as he helps people in extreme situations against all odds of their success in overcoming these problems.
|-
|''Walker, Texas Ranger''
|1993-2001
|CBS
|TV rating PG/PG13
|Starring [[Chuck Norris]] and Noble Willingham as modern day Texas Rangers
|-
|''NCIS''
|2003-
|CBS
|TV 14
|Show about U.S. Navy investigators, voted ''America's favorite program in 2011''; starring Mark Harmon and David McCallum
|-
|''Mission: Impossible''
|1966-1973; 1988-1990
|CBS, ABC
|TV G/PG
|Emphasizes teamwork, friendship, professionalism, and American ingenuity and exceptionalism, which can overcome any obstacle, with Peter Graves, Martin Landau, and Barbara Bain
|-
|''Storage Wars''
|
|A & E
|
|Emphasizes [[capitalism|capitalist]] and [[free market]] values. Plus on another level, it illustrates the importance of [[conservative values|personal responsibility]]; the lockers that are being auctioned off belonged to people who decided not to pay their bills.
|-
|''The Prisoner''
|1967-1968
| [[ITV]]
|TV PG
|Classic British TV show about a secret agent who is sent to a strange "village" in order to determine the reasons for his resignation. The Prisoner is a metaphor for the Individual against the Collective. The series ran for only seventeen episodes.
|-
|''Yes, Minister!''''Yes, Prime Minister!''
|
|BBC
|
|Classic British sit-com about the political machinations of being a cabinet member in the British government, and then eventually as Prime Minister. A recurring theme is that of the struggle of politicians to make the desired changes despite the resistence of the bureaucracy.
|-
|''Storm Chasers''
|
|The Weather Channel
|
|Demonstrates core conservative values such as courage and a thirst for practical, scientific knowledge
|-
|''The Pretender''
|1996-2000
|[[NBC]]
|
|Pro-life and with a message of charity and self-sacrifice as personal responsibility
|-
|''The Dick Van Dyke Show''
|1961-1966
|CBS
|
|Pro-marriage and pro-family, this series launched the career of Mary Tyler Moore.
|-
|''The Donna Reed Show''
|1958-1966
|ABC
|
|Situation comedy of an upper middle-class family in Hillsdale (state not given), with Donna Reed in the role of Donna Stone, wife of a pediatrician, played by Carl Betz.
|-
|''Wagon Train''
|1957-1965
|NBC/ABC
|
||Western with conservatives Ward Bond and John McIntire playing trailmasters Seth Adams and Chris Hale, respectively; the struggle of pioneers seeking a fresh start in the American West. Robert Horton and Robert Fuller also starred in the series.
|-
|''Wanted: Dead or Alive''
|1958-1961
|CBS
|
|Steve McQueen as a kind-hearted bounty hunter, Josh Randall, dedicated to the enforcement of the law; numerous episodes have spiritual themes; a spinoff of ''Dick Powell's Zane Grey Theatre''
|-
|''Who Do You Think You Are?''
|
|NBC
|
|NBC in USA (in other countries also) with famous people showing how to research relationships and histories of our ancestors. We owe them so much, whether horse thieves or royalty, they gave us our lives, and in some cases fought in the [[American Revolution]].
|-
|''Coming Home''
|
|ABC
|
|Shows American war veterans coming home to their families
|-
|''Legends of the Hidden Temple''
|1993-1995
|Nickelodeon
|TV Y
|[[Game show]] that uses a conservative elimination format (ensuring only the most meritorious players survive to play the final round) and is unyielding in difficulty. Also, it refuses to succumb to [[liberal]] beliefs in archeology that keep historical sites and artifacts off limits, instead promoting the conservative ''Indiana Jones'' persona
|-
|''Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?''
|1999-2002
|ABC
|TV G
|[[Game show]], uses a conservative elimination format (ensuring only the most meritorious players survive to play the final round) and is unyielding in difficulty. The format for qualifying to be on the hot seat entirely depends on knowledge, not having the stereotypical game show contestant persona. The show unashamedly rewards people who know the most. Host Regis Philbin.
|-
|''Karol: A Man Who Became Pope''
|2005
|Hallmark Channel
|TV NR (PG for some violence and adult discussions)
|[[Biopic]] of younger Karol Wojtyla, from World War II Resistance to his election as [[Pope John Paul II]]. Followed by a Canadian sequel, ''Karol: The Pope The Man'' (2006), which itself chronicled the events from his papal inauguration in 1978 to his death in 2005.
|-
|''Have No Fear: The Life of Pope John Paul II''
|December 1, 2005
|ABC
|TV PG
|Thomas Kretchmann played the late pontiff, from his non-violent resistance to Nazism and Communism to his elevations as priest, archbishop, cardinal and his life as the titular pontiff. Includes his confrontation of El Salvador's archbishop [[Oscar Romero]] about Romero's leftist [[liberation theology]], just before Romero's tragic assassination.
|-
|''Pope John Paul II''
|December 4 & 7, 2005
|CBS
|TV PG
|In this biopic miniseries, conservative actor [[Jon Voight]] portrayed Pope [[John Paul II]], who was influential in Part 1's non-violent resistance to [[World War II]]'s Nazism and the subsequent [[Cold War]]'s [[Communists]], eventually defeating Communism in Part 2's end of Scene 16 (circa 1989). Part 1 covers his years as priest, professor, bishop and cardinal. Part 2 covers his 26-1/2 year pontificate from his election up to his death. [[Cary Elwes]] played younger Wojtyla in Part 1 from ages 19 to just before his pontifical election at 58, while Voight took over at the start of Part 2 in the title role.
|-
|''The Glenn Beck Show''
|
|[[Fox News]]
|
|Public affairs program
|-
|''[[Hannity (TV show)|Hannity]]'' (formerly ''Hannity and Colmes'')
|2009-
|Fox News
|
|Sean Hannity's television public affairs program
|-
|''House of Cards''
|2013
|Netflix original series
|
|Shows Democrats as they really are: corrupt frauds and atheists
|}

==Debatable whether conservative==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Title
!Original run
!Network
!TV rating
!Description
|-
|''The Twilight Zone''
|1959-1964 (original run)
|CBS
|
|A recurring theme is that the selfish and the self-centered eventually lose what they sought to gain; hosted by Rod Serling. Examples of [[conservative]] episodes include:
*"The Prime Mover" (episode #57, 3/24/61)<ref>http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/exploring-the-twilight-zone-57-the-prime-mover.php</ref>
|-
|''The Beverly Hillbillies''
|1962-1971
|CBS
|
|Although silly, the show is powerful in illustrating how material possessions are not what define a person. Buddy Ebsen stars as Jed Clampbett.
|-
|''King of the Hill''
|1997-2010
|Fox
|TV PG
|Despite cartoonish nature, shows the struggle of a hardworking, traditional American family against "alternative" modern cultural movements.
|-
|''Law & Order''
|1990-2010
|NBC
| TV PG13
|Police & court drama similar to [[Perry Mason]] in which the first halves of each episodes were the crimes, investigations and arrests of suspects and the second halves were the trials and aftermaths thereofs.
|-
|''Antiques Roadshow''
|
|[[PBS]]
|
|Shows the real value (financial and historical) of handcrafts and traditional, old-fashioned things and memorabilia
|-
|''The Larry Sanders Show''
|
|
|
|A dark comedy based around the background of a [[Hollywood]] talk show, showing a great deal of liberal and celebrity hypocrisy and mocking them for their behavior.
|-
|''Breaking Bad''
|
|American Movie Classic
|
|A previously law-abiding chemistry teacher gets involved in the drug trade and destroys himself and his family. Each immoral decision leads him further along the path of destruction. The evildoers all suffer for their actions.
|-
|''[[The O'Reilly Factor]]''
|
|Fox News
|
|[[Bill O'Reilly]] is like "Archie Bunker": cranky, critical, and wants government to push people around and lock 'em up. O'Reilly rarely espouses true [[conservative]] values, and was extremely vicious towards [[pro-life]] Cardinal Bernard Law. O'Reilly alienates millions of young people.
|-
|''Cops''
|1989-
|Fox
|TV rating PG
|The good guys protecting the public from criminals, yet arguably promotes police state and big government. Filmed on location in many exotic and mundane locales with actual law enforcement agencies, both here in the U.S. and abroad.
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==See also ==
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Movies]]
*[[Essay:Greatest Conservative Songs]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Greatest Conservative TV Shows}}
[[Category:Television]]
[[Category:Conservatism]]
[[Category:Greatest Conservative TV Shows]]

Mark Kirk

2013-06-16T21:12:08Z

AngusT:

{{Officeholder
|name=Mark Kirk
|image=000markkirk.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Kimberly Vertolli (2001-2009)(divorced)
|religion=[[United Church of Christ]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=November 29, 2010 – Present
|preceded=[[Roland Burris]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Illinois
|district=10th
|terms=January 3, 2001 – November 29, 2010
|preceded=John Porter
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Robert Dold]]
}}
}}

'''Mark Steven Kirk''' (born September 15, 1959) is the junior United States Senator from [[Illinois]], having won the Senate seat once held by [[President Obama]]. A [[Republican]], previously he represented [[Illinois]]'s 10th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the House, Kirk was a member of the Appropriations Committee. Previously he was a Naval Reserve intelligence officer and served during conflicts in [[Afghanistan]], [[Iraq]], [[Haiti]], and [[Bosnia]]. Kirk has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 86% of the time during the current [[Congress]].<ref>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000360/</ref> A [[moderate Republican]], he received a 100% rating from [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] and an 82% rating from the [[League of Conservation Voters]]. <ref>http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=33502&type=category&category=30&go.x=8&go.y=15</ref> Kirk describes himself as someone who works to advance a suburban agenda that is
pro-defense, pro-personal responsibility, pro-[[environment]], and pro-[[science]]. He was one of only eight House Republicans who voted for the [[cap and trade]] climate legislation. Kirk voted against the 2009 economic stimulus package.

Kirk suffered a stroke on January 21, 2012, affecting the physical movement on his left side but not affecting his cognitive skills. He spent months in rehabilitation, and returned home in May 2012, but as of June, has not yet returned to the Senate.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57430368-503544/mark-kirk-details-stroke-recovery-in-video/ Mark Kirk details stroke recovery in video] Madison, Lucy, May 8, 2012, cbsnews.com, retrieved June 29, 2012.</ref> One perk Kirk receives as a senator is unlimited sick leave.<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/April-2012/A-Senate-Perk-Unlimited-Sick-Leave/ A Senate Perk: Unlimited Sick Leave] Ford, Quinn, April 2012, chicagomag.com, retrieved June 29, 2012</ref>. He returned to congress in January 2013, shortly displaying symptoms that the stroke had affected his brain when he suddenly, inexplicably endorsed gay "marriage" and B. Hussein Obama's gun grab bill.

==External links==
*[http://kirk.senate.gov/ Senate Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk.htm On the Issues]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Former United States Representatives]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Illinois]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Huffington Post

2013-06-16T21:10:31Z

AngusT:

'''The Huffington Post''' is a [[leftist]] website created by gadfly and former [[Republican]] Arianna Huffington. The site is an extremist [[liberal]] mouthpiece. The Huffington Post calls itself an internet newspaper of blogs, news and video but often is referred to as a hate site where its one-sided news cannot be trusted. They cover politics, media, business and entertainment news. They smear conservatives daily, while whitewashing and defending [[liberals]].

The site also dominates social networking sites like [[Digg]], making them liberal by proxy for promoting biased and insulting treatments of conservative politicians.

Exercising [[censorship]], as liberals are prone to do, the Post removed a March 9, 2010 commentary by former Minnesota governor [[Jesse Ventura]] accusing the [[George W. Bush|Bush]] administration of involvement in the events of [[9/11]] shortly after publication. <ref>[http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/03/jesse_ventura_b_1.php Jesse Ventura banned from Huffington Post for conspiracy mongering]</ref>

In 2011, the Huffington Post was purchased by AOL for just over $315 million in a deal that left Huffington in charge of the website.

The Huffington Post, like most liberal sites, is known for being anti-science, and were labelled [http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4283 one of the internet's top 10 anti-science websites].

==AOL==
Since the announcement of the merger, vocal liberals have expressed their displeasure by boycotting the website. Huffington laughed the threats off and introduced the weekly column by anti-liberal journalist [[Andrew Breitbart]] however that only lasted two weeks before they made up a silly excuse to rid him from their main page.

==Liberal bias==
The site's audience is largely composed of liberals, mirroring the values of most of the editors and contributors. Like virtually all internet sites, its comment section is often filled with offensive or vitriolic remarks; for example, numerous commenters insulted the marines who gave their lives in Iraq, comparing their heroic actions to those of terrorists. The site also frequently covers lewd or pornographic topics without regards to what children who visit might see.

* [http://moonbattery.com/?p=804 Discraceful comments on losing 30+ Seal team Six members in Afghanistan]

{{Liberalism}}

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:websites]]
[[Category:liberal Media]]

==External Links==
* [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ Huffington Post]
* [http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/ Standing Up Against Hate on the Huffington Post]
* [http://huff-watch.blogspot.com/ HuffWatch]

Mark Kirk

2013-04-06T19:51:05Z

AngusT:

{{Officeholder
|name=Mark Kirk
|image=000markkirk.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Kimberly Vertolli (2001-2009)(divorced)
|religion=[[United Church of Christ]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=November 29, 2010 – Present
|preceded=[[Roland Burris]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Illinois
|district=10th
|terms=January 3, 2001 – November 29, 2010
|preceded=John Porter
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Robert Dold]]
}}
}}

'''Mark Steven Kirk''' (born September 15, 1959) is the junior United States Senator from [[Illinois]], having won the Senate seat once held by [[President Obama]]. A [[Republican]], previously he represented [[Illinois]]'s 10th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the House, Kirk was a member of the Appropriations Committee. Previously he was a Naval Reserve intelligence officer and served during conflicts in [[Afghanistan]], [[Iraq]], [[Haiti]], and [[Bosnia]]. Kirk has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 86% of the time during the current [[Congress]].<ref>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000360/</ref> A [[moderate Republican]], he received a 100% rating from [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] and an 82% rating from the [[League of Conservation Voters]]. <ref>http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=33502&type=category&category=30&go.x=8&go.y=15</ref> Kirk describes himself as someone who works to advance a suburban agenda that is
pro-defense, pro-personal responsibility, pro-[[environment]], and pro-[[science]]. He was one of only eight House Republicans who voted for the [[cap and trade]] climate legislation. Kirk voted against the 2009 economic stimulus package.

Kirk suffered a stroke on January 21, 2012, affecting the physical movement on his left side but not affecting his cognitive skills. He spent months in rehabilitation, and returned home in May 2012, but as of June, has not yet returned to the Senate.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57430368-503544/mark-kirk-details-stroke-recovery-in-video/ Mark Kirk details stroke recovery in video] Madison, Lucy, May 8, 2012, cbsnews.com, retrieved June 29, 2012.</ref> One perk Kirk receives as a senator is unlimited sick leave.<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/April-2012/A-Senate-Perk-Unlimited-Sick-Leave/ A Senate Perk: Unlimited Sick Leave] Ford, Quinn, April 2012, chicagomag.com, retrieved June 29, 2012</ref>. He returned to congress in January 2013, shortly displaying symptoms that the stroke had affected his brain when he suddenly, inexplicably endorsed gay "marriage."

==External links==
*[http://kirk.senate.gov/ Senate Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk.htm On the Issues]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Former United States Representatives]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Illinois]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Mark Kirk

2013-04-06T19:50:32Z

AngusT:

{{Officeholder
|name=Mark Kirk
|image=000markkirk.jpg
|party=[[Republican]]
|spouse=Kimberly Vertolli (2001-2009)(divorced)
|religion=[[United Church of Christ]]
|offices=
{{Officeholder/senator
|state=Illinois
|terms=November 29, 2010 – Present
|preceded=[[Roland Burris]]
|former=n
|succeeded=
}}
{{Officeholder/representative
|state=Illinois
|district=10th
|terms=January 3, 2001 – November 29, 2010
|preceded=John Porter
|former=y
|succeeded=[[Robert Dold]]
}}
}}

'''Mark Steven Kirk''' (born September 15, 1959) is the junior United States Senator from [[Illinois]], having won the Senate seat once held by [[President Obama]]. A [[Republican]], previously he represented [[Illinois]]'s 10th congressional district in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In the House, Kirk was a member of the Appropriations Committee. Previously he was a Naval Reserve intelligence officer and served during conflicts in [[Afghanistan]], [[Iraq]], [[Haiti]], and [[Bosnia]]. Kirk has voted with a majority of his Republican colleagues 86% of the time during the current [[Congress]].<ref>http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/k000360/</ref> A [[moderate Republican]], he received a 100% rating from [[NARAL Pro-Choice America]] and an 82% rating from the [[League of Conservation Voters]]. <ref>http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=33502&type=category&category=30&go.x=8&go.y=15</ref> Kirk describes himself as someone who works to advance a suburban agenda that is
pro-defense, pro-personal responsibility, pro-[[environment]], and pro-[[science]]. He was one of only eight House Republicans who voted for the [[cap and trade]] climate legislation. Kirk voted against the 2009 economic stimulus package.

Kirk suffered a stroke on January 21, 2012, affecting the physical movement on his left side but not affecting his cognitive skills. He spent months in rehabilitation, and returned home in May 2012, but as of June, has not yet returned to the Senate.<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57430368-503544/mark-kirk-details-stroke-recovery-in-video/ Mark Kirk details stroke recovery in video] Madison, Lucy, May 8, 2012, cbsnews.com, retrieved June 29, 2012.</ref> One perk Kirk receives as a senator is unlimited sick leave.<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/April-2012/A-Senate-Perk-Unlimited-Sick-Leave/ A Senate Perk: Unlimited Sick Leave] Ford, Quinn, April 2012, chicagomag.com, retrieved June 29, 2012</ref>. He returned to congress in January 2013, shortly displaying symptoms that the stroke had affected his brain when he suddenly, inexplicably endorsed gay marriage.

==External links==
*[http://kirk.senate.gov/ Senate Website]
*[http://www.ontheissues.org/IL/Mark_Kirk.htm On the Issues]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
==References==
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Kirk, Mark}}
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:Former United States Representatives]]
[[Category:2010 Midterm Elections]]
[[Category:Illinois]]
[[Category:113th United States Congress]]
[[Category:RINOs]]

Conservapedia proven right

2013-03-25T20:03:09Z

AngusT: correct fact about embalming

'''''Conservapedia''''' has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to [[video games]], even for predictions that some [[liberals]] have ridiculed:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal claptrap]] in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Feb. 18, 2007
|Explained that [[abortion]] increases the risk of breast cancer.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Abortion&oldid=14427</ref>
|Strident denials by liberals, who oppose even telling women of the possibility of an increase in risk
|A new study shows that the "number of young women being diagnosed with metastatic breast cancer has been slowly but steadily rising over the past 3 decades," beginning a few years after ''[[Roe v. Wade]]''.<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/Health/advanced-breast-cancer-rise-younger-women/story?id=18606955</ref>
|Feb. 27, 2013
|-
|Mar. 24, 2007
|Pointed out how hostile the [[Fox News Channel]] is to [[pro-life]] leaders,<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sean_Hannity&oldid=64126</ref> and observed in 2012 how it had become a bunch of [[RINO Backers]].
|Silence by [[liberals]] who like pretending that [[Fox News Channel]] is [[conservative]], when it isn't.
|The ratings of Fox News drops to a 12-year low, doing particularly poorly among the 25-54 age group.
|January 2013
|-
|May 7, 2007
|The speed of light varies.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Quantifying_Openmindedness&oldid=147388</ref>
|Liberals shout down anything contrary to the [[Theory of Relativity]]
|"So it turns out the speed of light might not be constant after all." <ref>http://www.catholic.org/technology/story.php?id=50261</ref> \
|Mar. 25, 2013
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and except for one very minor part as himself Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|Jan. 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|March and April 2012
|-
|February 2008
|Conservapedia warns against the [[HPV vaccine]], observing that it was not tested for possibly causing infertility.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=HPV_vaccine&oldid=395596</ref>
|How can government and the big pharmaceutical industry be wrong???
|The ''British Medical Journal'' reports on a case study of a severe condition of infertility in a 16-year-old girl subsequent to taking the HPV vaccine.<ref>http://casereports.bmj.com/content/2012/bcr-2012-006879.abstract</ref>
|October 2012
|-
|April 14, 2008
|Conservapedia coins the term "[[media bullying]]."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Media_bullying&oldid=430832</ref>
|[[liberal denial]] in response
|Prominent African American physician Benjamin Carson observes, "The bullies are ... especially the media who like to just beat on anybody who doesn't toe the line ... they suppress [[freedom of speech]]."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/03/09/dr-carson-media-bullies-suppress-freedom-speech-beat-anyone-who-doesn#ixzz2N5XWfVMc</ref>
|March 9, 2013
|-
|summer and fall 2008
|Observed that [[Barack Obama]] is likely Muslim and could become the first Muslim President.
|While liberals would denounce the religion of Obama's future rival, [[Mitt Romney]], they insist that Obama's religion cannot be questioned.
|Once elected, Obama stops attending church, and he eschews using a Bible for his official swearing-in procedure; [[Obama's Religion|Obama makes it clear that he is likely Muslim]] in additional ways.
|January 2009
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|January 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Robert_Menendez&oldid=744786</ref>
|Conservapedia identifies the significance of an effort to recall Menendez from office.
|Liberals stood by Menendez for years.
|Finally the ''[[New York Times]]'' said that [[Harry Reid]] should take a committee gavel away from Menendez.
|February 2013
|-
|March 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse for [[Mitt Romney]]
|Some mistakenly viewed Santorum as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum surprised many by dropping out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney; Santorum then endorsed Romney-like [[Jon Bruning]] instead of the [[conservative]] [[Don Stenberg]] for [[U.S. Senate]] in [[Nebraska]], and then endorsed Romney in a late-night email.
|April to May 7, 2012
|-
|April 19, 2010
|In [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]], ''Conservapedia'' observed that intelligence has long been declining.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=770704</ref>
|Repeated attempts to remove the insight from the entry.
|A Stanford University geneticist confirms that intelligence has been declining for thousands of years.<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/nov/12/pampered-humanity-less-intelligent</ref>
|Nov. 12, 2012
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|August 2010
|In August of 2010, Conservapedia created the article [[Women's views of Richard Dawkins]] indicating that [[Richard Dawkins]] had a significant problem with the women segment of the marketplace and that he [[Abrasiveness of Richard Dawkins|was abrasive]] and [[Atheism and cowardice|cowardly.]]
|Atheist men scoff at the article.
|In July of 2011, the [[Elevatorgate]] scandal occurs. A woman in the [[Skepchick]] community says "I look forward to watching your legacy crash and burn".<ref>[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BzoCyyqmp5b5LUdobkxhblpmTDA/edit?pli=1 Skepchick woman]</ref>
|July of 2011
|-
|Oct. 14, 2010
|Conservapedia observes and predicts increased premature graying as a [[Counterexample to an Old Earth]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=822877</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] that premature graying is increasing.
|A top actress -- Katie Holmes, the wife of Tom Cruise -- is observed having gray hairs at only age 33.
|April 29, 2012
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>
|April 17, 2012
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Nov. 29, 2011
|Conservapedia pointed out the connection between violent [[video games]] and [[young mass murderers]].<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_mass_murderers&oldid=941531</ref>
|Nonsense, liberals claimed.
|An unspeakable slaughter of 20 elementary school children occurred in Newtown, Connecticut by a 20-year-old player of violent video games, followed by a mass burning of violent games weeks later.

|Dec. 17, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|mid-March 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|-
|April 2012
|''Conservapedia'' criticizes the Denver Broncos for replacing [[Tim Tebow]] with Peyton Manning, and adds Manning to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]].
|Liberals insist that Manning will be better for Broncos, and pretend that politics had nothing to do with this surprise replacement.
|To the amazement of liberals, Manning throws 2 key interceptions that enable the underdog Ravens to humiliate the Broncos in Denver in their first playoff game.
|January 11, 2013
|-
|June 23, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' adds [[David Beckham]] to the list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]
|Liberals desperately tried to find a role for Beckham, eventually having him play the absurd part of conveying the torch by speedboat to the Olympic Stadium while the final part of the ceremony was in progress.
|To the amazement of liberals, Beckham was not even selected for the British Olympic soccer team, even though other players over the age of 23 were selected. Subsequently, the media promoted Beckham as the likely final torchbearer, which was instead given to [[the best of the public]] (five unknown but rising young athletes).
|June 28, 2012
|-
|September 2012
|''Conservapedia'' added [[God]]-denier [[Lance Armstrong]] to our list of [[Overrated Sports Stars]]
|[[Liberal denial]] continued about Armstrong, insisting that he be removed from this entry because Armstrong continued to deny the obvious;<ref>[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=prev&oldid=1004539]</ref> the liberal Olympic bureaucrats refused for months to strip Armstrong of his medal, until after Armstrong admitted his doping.
|Finally and pathetically Armstrong admitted what he had so aggressively denied about doping.
|January 14, 2013
|-
|Fall 2012
|''Conservapedia'' repeatedly predicted that liberals would not allow one of the [[Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Star]]s, [[Tim Tebow]], to have any real playing time on the ''New York Jets'', and that it would pathetically fail without Tebow.
|Liberals insisted Tebow would play if the other QB failed, or that Tebow was not good enough to play, despite how he led the underachieving Broncos to a playoff victory against the highly ranked Steelers.
|The ''New York Jets'' failed miserably while never giving Tebow any real playing time, and the ''Jets'' were eliminated from playoff contention even before the last week of the season.
|December 2012
|-
|Nov. 18, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' observed that the ''L.A. Lakers'' had packed their starting line-up with [[Overrated Sports Stars]], and then hired their preferred coach despite how a better one was available.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&oldid=1019273</ref>
|Liberals thought these players and the hiring of the new coach were good because the media told them so.
|The ''L.A. Lakers'' run their record to 15-20, after losing 5 in a row, and in a massive embarrassment are unlikely even to make the playoffs.
|January 10, 2013
|-
|Feb. 3, 2013
|''Conservapedia'' observed that extended 35-minute blackout at the [[Super Bowl]] was likely caused in part by the energy rationing mindset of liberals.
|It was a faulty relay, the [[lamestream media]] and local authorities claimed.
|It was not a faulty relay - relays almost never fail in such a manner, as confirmed by an expert quoted by ''National Geographic''.
|Feb. 9, 2013
|-
|January 8, 2013
|"The liberal media go along with the communist cover-up about Hugo Chavez, despite how he likely died in a Cuban hospital in December."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&oldid=1028225</ref>
|Repeated insistence that reports in the [[lamestream media]] that Chavez was alive from December to March, including even a photo purporting to be him, must be true.
|Hugo Chavez is indeed dead, but the [[BBC]] claims he died nearly two months after Conservapedia had already informed the world of that fact.<ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-21679053</ref> His unembalmed body lay on display for a week after his alleged death, and would have been in a severe state of decay if he had died months previously.<ref>[http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/us-venezuela-chavez-embalming-idUSBRE92C1GC20130313 Venezuela may be unable to embalm Chavez's remains]</ref>
|March 5, 2013
|-
|}

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Wikipedia

2012-08-15T22:44:39Z

AngusT:

[[File:Wikipedia-logo.png|right|200px]]

'''Wikipedia''' is [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|a politically left leaning]] [[communist]], [[Maoist]]<ref>[http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/what-cars-do-conservatives-buy-20120810-23xu1.html]</ref> online [[wiki]]-based "[[encyclopedia]]"<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4840340.stm</ref> project written and edited by an ''ad hoc'' assemblage of mostly [[anonymous]] persons who are mostly, according to the ''Register'' (UK),<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref> teenagers and [[unemployment|unemployed persons]].<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref> Wikipedia editors, unlike Conservapedia, are overwhelmingly young males<ref>In 2009, a survey conducted by the Wikipedia Foundation came out concerning the typical Wikipedia editor that declared the average age of an editor is 26.8 years and 87% of the editors are men. [http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds]</ref> - a demographic associated with self-centered belief systems and behavior.

In 2008, the ''American Journalism Review'' declared concerning Wikipedia:
{{cquote|"An even more blunt assessment appears in the encyclopedia's "Ten things you may not know about Wikipedia" posting: "We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish." It also reminds users not to use Wikipedia as a primary source or for making "critical decisions."<ref>http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4461</ref>}}
The project was initiated by [[atheism|atheist]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref> An irony of internet history is that Jimmy Wales, despite being an atheist, refers to himself as Wikipedia's "spiritual leader".<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/09/wikimedia_pron_purge/</ref> Despite its official "neutrality policy," [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Wikipedia has a strong liberal bias.]] In his article entitled ''Wikipedia lies, slander continue'' [[journalism|journalist]] [[Joseph Farah]] stated Wikipedia "is not only a provider of inaccuracy and bias. It is wholesale purveyor of lies and slander unlike any other the world has ever known."<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> Mr. Farah has repeatedly been the victim of defamation at the Wikipedia website.<ref>http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83640</ref> In December of 2010, [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[JP Holding]] called Wikipedia "the abomination that causes misinformation".<ref>http://tektonticker.blogspot.com/search/label/Wikipedia</ref>

Wikipedia has millions of entries on topics ranging from an explanation for "duh"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duh (only after Conservapedia criticized the entry on the English word "duh" did Wikipedia eventually remove it)</ref> to singles by obscure rock bands<ref>such as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honk_If_You_Love_Fred_Durst Honk If You Love Fred Durst]'' (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> to arcane British nobility.<ref>Part of the article about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Liddell Henry Liddell], a 19th-century Vice-chancellor of Oxford University and author, includes that his grandfather was the youngest son of the 8th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, and that his daughter was the child ''Alice in Wonderland'' was written for (accessed April 1, 2007)</ref> There are editions of Wikipedia in 250 languages, and 130 have more than 1000 articles.<ref>[http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias List of Wikipedias - Wikimedia], accessed April 1, 2007.</ref> After about four years Wikipedia had about 450,000 entries,<ref>Aaron Weiss, The Unassociated Press, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2005, at G5.</ref> and after six years it had about 1.7 million entries.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed April 1, 2007</ref> Four years later this number had more than doubled again: in November 2011, there are more than 3.8 million content pages.<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics English Wikipedia statistics] accessed May 6, 2011</ref> On However, the quality of these articles is up for dispute, given the [[Wikipedia#Leftist_bias|evidence of systematic bias]].

==Origins==
[[Image:Wpp.png|thumb|right|200px|Multilingual Wikipedia Home Page]]
Initially, Wikipedia was hosted on servers operated by Bomis, Inc., a company that also sold pornographic pictures.<ref>Martin Hickman and Genevieve Roberts, "WIKIPEDIA," The Independent (London) p. 12 (Feb 13, 2006)</ref> In 2003, Jimbo Wales founded the Wikimedia Foundation to oversee the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organization that provides support for Wikipedia and other similar projects,<ref>[http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home Wikimedia Foundation] accessed April 7, 2007</ref> and also the free MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia and Conservapedia.<ref>[http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki MediaWiki home] accessed April 7, 2007</ref>
== Leftist bias ==

See also: [[Leftist roots of Wikipedia]]

David Swindle writes at [[FrontPage Magazine]]:
{{cquote|There was not a single ideological vision driving Wikipedia’s founders and core contributors as they launched the project. Jimmy Wales, who would become the face of the project and its “benevolent dictator,” according to Andrew Lih’s ''The Wikipedia Revolution'', is a libertarian and [[Ayn Rand|Ayn Randian]] [[Objectivism|Objectivist]]. Also important in shaping Wikipedia was the so-called “hacker ethos,” the culture that has developed amongst computer programmers over the last 40 years and been shaped by the Left, the counterculture, popular culture, and [[anarchism|anarchist]] thought.

What binds together these ideologies is a [[Utopia|utopian]] ideal that human beings are more prone to [[altruism]] rather than self-interest. In Wikipedia Revolution Wales is quoted as saying, “Generally we find most people out there on the internet are good… It’s one of the wonderful humanitarian discoveries in Wikipeda, that most people only want to help us and build this free nonprofit, charitable resource.” Ward Cunningham was the programmer who created the wiki concept and software. According to Lih, he believed in the Wiki because “People are generally good.”

Lih explains how this philosophy is embedded within Wikipedia’s rules:

A core idea Wikipedia embraced.. was to assume good faith when interacting with others. The guideline promoted optimistic production rather than pessimistic nay-saying, and reads, “Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it; avoid accusing others of harmful motives without particularly strong evidence.

But as it worked out, Wikipedia in practice has strayed from these utopian ideas because of the ease with which political and social bias trumps altruism.

After almost a decade of rapid growth and free-wheeling experimentation the situation at the site by the Summer of 2009 was chaos. Political operatives would sabotage one another in electoral contests by vandalizing pages. More malicious misinformation filtered in freely, with living historical figures accused of involvement in conspiratorial plots.<ref>http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/</ref>}}

[[File:Peter-Singer.jpg|right|thumbnail|250px|The [[atheist]] philosopher [[Peter Singer]] defends the practice of [[bestiality]] (as well as [[abortion]], infanticide and [[euthanasia]]). Despite holding these immoral views the [[liberal]] and pro-[[evolution]] academic establishment rewarded his views with a bioethics chair at [[Princeton University]].<ref>
*[http://creation.com/the-basis-of-a-christian-worldview The Basis of a Christian Worldview - Creation Ministries International]
*[http://creation.com/answer-to-philosophy-religion-professor-on-biblical-exegesis-and-the-problem-of-evil CMI answers philosophy/religion professor on biblical exegesis and the problem of evil]
*[http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2011/06/the-dangerous-mind-of-peter-singer ''The Dangerous Mind''] by Joe Carter, ''[[First Things]]''</ref> See: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] ]]

=== Research ===

On August 23, 2011, David Swindle published an article at ''[[FrontPage Magazine]]'' detailing how Wikipedia has been taken over by the [[Leftist|political left]] and he cited statistics relating to Wikipedia's articles on [[Anne Coulter]], [[Michael Moore]], [[Glenn Beck]] and [[Keith Olbermann]] which helped demonstrate the Wikipedia has a leftist/[[liberal]] bias plus he discussed the liberal/leftist cultural foundations of Wikipedia.<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref>

For example, Swindle wrote:

<blockquote>"Consider Ann Coulter versus Michael Moore. Coulter’s entry (on August 9, 2011) was 9028 words long.* Of this longer-than-usual entry, 3220 words were devoted to “Controversies and criticism” in which a series of incidents involving Coulter and quotes from her are cited with accompanying condemnations, primarily from her opponents on the Left. That’s 35.6 percent of Coulter’s entry devoted to making her look bad. By contrast, Moore’s entry is 2876 words (the more standard length for entries on political commentators), with 130 devoted to “Controversy.” That’s 4.5% of the word count, a fraction of Coulter’s. Does this mean that an “unbiased” commentator would find Coulter eight times as “controversial” as Moore?"<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/23/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/ How the left conquered Wikipedia - Part 1]</ref></blockquote>

==Hearsay==
Wikipedia has a policy that information can only be added if a reference stating it can already be found elsewhere. In other words, it relies on [[hearsay]] and discourages independent thought, the application of [[logic]] and new development of new insights. The result is a colossal agglomeration of reheated "consensus" with little or no intellectual merit of its own; in particular, it is impossible to challenge orthodoxy, received wisdom or commonly held misconceptions through the Wikipedia system, no matter how factually incorrect those orthodoxies might be.

Worse still, Wikipedia's ubiquity has caused this attitude to be widely adopted in some circles outside the site, creating a [[hearsay society]] where all the above problems are reproduced and magnified, to the intellectual and material detriment of all.

== Wikipedia on bestiality ==

''See also:'' [[Wikipedia on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]]

As noted earlier, the Wikipedia project was initiated by [[atheism|atheists]] and [[entrepreneur]] [[Jimmy Wales]] and the [[agnosticism|agnostic]] [[philosophy]] [[professor]] [[Larry Sanger]] on January 15, 2001.<ref>http://www.nndb.com/lists/288/000092012/</ref>

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. As of July 18, 2012, Wikipedia's article on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia zoophilia/bestiality] has an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia as well as a section on "arguments against zoophilia". No worthwhile encyclopedia in existence has an article on zoophilia/bestiality with an entire section on "arguments for zoophilia" plus pictures depicting zoophilia. As of September 24, 2011, Wikipedia has a "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law Zoophilia and the law"] article which has a section on the impact of zoophilia laws where eight alleged negative impacts of zoophilia laws are given, but no positive impacts of the laws are given.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia_and_the_law#Impact_of_laws|title=Impact of laws section of "Zoopilia and the law"|date=July 17, 2012|accessdate=July 18, 2012}}</ref>

See also: [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]

==Economics==

Though Wikipedia is non-profit, the [[Wikia]] project of its co-founder is very much for-profit and has raised millions of dollars in investments. Already Wikipedia has been criticized for favoring Wikia. When Wikipedia community voted 61-39% percent to treat all links to other sites equally by removing nofollow (Google-ignored) tags for all of them, the Wikipedia co-founder overruled this decision and Wikipedia now favors Wikia in its treatment of nofollow tags.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/04/28/wikipedia-special-treatment-for-wikia-and-other-wikis/|title=Wikipedia: Special Treatment for Wikia and some other Wikis|author=Nik Cubrilovic|date=April 28, 2007|accessdate=July 22, 2012}}</ref><ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-January/061137.html</ref>

''The Register'' said:<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/18/sanger_forks_wikipedia/</ref>
:Wikipedia has tried to balance the Utopian goal of "an encyclopedia anyone can edit" with the more utilitarian goal of "a website anyone would want to read". With over a million articles, and a rulebook almost as dense, Wikipedia has demonstrated an insatiable desire to participate, create lists and generate procedures. The result is a huge silo of recorded trivia, and perhaps the world's largest, most distributed bureaucracy - mostly manned by a casual staff of teenagers and the unemployed.

==Quality==
''In other words—and this is the rock-solid principle on which the whole of the Corporation’s Galaxywide success is founded—their fundamental design flaws are completely hidden by their superficial design flaws.''
—Douglas Adams

Wikipedia, which is written by anyone, still struggles to solve the need for traditional quality controls characteristic of conventional [[encyclopedia]]s. The self-policing practices has produced results and accuracy far better than originally expected. But still the lack of consistency and uniform supervision leaves an ever present shadow over any given piece of information. It has come to receive high grades for accuracy, but still many in the [[academy]] insist that it is unreliable source for [[research]] and an unacceptable reference in many classrooms. Perhaps these reactions are inevitable. Nevertheless, Wikipedia steers people to original [[source material]], and with the use of [[hyperlink]]s and [[search engine]]s, it has become the most widely used intermediary [[reference]] tool on the [[Internet]].

==[[Liberal bias]]==

''See also:'' [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]

Wikipedia shows a systematic bias in that tiny proportion of articles which treat controversial issues. It ignores its own [[NPOV]] policy when it allows contributors to "delete well-referenced information" merely because it comes from a [[scientist]] who holds a [[minority view]]. It would only be a violation, if the article used the information to give a false impression of the proportion of scientists adhering to that view, but liberals use "[[undue weight]]" like a sledge hammer. They are either unaware or unconcerned about their bias.

This is not surprising, given this [[Zogby]] poll:

While 97% of [[Republican]]s surveyed said the media are [[liberal]], two-thirds of [[political independent]]s feel the same, but fewer than one in four independents (23%) said they saw a "conservative bias". [[Democrat]]s, while much more likely to perceive a conservative bias than other groups, were not nearly as sure the [[media]] was against them as were the Republicans. While Republicans were unified in their perception of a [[left-wing]] media, just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed [[right-wing|right]] – and 17% said the bias favored the left.

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1262

==Scandals and decline==

[[Image:Wikipedia scandals.jpg|thumb|450px|right|Decline in Wikimedia Foundation donations.<ref>[http://centiare.com/Wikipedia_scandals Wikipedia scandals]. Retrieved from centiare.com October 10, 2007.</ref> Graph courtesy [http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Gregory_J._Kohs Gregory Kohs]. Used with Permission.]]The cumulative effect of multiple scandals and revelations has led to declining activity on the English Wikipedia. The rate of new account creation peaked in early 2007 and has declined ~30% since. Overall editing activity showed a steady decline beginning in February 2007. An independent analysis reported, "The rate at which edits were being made to Wikipedia articles appears to have peaked in February to April 2007 and declined since. This decline is unprecedented in Wikipedia's history.... Though it may be purely coincidental, this time frame also corresponds to the Essjay controversy appearing in the press."<ref>[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-October/033661.html Statistical Decline of the English Wikipedia], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/Log_analysis Dragons flight/Log analysis], October 9, 2007.</ref>

Even after the hoax was revealed of high level intimates promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation as experts in fields that they were not, to persuade college professors to allow students to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source, and entrusted with the ability to invade users privacy which could affect, in their words, "life and death," Wikipedia still appealed to students with a Jim and Tammy Faye Baker-style fundraising slogan across one million project space pages that read, "OMG! Wikipedia is gone! I’ll flunk my exams!" [http://whygive.wikimedia.org/2007/11/24/omg-wikipedia-is-gone-ill-flunk-my-exams/]

==False claim about Brent Bozell==

In March 2007, Brent Bozell described this falsehood in Wikipedia:<ref>http://www.creators.com/opinion/brent-bozell/not-your-father-s-encyclopedia.html</ref>

:The other day, Bernie Goldberg emailed me, upset. He pointed me to his Wikipedia entry. To read what was written was to conclude that apparently I must hate his guts. But we are friends. He is a man for whom I have profound respect, professional and personal. He knew there was foul play.

:Right there on the screen, under the heading "Criticism," it stated that I had attacked him, "claiming that Goldberg merely lifted material he had been producing for years, and only published the book because he had an ax to grind with his former employers and was attempting to make a 'quick buck,' noting that Goldberg never mentioned the alleged liberal bias of the media until it was 'convenient' and 'profitable' for him to do so." ...

:In fact, those words have never been uttered by me. The accusation would be false. Back in 1996, Goldberg used the op-ed pages of The Wall Street Journal publicly to castigate his own network for its one-sided oafish bashing of Steve Forbes. It was anything but "convenient" or "profitable" for him. It ruined his friendship with Dan Rather and put him on a path to the outer fringes of CBS "News. Ultimately, it ruined his newscaster career.

:My attorney contacted Wikipedia by email demanding the removal of this false entry. No response. So we edited out the offensive material ourselves, after which in writing counsel alerted Wikipedia to the legal action that might befall them should this be repeated. Here's full disclosure, Wikipedia-style: You can see how each article is altered, sometimes hour by hour, in its "History" section. But there is no mention of the attorney's complaints. In the Goldberg article's history, an editor simply now scolds: "Bozell's article is a mock-jealous swipe at Goldberg's opportunism. PLEASE REREAD IT." (Capitals theirs.)

:Goldberg and I are not alone. The website Conservapedia.com has a [[Bias in Wikipedia|long list]] of 41 allegations of bias and factual errors at Wikipedia. You can add to that the problem with the credentials of its staff. One of its editors, named only "Essjay" online and described on his user profile "as a tenured professor of religion at a private university with expertise in canon law," was recently exposed as a 24-year-old college kid in Kentucky. He resigned in disgrace — even though Wikipedia tried to retain him, claiming he'd edited thousands of articles with flair.

Instead of apologizing to Brent Bozell, '''Wikipedia instead says "Bozell points to Conservapedia as a resource that documents Wikipedia's faults in this regard, presumably holding it as a more authoritative reference less vulnerable to vandalism."'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Bozell accessed April 1, 2007</ref>

==Rewriting its own history==

The Associated Press and others credit Larry Sanger as the co-founder of Wikipedia.<ref>http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2007/mar/25/032502465.html
</ref> But the Associated Press quotes Jimmy Wales as denying it:<ref>''id.''</ref>

:"When you write this up please do not uncritically repeat Sanger's absurd claim to be the co-founder of Wikipedia."

:"I know of no one who was there at the company at the beginning who would think it anything other than laughable," he added. This is an interesting comment, considering that Larry Sanger takes credit for coining the name, "Wikipedia."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_20#Sorry.2C_Jimbo.2C_but_not_buying_it. User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 20, Larry Sanger 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)]</ref>

:"I am not bent out of shape about it," he wrote. "The facts are on my side, which is why I bother so little about it."

According to the Associated Press, Jimmy Wales "has repeatedly tried to address this - even going so far as editing his own Wikipedia biography to tone down credit for Sanger. Such autobiographical contributions are frowned upon in Wikipedia's community, and Wales apologized after his changes were noticed and publicized by blogger Rogers Cadenhead in 2005."<ref>''id.''</ref>

Jimmy Wales has admitted that certain administrators, contrary to their own rules, have at times completely removed editing evidence.

== Seigenthaler scandal ==

In early October 2005 a prominent and respected journalist [[John Seigenthaler Sr.]], contacted Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] about false and libelous content in his biographical entry. Essjay, a 24 year old Wikipedia Administrator who was advancing rapidly in the organization, was dispatched to handle the situation.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> An anonymous contributor added to Seigenthaler's biography the previous May,
:"John Seigenthaler Sr. was the assistant to Attorney General [[Robert Kennedy]] in the early 1960s. For a short time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both [[John F. Kennedy|John]], and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven," and "John Seigenthaler moved to the [[Soviet Union]] in 1971, and returned to the [[United States]] in 1984. He started one of the country's largest public relations firms shortly thereafter."

Wales told Seignethaler that Wikipedia is "accountable" and corrects mistakes immediately, but that the internet service provider of the anonymous user probably would not be helpful in identifying who placed the content.<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref> Accountability activist [[Daniel Brandt]], a victim of a spurious biographical entry by Wikipedia Administrators, identified the place of employment of the anonymous user, and from there the person accountable was identified.<ref>http://www.journalism.cf.ac.uk/2006/online/index.php?id=parse-195-0-0-251&article=336&author=India+Camm</ref>

Seigenthaler returned to the editorial pages of ''USA Today'' from which he retired as its first editorial manager to write an Op-Ed piece critical of Wikipedia and the threat it poses to free speech due of its overt provocation of government regulation, its irresponsible self regulation and lack of accountability.<ref>[http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-11-29-wikipedia-edit_x.htm A false Wikipedia 'biography'], By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>

=== CNN interview ===

On December 5, 2005 Wales and Seigenthaler appeared on [[CNN]]. An exchange between CNN moderator [[Kyra Phillips]] and Wales went like this:
{{Cquote|PHILLIPS:...I ran my name. I was shocked to see what was under my name. ...I'm telling you right now, Jimmy, that's not how I want people to see me and understand me. And what I'm about and what I write about in my interviews, et cetera. So, you know, it's not just individuals like John, but me and many other people, that just have concerns that this is creating gossip that can be very harmful. And people go to these sites thinking that this is the truth.}}
{{Cquote|WALES: Well, I mean, I think the real key is that the site matures over time, the -- all of the articles are edited over and over and over, and improved. Anyone's free to contribute. You're free to go and contribute.}}

This in fact is not the case. Phillips was not free to remove objectionable content within her biographical entry, as Daniel Brandt at that exact moment was discovering. Not four days prior, Wales told ''Editor & Publisher'' magazine regarding Brandt's objections to a false Wikipedia biography created by Wikipedia Administrators about him, "I find it hard to take him very seriously at all," and libelous slanders remained in Brandt's biography for a year and half. Wales told CNN, "we are very, very responsive to complaints and concerns."

Seigenthaler told the audience "with accountability comes credibility" and expressed fear that, "I'm afraid we're going to get regulated media as a result."<ref>http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0512/05/lol.02.html</ref>

On December 9, Seigenthaler appeared on C-SPAN's ''Washington Journal'' with Brian Lamb and articulated his concern that members of Congress or other powerful figures in government may likewise be targeted. On November 2, 2006, days before the mid-term Congressional elections, an anonymous IP address traced to the ''[[New York Times]]'' changed [[U.S. House of Representatives]] [[Majority Leader]] [[Tom DeLay]]'s Wikipedia biographical entry from "a prominent member of the [[Republican Party]]" to "Grand Dragon of the Republican Party."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tom_DeLay&diff=prev&oldid=85320018 Wikipedia/Tom DeLay, Revision as of 20:19, 2 November 2006, IP 199.181.174.146]</ref><ref>[http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/name2ip.php?orgname=New+York+Times&location= WikiScanner]</ref>

Seigenthaler wrote a more expansive column in the ''The Tennessean'' after the November 30 ''USA Today'' piece appeared,
{{Cquote|a sudden stream of invective — homophobic, anti-Semitic and racist — spilled, as if from a sewer, onto the Wikipedia page under my name. ..It identified me as ...a "Nazi," "fascist-oriented" ....murderer ...there also was the profile picture of Adolf Hitler over the caption, "Press photo of Seigenthaler." The accompanying line: "He is secretly responsible for killing all the Jews." }}

=== Accountability and Section 230 ===
[[Image:Wikifascists.JPG|thumb|275px|right|From Wikipedia Watch. [http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/] The inscription reads, ''"Two wikifascists find someone without a biography."'']]
Upon his retirement from ''USA Today'', Seigenthaler founded of the First Amendment Center, an organization dedicated to a national dialogue about [[First Amendment]] rights and values. Seigenthaler criticized passage of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996. Section 230 states that "no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker." Unlike print and broadcast companies, internet service providers (ISP's) cannot be sued for disseminating defamatory attacks on citizens posted by others. Seigenthaler noted [[Jimbo Wales]] told [[Brian Lamb]] in a [[C-Span]] interview that Wikipedia is accountable and that mistakes are corrected within minutes, but the false information remained in Seigenthaler's biography for five months. Seigenthaler concluded,
{{Cquote|And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.<ref>A false Wikipedia 'biography', By John Seigenthaler, ''USA Today'', 11/29/2005.</ref>}}

In the case of ''Zeran v. AOL'', Zeran sued AOL for refusing to screen and remove defamatory messages, even after Zeran notified the ISP of their existence. The lower court ruled for the service provider and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the decision, noting that the intent of Section 230 was to (1) remove incentives on service providers to restrict speech on the Internet and (2) encourage self regulation by service providers.<ref>http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916529</ref><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/newcyber.pdf</ref>

An American citizen who posts material on the Internet that is illegal in a foreign country could be prosecuted if he subjected himself to the jurisdiction of that country. Internet users who export material that is illegal, that is to say, post material that is accessible and illegal in some foreign countries may be subject to prosecution in that country. However, under American law, the United States will not extradite a person for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity even if that activity violates a criminal law elsewhere.<ref>http://www.rjayco.com/obrien/nazism.pdf</ref>

=== Essjay given oversight ===
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Essjay scandal]]

Essjay wrote a professor to persuade her to allow her students to use Wikipedia as a viable source of information and posted a verbatim copy of the email for others to use. Essjay stated, "I was the administrator who deleted the inappropriate revisions when Mr. Seigenthaler contacted our founder, [[Jimmy Wales]]; it is quite unfortunate that a relatively minor issue on a relatively minor figure has provided so much negative publicity.<ref>[http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=User:Essjay/Letter User:Essjay/Letter]. Retrieved from WikiTruth, November 3, 2007.</ref> Seigenthaler noted in his Op-Ed piece, "The motive for the salacious stuff directed at me is reasonably obvious," and quoted some comments, "We all at Wikipedia think he (Seigenthaler) is a horrible, stupid p...k for complaining about small inaccuracies in his biography."<ref>[http://www.journalism.org/node/1673 Seigenthaler's Op-Eds], October 1, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.journalism.org November 12, 2007.</ref>

Others said, "Mr. Seigenthaler's attitude and actions are reprehensible and ill-formed," and “if there is an error whether large or small, he can correct it.” This again, was not true. Even prior to the Wikipedia policy, '''Biographies of Living Persons''', [[conflict of interest]] restrictions existed on the subject of an article editing their own entry. Another wrote: "Rather than fixing the article himself, he made a legal threat."<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/02/12/bias_sabotage_haunt_wikipedias_free_world/?page=3</ref>
[[Image:Seigraph.gif|400px|thumb|right|The Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia" as curiosity seekers to view the [[misinformation]] skyrocketed Alexa rankings.]]
Despite the damage to an innocent person and divulgence of Wikipedia's precarious claim as a viable source, the Seigenthaler scandal was viewed as a triumph and considered "the best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Seigenthaler,_Sr.#The_best_thing_that_ever_happened_to_Wikipedia Talk:John Seigenthaler Sr.#The best thing that ever happened to Wikipedia], retrieved 23 March 2007.</ref> catapulting it into a top ten most visited website as curiosity seekers responded to the negative publicity.<ref>[http://wikipediareview.com/lofiversion/index.php?t1100.html Wikipedia: A Nightmare Of Libel and Slander], Joel Leyden, Israel News Agency, 8 May 2006.</ref>

The scandal was originally billed as a "hoax", then "controversy," then downgraded to "incident," and now re-upgraded to "controversy," evidently in response to criticism. The Wikipedia entry on "Seigenthaler controversy" contains [[disinformation]], making the claim, "After the incident, Wikipedia took steps to prevent a recurrence, including barring unregistered users from creating new pages." No actions were ever taken to require disclosure of the real life identities of contributors. Barring unregistered users from creating new pages had nothing to do with the Seigenthaler scandal--the page already existed when an anonymous IP added the false information. Registration of accounts requires no accountability of the real life identity of the contributor. Indeed many experienced Wikipedia editors and Administrators have dozens of registered accounts, called "sockpuppet accounts." Protecting the identities of anonymous high-level Administrators has always been more of a priority to the WikiMedia Foundation than the propagation of false information about real life persons whose identities are known. Wales was asked by ''BusinessWeek'' magazine, “Why do you feel it is important to allow contributors and site administrators to remain anonymous?” Wales responded, “there are definitely people working in Wikipedia who may have privacy reasons for not wanting their name on the site….there are lots of reasons for privacy online that aren’t nefarious.”<ref> http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/dec2005/tc20051214_441708.htm</ref> In the Seigenthaler case, it was the odd circumstance that a victim of false information had a large enough platform to respond, coupled with the welcome fact that the victim fundamentally opposes government regulation of internet speech.

Wikipedia's "Seigenthaler controversy" also states, "The Foundation added a new level of "oversight" features to the MediaWiki software,[12] accessible as of 2006 to around 20 experienced editors nominated by Wales,"<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy#Wikimedia_Foundation_reaction Seigenthaler controversy#Wikimedia Foundation reaction].</ref> one of whom was Essjay.

This ban on anonymous page creation “reform” was abandoned less than two years later as Wikipedia's usage and ratings slumped in the wake of yet more scandals and questions about Wikipedia's culture, core content policies, and endemic lack of accountability.<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/084292.html</ref>

==Brandt / Berlet feud==
:''See Main article: [[Wikipedia:The Daniel Brandt controversy]]
An ugly far-left sectarian dispute<ref>[http://spencer.lib.ku.edu/exhibits/wilcox/5.html Laird Wilcox], ''The Watchdogs: A Close Look at Anti-Racist "Watchdog" Groups'', Second Edition, Part 2, Editorial Research Service, 1999, p. 21. ISBN 0-993592-96-5.</ref> reared its head in 2005 with disastrous consequences for the site's credibility. The feud had been dormant for many years until the need to elevate a “controversial and notable expert” above the level of “partisan and extreme” defined by its own policies became apparent which would have precluded the so-called “expert” as "a source for anything other than himself,” as Wikipedia's ever fluid policies dictate.

Daniel Brandt, founder of Namebase,<ref>http://www.namebase.org/</ref> Google Watch, and Wikipedia Watch, removed [[Chip Berlet]] from his Board of Advisors in 1991 when Berlet refused to sit on the same Board which included Fletcher Prouty." Prouty, a retired Air Force colonel whose intelligence career stretched back to accompanying President [[Franklin Roosevelt]] to the [[Teheran conference]], was allegorically portrayed as the mysterious “Man X”<ref>[http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/lfprouty.htm Leroy Fletcher Prouty, Jr., Colonel, United States Air Force], [[Arlington National Cemetery]] Website, Retrieved November 4, 2007.</ref> by [[Donald Southerland]] in [[Oliver Stone]]'s film, [[JFK]]. A Brandt biographical page was created using Berlet as the source for unsavory attacks on Brandt. Brandt describes himself as an "accountability activist"<ref>[http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/2006/04/your_take_roundupbelievers_neg.html Believers, Negativists Debate Wikipedia’s Trustworthiness], by Mark Glaser, 20 April 2006. Retrieved from pbs.org October 29, 2007.</ref><ref>[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_Brandt Wikiquote/Daniel Brandt#Sourced]</ref> and claims he originally began working with Wikipedia editors in good faith during October 2005 but any biographical information he revealed was spun against him to depict him in a negative light. Brandt states,
{{Cquote|I soon realized that it was also about Berlet, who was still bent on undermining me. Berlet was using Wikipedia as part of his political agenda, and he was successful in this.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=5641&st=40&p=21441&mode=linear#entry21441</ref>}}
Berlet's biography underwent an extensive revision with most of the substantive NPOV criticism cut out. The revising editor commented, "I kept Daniel Brandt, not because I feel he's a credible source, but because there's so little published criticism of Berlet, that I felt I had to retain something."<ref>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chip_Berlet&diff=prev&oldid=9161554 Chip Berlet/Talk, SlimVirgin 00:19, 7 January 2005].</ref> This is an extraordinary statement and raises the question why the same high-level Administrator and author of several of Wikipedia's core content and citation policies, including '''Wikipedia:Reliable Sources''' and '''Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons''' ('''BLP'''),<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> would use a source she did not consider credible.

===Biographies of living persons===

Wikipedia:Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy did not come into being because of the [[Seigenthaler scandal]], but rather over the Brandt controversy, as the originating editor noted in an edit summary.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons&diff=31947681&oldid=31753956</ref> Brandt requested Wikipedia delete his biographical entry, and ceased working with editors he suspected of working to further the propagation of false information about him.

''Editor & Publisher'' magazine bills itself as the nation’s oldest trade journal serving the newspaper industry with roots dating back to 1884. Wikipedia founder [[Jimmy Wales]] responded to questions from ''Editor & Publisher'' in a prepared statement on December 1, 2005 about Daniel Brandt saying,
{{Cquote|I don't regard him as a valid source about anything at all<ref>[http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/article_brief/eandp/1/1001612839 Wikipedia Founder, Readers Respond to Seigenthaler Article], Jay DeFoore, ''Editor & Publisher'', December 01, 2005.</ref>}}

Wales comments added '''undue weight'''<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight</ref> ('''WP:UNDUE''') to criticism of Brandt when placed within his biographical entry. Brandt demanded accountability from the army of unidentified Wikipedia Administrators furthering [[Chip Berlet]]'s agenda to destroy Brandt's credibility, and elevate Berlet's own as a Wikipedia "expert."
[[Image:294577483 90fd22f5cd m.jpg|thumb|300px|right|From '''WikiTruth''', the inscription reads, 
"''The Big Bad Brandt is Gonna Getcha!'']]
Brandt became known as the scourge of the Wikipedia Admin community. WikiTruth says in its ''Brandt the Boogeyman'' entry,
{{Cquote|he dates back to a time when people would look up facts in books and would verify information without just doing a copy and paste from an AP news article and thinking they were done. He compares writing styles, he calls government agencies, and he writes letters. And when he's done, he tends to know. Or at least, he knows where he stands in terms of information. He's rather tenacious about getting stuff right.

Wikipedia, of course, doesn't do this much at all: depending on the day, they'll laud a link to a website as being absolutely useless (it's on the WEB, of course) and then the next minute link to a different website to back a "fact" up. Citing books and printed materials is often a no-go, because nobody can read the original citation, so it gets swept away as well. Really, you have no idea what's good and what's bad, and it's all one big happy soup-hug.

Therefore, guys like Daniel Brandt are horrible for Wikipedia: he researches. He finds laws that pertain to situations. He asks the tough questions that could upset the whole Wiki-cart.}}

==The Wordbomb Saga==
[[Image:Patrick byrne overstock small.jpg|thumb|right|Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne [http://www.overstock.com/Patrick-Byrne-and-naked-short-selling/7371/static.html]]]
One of Wikipedia’s most bitter and drawn-out disputes, chronicled in ''The Register,''<ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/</ref> centers around the assertion by representatives of Overstock.com<ref>http://www.overstock.com/community</ref> that a [[Mainstream media|mainstream financial journalist]] Gary Weiss had been editing Wikipedia to impose his point of view on a series of articles relevant to the company. Weiss was once a reporter with BusinessWeek, in 2007 became a columnist with Forbes, and had for over 10 years been posting under fake names to confuse, distort, hijack Usenet groups, stock message boards, and Wikipedia, to prevent the public from understanding criminal activity.<ref>http://www.deepcapture.com/gary-weiss-scaramouch-psychopath/</ref> Weiss was notorious around the Internet for his public feud with Overstock<ref>http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2007/05/overstockcoms-ethical-dilemma.html</ref> and its CEO Patrick Byrne,<ref>http://allantyoung.com/2008/09/22/patrick-byrne-vindicated/</ref> ridiculing their campaign against the controversial practice of [[Naked Short Selling]].

In 2006, Judd Bagley, an ally of Overstock’s Patrick Byrne having interviewed the CEO for a personal project, began editing Wikipedia to counter what was perceived to be a skewed representation of Naked Short Selling and Overstock.com. He was swiftly dispatched by influential Wikipedia administrators.

Shortly after, Bagley became Overstock’s Director of Communications, and embarked on an aggressive campaign to publicize the dispute on various websites, aiming to expose the administrators he held responsible for protecting Weiss. Using the moniker “Wordbomb”, Bagley presented evidence<ref>http://antisocialmedia.net/final-word-on-weiss/</ref> suggesting that not only was Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia using the name “User:Mantanmoreland“,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mantanmoreland</ref> but that he was operating other accounts to manipulate consensus and protect his interests in the dispute. Mantanmoreland violated Wikipedia policies against Conflict of Interest and No Self Promotion by creating an article about himself.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gary_Weiss&diff=prev&oldid=48341962</ref> Bagley proved Weiss had edited Wikipedia from one of two main IPs used by the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (DTCC),<ref>http://www.dtcc.com/about/business/index.php</ref> the organization charged with settling about a quadrillion stock trades each year. The DTCC is also the organization Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne said acts an enabler of perpetrators of illegal naked short selling of many public companies.<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=10360&st=0&p=36485&mode=linear#entry36485</ref>

Wikipedia responded to Bagley’s campaign in typical schoolyard fashion. The dispute was escalated by a small clique of powerful Wikipedians who seemed less interested in the truth of Bagley’s assertions, and more concerned with attacking perceived threats to the status quo at Wikipedia. With the approval of [[Jimbo Wales]], administrators sided with “Mantanmoreland” / Gary Weiss, and anointed Bagley / Wordbomb an “Enemy Of The Wiki” who needed to be silenced — a “stalker” and a “harasser” for publicizing the details of the person who had been editing relevant articles on Wikipedia, and the people who had been stopping him from doing the same.

For nearly two years, Bagley’s name was invoked to inspire paranoia in the Wikipedia Admin Community to keep questioning editors in line. It became a textbook case for analysis of the intense group-think Wikipedia has become notorious for.
[[Image:Judd bagley overstock.jpg|thumb|left|175px|Judd Bagley was made a target at the highest levels of Wikipedia and became a victim of a global [[witchhunt]] by the Wikipedia Admin Community for daring to expose an unholy alliance of abuse and [[corruption]] on [[Wall Street]] and in the Wikipedia cabal. [http://antisocialmedia.net/] ]]
Bagley was repeatedly disparaged<ref>http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=15897</ref> by a cabal of out-of-control administrators such as Guy Chapman, who denounced Bagley as “lunatic” and “evil” when it suited. UK Wikimedia representative David Gerard banned an entire area of Utah to prevent Bagley raising his issues and made personally disparaging remarks.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Gerard/archive_5#User:204.15.84.2</ref> Wikipedia Arbitrator Fred Bauder claimed that Bagley’s blog AntiSocialMedia.net showed “moral depravity”<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision&diff=158954587&oldid=158809362</ref> for challenging the Wiki-elite. Administrator Phil Sandifer dismissed Bagley in highly personal and offensive language while boasting<ref>http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083509.html</ref> that he himself had become a “powerful and trusted administrator on the 9th biggest website in the world.”

Other editors who raised Overstock’s quite legitimate complaints were banned as proxies of Judd Bagley. Paranoia had taken such a hold that editors with productive records from all over the US, and as far afield as Europe and Asia found themselves accused of being Bagley. When the editor Cla68<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Cla68</ref> questioned the issue of Gary Weiss editing Wikipedia, he was swiftly blocked by administrator Durova on the orders of Jimbo Wales who wrote,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gary_Weiss&diff=165916446&oldid=165916313</ref> “Durova and Guy have my full support here. No nonsense, zero tolerance, shoot on sight. No kidding, this has gone on long enough”.

A study<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SirFozzie/Investigation</ref> undertaken by concerned administrators into the editing patterns of “Mantanmoreland” came to fruition. Despite the “Mantanmoreland” account ceasing edits on Overstock / Naked Short Selling articles in September 2007, the study revealed evidence beyond reasonable doubt that the same person had been operating several accounts to “control” articles. Thus affirming Bagley’s claims.

More worryingly for good faith Wikipedians was the revelation<ref>http://www.wikback.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2762#Post2757</ref><ref>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/01/wikipedia_and_naked_shorting/print.html</ref> that [[Jimbo Wales]], alongside leading administrators, had considered that this person was almost certainly Gary Weiss in a private discussion as long ago as September 2007 (the same month the “Mantanmoreland” account quit editing the relevant articles). Meaning that behind the scenes, they were admitting that Bagley was probably right all along, yet in public were vilifying or blocking anyone who publicly stated so.

After the [[financial meltdown of 2008]], the [[Securities and Exchange Commission]] issued directives aimed at curbing abusive naked short selling.<ref>[http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/20090728_SEC_short-selling_rule_is_permanent.html]</ref> Patrick Byrne has been widely recognized as in the forefront of the movement aimed at curbing such abuses.<ref>http://www.investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/425</ref>

==Michael Moore==
[[Image:Moorecagan.JPG|right|thumb|200px|Moore with [[Leslie Cagan]] [[United For Peace and Justice]] [http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=629] ]]
The website MichaelMoore.com, dissatisfied with a Wikipedia editor's edits to ''[[Sicko]]'', published an image of a Wikipedia user on its main page. This was combined with links to edit both ''Sicko'' and the editor's user page.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Proposed_decision#Michael_Moore] Several Wikipedia editors and Administrators regarded this action on the part of [[Michael Moore]]'s official website as an egregious violation of a well publicized ruling to protect Wikipedia editors from outside harassment. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Attack_sites/Evidence#Michael_Moore_2] The consensus, per Wikipedia's policy was to remove links from Wikipedia to Michael Moore's attack site which was urging vengeance and reprisals against an editor who posted criticism of Moore's film.

In Arbitration, Wikipedia's internal policy making and dispute resolution arm, the Arbitration chairman publicly admitted,
{{Cquote|No question it contained an attack, including a link to edit our user's page. The problem is that many of us like Michael Moore very much and don't care much for the viewpoint of the user involved. Applying our policy in a rote manner (Without consideration of '''the unwritten rule that we support prominent subjects that we like''') yields removal of the link (At least while it contained the personal attack).<ref>Wikien-1 [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082980.html Harassment sites], Fred Bauder, Sun Oct 14 19:03:28 UTC 2007.</ref>}}

Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV), laid down by founder [[Jimbo Wales]] allegedly is "absolute and non-negotiable."[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#_note-0] The ArbCom chairman further stated, "Obviously we need to make an exception for prominent people whose viewpoint we support." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082987.html] When asked, "How, then, is this remotely compatible with NPOV?", the ArbCom chairman responded, "Not at all." [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/082993.html] The editor whom Michaelmoore.com was urging its viewers to attack and harass is described as "a Fellow at the [[American Enterprise Institute]], a [[conservative]] [[think tank]]."[http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-October/083230.html]

==Sinbad hoax==
On March 16 2007, Wikipedia entry on the 50-year old entertainer Sinbad, born David Adkins, states: "He succumbed to a fatal heart attack on the morning of March, 14, 2007." This hoax was widely reported in the media<ref>http://www.ioltechnology.co.za/article_page.php?iSectionId=2891&iArticleId=3734818</ref>.

==Rutgers-Ivy League hoax==
A Wikipedia entry falsely stated that Rutgers was once invited to join the Ivy League. Although that false statement was eventually removed from Wikipedia, it was not removed before the ''Daily News'' relied on it in this story:

:You don't have to define your college with your football team, but Rutgers long ago decided to give it a try. Back in 1954, when it was considered a 'public Ivy,' Rutgers might have joined the fledgling Ivy League and altered its destiny. But the school declined the offer - arguably the dumbest mistake in its history. Ever since then, Rutgers has scrambled to prove itself worthy of playing football with the big boys."<ref>Bondy, Filip. "They Can Finally Say They Belong Here", New York Daily News, 2006-11-10, p. 92. Retrieved on 2006-12-13.</ref>

==Barbara Bauer vs. Wikimedia Foundation==
Wikimedia Foundation is one of 17 defendants in a lawsuit suit filed in New Jersey, by Barbara Bauer and her literary agency. Her Wikipedia article was deleted on March 25, 2007 by Wikipedia administrator Doc Glasgow as a "bloody disgrace".<ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauertc.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert1.html</ref><ref>http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/bauert2.html</ref>

==GFDL License Issue==
Wikipedia's practice of complete deletion of articles<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Brian+Peppers</ref> without reference to the original article, the author(s)/publisher(s) of the article, and the history and title(s) of the article, including modification history, description and appropriate dates, is a direct violation of at least GFDL version 1.2. Additionally, the GFDL License states that if the article/document contains Copyright notices, that said notices must be preserved at all times. If those notices are removed, then they are in violation of Copyright Law, as well as the terms of the GFDL license. Furthermore, the question of them removing anything outright at all comes into quite a grey area. If one reads the GFDL License literally, then it implies that once the article document is posted, it is in distribution, and technical measures are not allowed to be taken to prevent the use of the document in question, and that no other conditions whatsoever can be added by the user to those of the GFDL license.<ref>http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Wikipocalypse:GF'DL</ref><ref>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html#TOC1</ref>

However, beginning June 15, 2009, the Wikimedia Foundation began transitioning content on Wikipedia to be dual licensed under both the GFDL and Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 3.0.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-06-15/News_and_notes</ref>

==Cyberbullying==
The press have reported on incidents of [[cyberbullying]] on Wikipedia.<ref name="LATimes">{{cite news| url=http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/29/local/me-wikipedia29 | work=Los Angeles Times | first=Molly | last=Hennessy-Fiske | title=Wikipedia threats went unchecked – Los Angeles Times | date=29 April 2008}}</ref><ref name="ABCLocal">[http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local&id=6087243 Hacienda Heights school receives possible threat | abc7.com]</ref><ref name="LATimes2">{{cite news |title=Student arrested for violent threats on Wikipedia |first= |last= |url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/04/wiki.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef011571abd811970b |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |date=29 April 2008}}</ref> An editor threatened an Asian student at the [[Glen A. Wilson High School]] in 2008,<ref name="LATimes" /><ref name="ABCLocal" /><ref name="LATimes2" /> and a 14-year-old boy was arrested for making a threat against [[Niles West High School]] on Wikipedia in 2006.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.pantagraph.com/news/article_baef01f3-e56f-52e1-b9af-e90eb83e811b.html|title=Teen charged after threat to school on Wikipedia|date=31 October 2006|agency=Associated Press |publisher=Pantagraph.com|accessdate=26 January 2011|location=Bloomington, IL}}</ref>

== Humorous quotes concerning Wikipedia ==

''See also:'' [[Essay: 10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd|10 telltale signs you are on your way to becoming an atheist nerd]] - [[satire]]

An article entitled ''Wikipedia Gridlocked by Wikipedia Nerds'' declared:
{{Cquote|So who are these Gatekeepers to all the internet's knowledge?

A survey the foundation conducted last year determined that the average age of an editor is 26.8 years, and that 87% of them are men.

As you suspected: [[nerd]]s.<ref>http://gawker.com/5410917/wikipedia-gridlocked-by-wikipedia-nerds</ref>}}

[[Jimmy Wales]] said the typical profile of a Wikipedia contributor is "a 26-year-old geeky male" who moves on to other ventures, gets married and leaves the website.<ref>[http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digital-living/5397593/Wikipedia-losing-contributors-founder-says Wikipedia losing contributors, founder says]</ref>

=== Song excerpt ===

{{Cquote|All of my action figures are Cherry,
[[Stephen Hawking]]'s in my library....

I edit Wikipedia...I'm nerdy in the extreme,
whiter than sour cream...

They see me strollin', they're laughin'
And rollin' their eyes cause I'm so
White and nerdy". - ''White and Nerdy'', Weird Al Yankovic<ref>http://www.musiclyricsfyi.com/white-nerdy-lyrics.htm</ref>}}

==Unbaised editor recruitment==
Wikipedia claims that anyone can edit it. It is to an extent, its editor pool is self-selecting. However, on January 25–29, 2012, the Wikimedia Foundation paid for Gregory Varnum and others to attend and staff a booth at the "24th National Conference on LGBT Equality: Creating Change" conference in Baltimore, Maryland. The purpose of the Wikimedia booth was to create more LGBT activists to edit Wikipedia. Although Wikimedia has outreach efforts at other conferences, there has been no outreach at conservative events.

Wikipedia editor [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch Sarah Stierch] was the volunteer moderator of the Gender Gap email list where she departed from discussing Wikipedia to freely share her negative experiences with men in her life. In fall 2011, she was hired by the WMF as a Community Fellow to work on creating a "Teahouse" for newer Wikipedia editors. The report on the Teahouse Pilot Project<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Teahouse/Pilot_Report&oldid=3832292|title=Teahouse: Pilot Report|date=June 14, 2012}}</ref> explained, "If you click through to the Teahouse, it’s clearly aiming to broaden female participation - just look at the pastel background and references to tea." Stierch tried to use Twitter to recruit more female editors into Teahouse and the English Wikipedia. The report concluded, "Because so much time and energy needed to be spend during the pilot on setting up and maintaining the space, we weren't able to focus as much as we'd have liked on gender-targeted strategies for recruiting female guests and hosts. There are clearly more experiments that need to be run in order to better integrate the space with other gender gap efforts and WikiWomen's calls to actions."

==See also ==
*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Wikipedia|Articles about '''Wikipedia''' from previous "Breaking News"]]
*[[Essay:The Protocols of Ritual Defamation]]
*[[Wikipedia prejudice and KAL 007]] (Wikipedia deletion material related to [[New World Order]] and [[Larry McDonald]], touching [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]])

==Further reading==
*[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/21/conservatives-miss-wikipedias-threat/ SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat] by [[Washington Times]], August 21, 2008
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/print.html Wikipedia black helicopters circle Utah's Traverse Mountain], By Cade Metz, ''The Register'', 6th December 2007.
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/ Avoid Wikipedia, warns Wikipedia chief - It can seriously damage your grades] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', June 15, 2006
*[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/18/wikipedia_quality_problem/ Wikipedia founder admits to serious quality problems] by Andrew Orlowski, ''The Register'', October 18, 2005
*[http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia Who Writes Wikipedia?] by Aaron Swartz, 2006

==References==
{{reflist|3}}

==External links==
*[http://www.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]
*[http://www.wikitruth.info/ Wikitruth]
*[http://www.citizendium.com Citizendium(Beta)]
*[http://www.wikipedia-watch.org Wikipedia Watch]
*[http://wikipediareview.com/ Wikipedia Review]
*[http://www.mises.org/story/2704 Wikipedia: What Is It Good For?], By Dick Clark, 9/19/2007. Retrieved from The Ludwig von Mises Institute, http://www.mises.org/ November 5, 2007.
{{Liberalism}}
[[Category:Wikis]]
[[Category:Featured articles]]
[[Category:Encyclopedias]]

Grand Theft Auto V

2012-04-26T14:19:27Z

AngusT:

Grand Theft Auto V, officially announced on October 25, 2011 is an upcoming installation to the critically acclaimed adult oriented [[Grand Theft Auto]] video game series. The debut trailer was released on November 2, 2011 and his since achieved a near [[viral video]] status in which one who attempts to type [http://www.youtube.com/results?q=gta+v+trailer&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1&gl=CA "gta v trailer"] into a [[YouTube]] search will typically find at least three to five mirrors of the same video. The game is already one of the most anticipated [[2012]] or [[2013]] game releases and has stirred up much hype over the internet, so much so that your typical [[internet addiction|internet addict]] (a child between the ages of 11 and 19) has encountered problems going a single day without checking [http://www.rockstargames.com/newswire Rockstar's news page] or [http://www.gtaforums.com GTA Forums.com], a forum site that has catered mainly to children as young as 13 years of age, despite ESRB's "M for Mature" rating that has been assigned to literally all [[Grand Theft Auto]] games from Grand Theft Auto III onward. Like many violent video games, the Grand Theft Auto series has been directly linked to acts of adolescent violence in real life.

== Political Themes ==
Despite a lack of release dates or specific information regarding the storyline and plot, the trailer contains may references to [[income disparity]], [[homelessness]] the [[recession]] and [[drug dealing]]. It has been speculated that the game, heavily anticipated by children and teenagers actually revolves around "''the disparity between the rich and the poor''" and "''the problems with [[capitalism]]''".

While this is not official information as of February 18, 2012, the Grand Theft Auto series and it's writer, [[Sam Houser]] has a long history of writing long, elaborate, detailed, and sophisticated scripts with [[left wing]] bias. The game is produced in [[Scotland]], a country in the [[United Kingdom]] even more left wing than the city of [[San Francisco]]. Sam Houser is likely a graduate of a university in which he probably studied politics, English, writing, and all other subjects crucial to his profession.

The hidden media messages in Grand Theft Auto games spread the idea that government assistance and extensive welfare programs increase the standard of living, and that nobody can live a long, healthy life without [[Universal health care|Canadian style healthcare]].

The series has a long history of positive elements as well, such as parodying real life brand names and companies, and shedding a light on real life issues, regardless of the player's political stance, such as the link between [[fast food]] and [[obesity]], and people's willingness to purchase [[Generic drug|prescription drugs without a brand name]].

== Release Dates ==
PlayStation 3: TBA.

Xbox 360: TBA.

PC: TBA.
[[Category:Video Games]]

Grand Theft Auto IV

2012-04-26T14:18:47Z

AngusT:

Grand Theft Auto IV, released on April 29, 2008 in [[North America]] is a first person shooter game famous for its real life-like physics and superb graphics on both the [[PlayStation 3]] and [[Xbox 360]] versions. Like many violent video games, the Grand Theft Auto series has been directly linked to acts of adolescent violence in real life.

==Story==
The storyline follows the protagonist, Niko Bellic, an [[Illegal immigration|illegal]] Eastern European immigrant who arrived in Liberty City (fictional [[New York City]] look-alike who arrived off of a ship named the Platypus. His cousin, Roman Bellic, sent him a chain of promising emails over a long period of time talking about his success, his[[Adultery|"ladies"]] and his ownership of a mansion which never existed. He enticed Niko to come to Liberty City to live with him. Due entirely to [[gambling]] addiction, Niko is sucked in to the usual world of organized, and sometimes extremely violent crime in an effort to help his cousin pay off his gambling debts, which eventually cause him to be kidnapped, twice. Over the course of the game, he befriends a [[steroid]] addict, dates an undercover government agent named Michelle (later revealed to be Karen), does business with affiliates of the [[Mafia]], befriends a [[homosexual]] under attack from bullies, and even has the option of carrying out assassinations for a man from [[Texas]] named "The Fixer".

==Side Missions==
Side missions unlocked over the course of the game include [[drug dealing]], [[vigilante]] criminal killings, assassinations, illegal street racing, and hanging out with friends (characters introduced over the course of the game who Niko befriends).
==Crimes Committed==
Crimes that must be committed in the in game world, as usual, include speeding, [[assault]], [[murder]] and [[drug trafficking]].
Heroic missions such as fire fighting and paramedic missions seen in [[Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas]] are removed.
==Websites==
[http://www.rockstargames.com/IV/ Official Website]

[http://www.gta4.net/ Fan Site complete with walkthroughs, cheat codes, and tips and tricks]
[[Category:Video Games]]

Grand Theft Auto III

2012-04-26T14:17:59Z

AngusT:

Grand Theft Auto III is a legendary [[sandbox style]] first person shooter game released in October of 2001 for the [[PlayStation 2]], May 2002 for the [[PC]], and November of 2003 for the [[Xbox]], in November of 2010 for Mac OS X, and on December 15, 2011 for the iPhone, iPad, and various [[Android (operating system)|Android]] smart phones. A high definition remaster for the PlayStation 3 is expected. Like many violent video games, the Grand Theft Auto series has been directly linked to acts of adolescent violence in real life.
==Gameplay==
Grand Theft Auto III makes use of a 3D game engine (operating environment), special effects for fires, explosions, and gore. Ground breaking, never before seen features include changes in weather from sun to rain, changes in time of day (1 in game minute equals approximately 1-1.5 seconds), the freedom to highjack or steal cars, and kill pedestrians and police officers through a variety of means. Some of these features were also implemented in [[Grand Theft Auto 1]] and [[Grand Theft Auto 2]], however only GTA 3 had achieved this open world freedom and gameplay in a 3D environment and with textures that were very detailed for the time. Vehicles include various cars, trucks, vans and buses based on their real life counterparts.
==Storyline==
The game is set in a previous rendition of [[Liberty City]], which includes elements of [[Chicago]], [[Kansas City]], and the skyscraper architecture seen in [[New York City]]. A trademark of the Grand Theft Auto franchise is to exaggerate the seediness of their real life counterparts. This is most obvious in the rendition of [[Los Santos]] seen in [[Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas]]. Much emphasis is put on low income and gang infested areas and consequently gang culture.
The protagonist is a nameless man who was later revealed to have the name "Claude" in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, in which he made a cameo appearance. He was betrayed by his girlfriend "Catalina" during a bank robbery. He was shot in the stomach by Catalina, arrested, charged, and convicted by a unanimous verdict. While under police transportation to the penitentiary, the convoy was hijacked by a group of fellow thugs, Claude was freed, and the bridge was bombed. The player drives to what is now his living space where the player can hide out from law enforcement and save game progress. Claude is revealed in San Andreas to be "mute"; unable to talk or verbally respond to commands. This is because developers chose not to hire a voice actor.
==Controversy==
Grand Theft Auto III introduced the ability to pick up and have implied sex with prostitutes, kill them and steal their money, or both. [[Wal-Mart]] announced they would begin doing ID checks on any purchasers of "M for Mature" rated games appearing under the age of 17. It was banned in Australia for some time and a censored version of the game was released in it's place. On October 20, 2003, the families of Aaron Hamel and Kimberly Bede, two young teens shot to death by fellow teens William and Josh Beckner filed a $246 million dollar lawsuit against [[Rockstar Games]] and [[Take Two Interactive]] over the games "purported psychological effects". Rockstar Games argued that those effects are protected by the [[First Amendment]]s free speech clause.
===Cut Content===
Certain "missions" (tasks that the player must complete in order to progress through storyline), pedestrian dialogue and radio dialogue were cut after the [[9/11]] attacks. This included a mission titled "Love Hurts"; a mission that involved flying a plane into a skyscraper belonging to the owner of a media conglomerate in order to kill him and the changing of paint jobs on police cars. It is speculated that the ability to blow limbs off civilians was removed.
==References==
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_III]
*[http://gta3.com]
*[http://grandtheftwiki.com/Grand_Theft_Auto_III Grand Theft Auto III on Grand Theft Wiki]
*[http://ps3.ign.com/articles/121/1217020p1.html]
[[Category:Video Games]]

Grand Theft Auto 1

2012-04-26T14:17:00Z

AngusT:

Grand Theft Auto, now known as Grand Theft Auto 1 (from the first era of GTA games) is a video game released for the original Sony PlayStation, the [[PC]] and the Game Boy Color. Grand Theft Auto 1, it's "mission packs" and Grand Theft Auto 2 are distinguishable because they did not make use of 3D graphics, high resolution textures nor did they utilize rendering engines that come even close to mimicking real life physics, as the technology for such programming to work alongside a game as big as GTA did not exist until the development and release of [[Grand Theft Auto III]] in 2001. Like many violent video games, the Grand Theft Auto series has been directly linked to acts of adolescent violence in real life.
==Gameplay==
The game utilizes Grand Theft Auto's trademark "[[sandbox style]]" game layout. The player is free to do what he or she want's within the city limits, although the completion of "missions" is necessary to earn money and to advance the storyline to the point where different parts of the map and different cities within the game are unlocked.

The player has the option of choosing between eight characters, four male and four female. All of them have largely the same appearance. The player has the option of naming their character to suit their personal tastes. [[Cheat code]]s are inputted by entering certain names. Like all other Grand Theft Auto games, cheat codes can be used to make dramatic and sometimes strange changes in gameplay and ease difficulty (i.e: infinite health, $250,000 dollars cash).
==Ports==
The Game Boy Color version was ported to the handheld platform with surprising technical achievements. Very little changes were made to the game aside from censorship of objectionable content (profanity, blood and gore). The graphics were technically untouched from the PlayStation and PC versions. This would usher in a new high for a handheld platform with extremely limited hardware capability and a resource-choked storage medium, as the Game Boy and all it's counterparts prior to the Game Boy Advance used a small cartridge limited to 256 kb, 512 kb, 1 Mb, 2 Mb, 4 Mb and 8 Mb of storage space.
==References==
{{reflist}}
[[Category:Video Games]]

Grand Theft Auto 2

2012-04-26T14:16:22Z

AngusT:

Grand Theft Auto 2, commonly abbreviated as “GTA 2” is a 2D top-down view video game released on September 30,
1999 for the [[PC]], October 25, 1999 for the [[Sony]] [[PlayStation]], April 30, 2000 for the Sega Dreamcast,
and November 10, 2000 for the Game Boy Color. Like many violent video games, the Grand Theft Auto series has been directly linked to acts of adolescent violence in real life.

==Gameplay==
GTA 2 mimics GTA 1’s [[sandbox style]] gameplay with a similar top down view and the same physics engine.
Improvements were made in comparison to the 32-[[bit]] lookalike graphics in GTA 1. Textures are published in
slightly, but still noticeably higher quality.
GTA 2 follows the old-fashioned formula of obtaining extra “points” by running over and killing pedestrians,
damaging other cars, and even killing police. Points obtained unlock “missions” that progress storyline and earn
extra money.
Storyline is progressed by earning “respect” from one of the city’s gangs. Grievances dealt to a certain gang
will decrease respect from one gang, but increase respect from another.
Game progress is saved by walking into [[megachurch]]es at select locations in the city, making a mandatory
donation, in other words; payment of $50,000 dollars of in-game currency in exchange for “[[salvation]]” that
will eliminate the player’s wanted level and save game progress to the storage medium that the platform uses.
The game utilizes largely the same [[weapon]]s ([[guns]], knives, etc.) as other Grand Theft Auto games. The game
also features the well-known pedestrian fights and car jackings, both provoked and unprovoked of other Grand
Theft Auto games.
==Settings==
The game is set in an un named town in a non-specified location in the [[United States]] in a time period between
2000 and 2013. The game’s setting is referred to as “Anywhere City”. The city is divided into three districts
serving as levels that need to be progressed through.
Downtown District: The downtown district is a hub of commercial activity with its own mental institution
and a large [[university]]. Its architecture mimics the upward building styles of downtown areas of your typical
city of 500,000 people in the US.
Residential District: The residential district consists of a [[prison]], a [[trailer park]] with an
[[Elvis Presley|Elvis]] themed bar named “Disgracelands”, a pun on [[Graceland]]; the home of the deceased Elvis
Presley in [[Memphis]], a shopping mall, and a large [[hydroelectric]] power plant.
Industrial District: The industrial district consists of a large seaport, a meatpacking plant, a [[nuclear
power]] plant, and a [[Krishna]] temple.
==Soundtrack==
The game follows [[Grand Theft Auto]]’s style of having radio stations featuring songs that exist in real life,
accompanied by DJ chatter and [[Satire|satirical]] radio [[advertisement]]s.
[[Category:Video Games]]

Hinduism

2012-04-26T14:10:34Z

AngusT: Undo revision 978056 by Actr3 (talk) yes, ours is better, less biased, and more concise.

[[Image:Hinduism.jpg|left|Hinduism]]
'''Hinduism''' is the fourth largest religion in the world and is the oldest among major religions.<ref>The largest being [[Christianity]], [[Islam]], Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist, and Hinduism, in that order[http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html]</ref> Historians believe that it originated more than 5000 years ago.<ref>[http://hinduism.about.com/od/hinduism101/a/origin.htm Origin of Hinduism] (About.com)</ref> Hinduism is the first [[Dharmic religion]]. It is often referred to as "the religion of India;" about 800 million of the world's billion Hindus live in India, so about 80 percent of Hindus are Indians.<ref>[http://www.censusindia.net/religiondata/Brief_analysis.pdf Census of India, religion data, brief analysis (PDF)]; "At the national level, of 1028 million population, 828 million (80.5 percent) have returned their religion as Hindus followed by 138 million (13.4 percent) as Muslims and 24 millions (2.3 percent) Christians. 19 million (1.9 percent) persons follow Sikh religion; 8 million (0.8 percent) are Buddhists and 4.2 million (0.4 percent) are Jains as per the 2001 Census. In addition to these, 6.6 million belong to ‘Other Religions and Persuasions’ including tribal religions which are not part of the six main religions stated above. About seven lakh (or 0.7 million) persons have not stated their religion."</ref>
According to a recent American survey, Hindus are the best educated and among the richest religious groups in the [[United States]].<ref>Hanerjee, Neela, [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/us/25cnd-religion.html?ei=5124&en=1f44cce06fd2c02a&ex=1361682000&adxnnl=1&partner=digg&exprod=digg&adxnnlx=1204020358-3HkVoV4zxeYh9vTOw6Tydw Americans Change Faiths at Rising Rate, Report Finds], New York Times, 25th February, 2008.</ref>
[[Image:Hinduism..jpg|240px|right|Shiva the Cosmic Dancer]]
Hindus believe in [[reincarnation]] and eventual communion with [[Brahman]] (God) as well as respect for all life forms. Their holy writings are known as the [[Vedas]]. Hindus outline the four goals of various humans (purusharthas) as: dharma (righteousness), artha (material success), kama (love/pleasure), and moksha (release from reincarnation/reunification with Brahman); above all four of these, in certain Hindu schools, is the goal of pure Love of God.

== Definition by law==

In 1966, the Supreme Court of [[India]] defined what Hinduism is for legal purposes:

1. Belief in the authority of the Vedas (an ancient hymns to the gods, written in Sanskrit). The oldest collection of hymns in the Vedas is the Rig Veda, which was written between 1800 and 1300 B.C. The greatest Veda hymn is the “Bhagavat Gita,” a section in the Mahabharata concerning life’s never-ending spiritual journey towards perfection. Bhagavat Geeta is rendered as a dialogue between Shri [[Krishna]] (incarnation of [[Vishnu]]) and Arjuna (the great archer) in the middle of the battlefield.

2. Spirit of tolerance and willingness to understand and respect an opponent’s view.

3. Belief in world rhythms: long periods of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession.

4. Belief in reincarnation (rebirth) and preexistence.

5. Belief that there are many ways to salvation.

6. Unlike most other religions, Hinduism is not defined by a specific set of philosophical concepts.

7. Belief in one god. Contrary to popular belief, Hinduism is not a [[polytheism|polytheistic]] religion. The Vedas, the primary Hindu holy scriptures states that there is only one [[God]] but can manifest in many forms. This is the reason why there are many deities. A common example used to explain this is that an individual can be called different names depending on the relationship has with another. A man can be a son to his parents, a nephew to his uncle, a father to his son, and a husband to his wife all at the same time. None of these different relationships suggest multiple people but rather different aspects of one person. The same is applied to God in Hinduism, which has no form and is infinite. Hindus may call God, Paratman (Supreme Soul), Brahmana (Eternal Spirit), or Ishvara (Supreme Lord). Deities have various names but represent aspects of God that manifest in the world. For example [[Agni]] (fire, Divine spark), Vayu (wind, or breath which could mean life force, [[Indra]] (in mythology king of gods but also refers to the senses such as vision, hearing, touch, taste), and [[Lakshmi]] (fortune).

8. Secular multiplicity and accommodating flexibility in spiritual practices.

Relations between Hinduism and Christianity have also been shaped by unequal balances of political power and cultural influence. Although communities of Christians have lived in South India since the middle of the 1st millennium, the great expansion of Indian Christianity followed the efforts of missionaries working under the protection of the British colonial government. <ref> [http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-261549/Hinduism Hinduism and Christianity] Encyclopædia Britannica. </ref>

Some state governments such as Gujrat, Madhya Pradesh have passed anti-conversion laws, attempting to prevent Hindus from being forced or coerced into converting to other religions such as [[Islam]] and [[Christianity]].<ref>[http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2003/24470.htm India: International Religious Freedom Report 2003] (U.S. Department of State)</ref>

For more on Hinduism, see [[World History Lecture Three]].

==Believer?==
In Hinduism, according to one classification, believers are categorized into four distinct categories, acording to their beliefs.
* Advaita Astika: Believer of God & Believer of Scripture
* Advaita Nastika: Believer of God & Non-believer of Scripture
* Dvaita Astika: Non-believer of God & Believer of Scripture
* Dvaita Nastika: Non-believer of God & Non-believer of Scripture

==Criticisms==
===Sati===
''Sati'' was a practice during the medieval period whereby still-in-love Hindu widows jumped into the funeral pyre for the their husbands(together till death). It was developed in a blatant misinterpretation of their scriptures. In modern times, family members of the husband forced widows to burn to death. Thus this practice was abolished in the 19th century by the efforts of Ram Mohan Roy and Lord William Bentinck.

===Caste system===
Hinduism also has a "caste by profession" or ''varna'' system. Traditionally Hindu society is divided into four castes:
*''Brahmin'' (the highest caste in Hinduism)
*''Kshatriya'' (the warrior or ruling class)
*''Vaishya'' (merchants)
*''Shudra'' (unskilled laborers and servants)

In ancient times, caste was determined by profession, and could be changed by changing career. As time passed on, both Caste and Profession became defined by birth. <ref>[http://western-hindu.org/2008/01/27/the-caste-system/ The Caste System]</ref>

''Shudras'' were the lowest caste and were denied of many rights in past. Apart from these four main castes, there was a new addition in the modern distortion of the caste system, as the lowest caste and without any rights, called the ''Dalit'' (Untouchables).<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/living/caste.shtml The caste system] ''BBC''</ref> Historically these ''dalits'' are the victims of discrimination by higher castes. Even today there are many reports of discrimination against ''dalits''.<ref>[http://indianchristians.in/news/content/view/1954/44/ Dalits face discrimination in southern Tamil Nadu] ''All India Christian Council''</ref><ref>[http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/13/india15303.htm India: ‘Hidden Apartheid’ of Discrimination Against Dalits] ''[[Human Rights Watch]]''</ref>

==See Also==
* [[Dharma]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Hinduism-Hindu.htm Hindu Religion]
* [http://western-hindu.org/2008/01/27/the-caste-system/ The Caste System]
* [http://ethics.wikia.com/wiki/Param_Atma Parmatma]

==Further reading==
* Johnson, W. J. ''A Dictionary of Hinduism'' (2009) [http://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Hinduism-W-J-Johnson/dp/0198610254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238980666&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Knott, Kim. ''Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction'' (2000) [http://www.questia.com/read/62971675?title=Hinduism%3a%20A%20Very%20Short%20Introduction online edition]
* Shattuck, Cybelle. ''Hinduism'' (1999) [http://www.questia.com/read/103395975?title=Hinduism online edition]
* Sullivan, Bruce M. ''Historical Dictionary of Hinduism'' (1997)
* Werner, Karel. ''A Popular Dictionary of Hinduism'' (1997) [http://www.amazon.com/Popular-Dictionary-Hinduism-Dictionaries-Religion/dp/0700710493/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1238980666&sr=1-3 excerpt and text search]
* Zaehner, R. C. ''Hinduism'' (1966) [http://www.questia.com/read/23180604?title=Hinduism online edition]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Hinduism| ]]
[[Category:Dharmic Religions]]
[[Category:India]]
[[category:Indian History]]

Conservapedia proven right

2012-04-26T12:14:01Z

AngusT:

'''''Conservapedia''''' content has often been proven right on topics ranging from science to politics to the World Cup,<ref>Although incredibly rare, [[Conservapedia proven wrong|Conservapedia has been occasionally wrong]], but usually about trivial matters and even then it is usually mostly right.</ref> even for predictions that some [[liberals]] have ridiculed. Examples include:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Date of ''Conservapedia'' statement
!''Conservapedia'' statement
![[liberal]] claptrap in response
!Result
!Date of Result
|-
|Dec. 26, 2006
|The [[Nobel Prize]] "selection process has become political, as it was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II or to anyone who criticizes the [[theory of evolution]]. The Nobel Prizes for literature and peace are mostly given to outspoken [[liberal]]s, such as Jimmy Carter."<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize&oldid=7393</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] insists that the Nobel Prize has integrity, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
|Subsequently the Nobel Peace Prize was absurdly awarded to [[Barack Obama]] despite a lack of any beneficial, meaningful achievement, and even Obama supporters reacted with "shock" and "a belief that the award was premature, a disservice and a potential liability."<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/10/09/a_weighty_prize.html</ref>
|October 2009
|-
|Aug. 18, 2007
|Because [[Jon Stewart]]'s movies "almost always do very badly (critically and financially) people say that there is a 'Jon Stewart Curse' that he brings to all his movies."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jon_Stewart&oldid=271190</ref>
|His audience of [[public school]] kids is clueless.
|The 2008 Oscars, which he hosted, set the modern record for fewest viewers, and Stewart has not appeared in a movie since Conservapedia's observation in 2007.
|Feb. 24, 2008
|-
|Jan. 10, 2008
|Conservapedia observes that [[Shaken Baby Syndrome]] is a doubtful theory by governmental child protective services, which has resulted in dubious convictions.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shaken_Baby_Syndrome&oldid=367617</ref>
|The governmental "experts" must be right and Conservapedia must somehow be wrong.
|Years later, even [[National Public Radio]] admitted doubts about a conviction for Shaken Baby Syndrome, and [[Democrat]] Governor [[Jerry Brown]] commmuted a high-profile sentence for it.<ref>http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/04/shaken-baby-case-an-update/#.T4DftOjeRkI.email</ref>
|March and April 2012
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly calls [[Barack Obama]] and [[Michelle Obama]] [[liberal elite|liberal elitists]] before the 2008 election and throughout 2009. See also: [[Barack Obama and liberal elitism]], [[Barack Obama and uncharitableness]] and [[Michelle Obama and liberal elitism]]
|Many liberals have a [[Messiah]] complex about Barack Obama, comparing him unjustifiably to the caring and suffering servant [[Jesus Christ]]. The liberal press gives Obama a free pass on his uncharitable past and his liberal elitism.
|During a time of severe economic problems in the United States and throughout the world, Barack Obama plays game after game of golf and takes lavish vacations while Michelle Obama goes on expensive shopping sprees. The liberal press and the liberal political establishment are increasingly souring on Obama, even calling him lazy and incompetent.
|2008-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares that [[atheism]] is corrupt and wrongheaded and that the future of atheism does not look promising. See also: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles]
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repenting and becoming [[Christianity|Christians]] (see: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]]).
|In August of 2011, the American Spectator reports that [[Global atheism]] is declining and [[global Christianity]] is experiencing explosive growth.<ref>[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity Thriving Christianity]</ref>
|2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly declares since its early beginnings that atheist community is filled with insincere, corrupt and cowardly individuals. See: [[Atheism]] and [http://conservapedia.com/Category:Atheism Conservapedia atheism articles] In addition, in 2010 Conservapedia [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|creates a comedy/satire]] concerning the cowardice of [[Richard Dawkins]] (see: [[Atheism and cowardice]]). In July of 2010, a Conservapedia creates a series of comedies/[[satire]]s focusing on the follies of atheism and [[evolutionism]] (see: [[Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution]]).
||Many atheists chaffe under the constructive criticism and satires and engage in a lot of kvetching and whining rather than repent and become [[Christianity|Christians]]. See also: [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian]].
|In 2010, the Global atheist convention dodges a debate with [[Creation Ministries International]]. In 2011, [[Richard Dawkins]] is accused of cowardice in the press and widely criticized in other venues for his refusal to debate Christian apologist [[William Lane Craig]]. [[PZ Myers]] repeatedly refuses to debate [[Vox Day]] in 2011. In a 2011 foul mouthed diatribe, [[Penn Jillette]] gives a lame excuse for why he won't debate a Conservapedian which is later shown to be a farce. Jillette also dodges a debate with the popular YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] and with the Christian apologist [[Sye Ten Bruggencate|Sye Ten Bruggencate]]. See also: [[Atheism and cowardice]].
|2010-2011
|-
|2007-2011
|Conservapedia repeatedly says its web traffic prospects look bright.
|Liberals, particularly atheists and [[evolution]]ists, repeatedly proclaim the imminent death of Conservapedia and their predictions repeatedly end in failure.
|According to the web traffic companies Alexa, Compete and Quantcast Conservapedia's web traffic is healthy and has continues to grow. Conservapedia creates the essay [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] which mocks atheists and evolutionists false predictions and obsessiveness.
|2007 to 2011
|-
|2007
|In 2007, Conservapedia creates its [[Homosexuality in animals myth]] article.
|Liberals tout a supposed "gay [[penguin]]" in a California zoo.<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref> Liberals rabidly deny someone can be an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]]. Ex-homosexual is faced with a $10,000 fine, spends $7,000 in legal fees, and is forced to go to pro-homosexuality classes by a liberal judge who claimed he engaged in a aggressive behavior in a discussion with homosexual man (during his discussion the ex-homosexual man was holding a baby).<ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56702</ref>
|In 2010, the alleged gay penguin in a California zoo starts a romance with lady penguin and abandons his supposed male penguin lover. The homosexual activist [[Wayne Besen]] claims the penguin is living in denial and not an [[ex-homosexuals|ex-homosexual]] male penguin. (see: [[Homosexuality in animals myth]]).<ref>http://americansfortruth.com/2009/07/15/gay-penguin-flies-straight/</ref>
|2010
|-
|2008-2010
|Beginning in March of 2008, Conservapedia begins chronicling higher education moral corruption via its [[Professor values]] article. Starting in 2010, Conservapedia repeatedly warns students about picking their college majors on its main page. See: [[Worst college majors]] Conservapedia also cites [[Gerald Celente]] about future protests in Europe/Europe and cites Celente concerning useless college majors which needlessly rack up debts in young people. Conservapedia warns about a future "higher educational bubble".<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/archive91</ref>
|Liberal colleges and liberal press do not give enough attention to the issue of picking a college major. Nor does the liberal press sufficiently warn about future protests. Liberal press does not give adequate coverage to the issue of higher education moral corruption. Liberal press and liberal academia do not sufficiently warn about the poor education universities and colleges are often providing.
|In January of 2011, it is reported that a study shows that a very large percentage of college students are not developing higher thinking skills.<ref>http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/18/106949/study-many-college-students-not.html</ref> The trend of liberal colleges closing their doors continues.<ref>http://www.insidehighered.com/views/2009/07/09/baldwin</ref><ref>http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5312/losing_liberal_arts/</ref>

[[Occupy Wall Street]] and other Occupy protests happen in the United States and in Europe in 2011 and young people are very prevalent in the protests. Some protests turn violent and engage in property destruction. In November of 2011, the Daily Mail reports concerning the Occupy Wall Street movement and the trash/garbage associated with it: "If this is the product of our liberal arts colleges, why continue their tax exemptions and tax support? Universities are supposed to produce intelligent people who will make a positive contribution to society. Not these pigs".<ref>http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/46288</ref> In 2011, it is reported that Occupy movements are littering the streets.<ref>http://www.freestaterevolution.com/?p=1967</ref>

Young Occupy Wall Street protestors are caught on film mindlessly doing a pro-[[bestiality]] chant (see: [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]]).
|The Occupy movements of 2011 are still prevalent in the world and the unemployment levels of young people remain high.
|-
|Dec. 22, 2008
|the theory of [[man-made global warming]] is not verified science, and there is no consensus<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Global_warming&oldid=592227</ref>
|"The science is settled" that rapid [[global warming]] is somehow occurring, despite much evidence to the contrary.
|Frigid temperatures, October blizzards, and rejection of the theory by the American public; liberals try to change the terminology to "[[climate change]]."
|2011
|-
|August 2009 to 2011
|Conservapedia indicates that [[Ben Bernanke]]'s investment portfolio dropped in value in 2008.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> In addition, Conservapedia declares, "Given the abysmal economic policy of Bernanke and the [[Obama administration]], Bernanke probably should invest in gold."<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/August_2009</ref> During the period of 2010-2011, Conservapedia cited the investor Jim Rogers who repeatedly suggests that people invest in commodites.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=%22Jim+rogers%22&fulltext=Search&ns0=1</ref><ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLL9YdR2y2g Jim Rogers : Missing out on Commodities?]</ref>
|Liberals call Conservapedians "gold bugs"
|As of November 2011, the price of gold has gone up dramatically. The price has gone from about $950 an ounce to about $1,700 an ounce.<ref>http://www.kitco.com/charts/popup/au1825nyb.html</ref>
Price of gold continues to have an overall upward trend. In August of 2011, the ''[[Financial Times]]'' has an article entitled "Gold remains world's most powerful trend".<ref>[http://video.ft.com/v/1135911356001/Gold-remains-world-s-most-powerful-trend Gold remains world's most powerful trend]</ref> The Wall Street Journal reports in 2011 that "Companies Stock Up as Commodities Prices Rise".<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704775604576120533736097682.html</ref> In November of 2011, Unilever warns about rising commodity prices.<ref>http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/unilever-warns-about-rising-commodity-prices-6256894.html</ref>
|August of 2009 to 2011
|-
|September 2009
|Conservapedia mentions that some Americans are turning to self-employment during the economic downturn as jobs are difficult to come by. In addition, Conservapedia mentions developing multiple streams of income in case the economy goes into a depression and many people lose their jobs. Conservapedia also gives resources and suggestions for low cost businesses.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page/Previous_Conservapedia_Breaking_News/Archives/September_2009</ref>
|The liberal "graduate student at a [[sociology]] department somewhere in the United States" at the Total Drek blog seems to shiver in horror at the hard work involved. In addition, he appears to want people to have a defeatist cry in their beer attitude instead of having a proactive and creative can do attitude.<ref>[http://totaldrek.blogspot.com/2009/09/conservapedia-for-laughs-or-facepalms.html Conservapedia: For laughs or facepalms - Tuesday, September 08, 2009]</ref> In 2011, Conservapedia indicates that a sociology major is one of the [[worst college majors]] to have.
|[[Barack Obama]]'s [[American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009|"stimulus" package]] fails. Many Americans lose their jobs and have their unemployment benefits run out. In 2011, Fox News reports that most unemployed no longer receive unemployment benefits.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/05/most-us-unemployed-no-longer-receive-benefits/</ref> Homelessness increases and "[[Obamaville]]s" spring up.<ref>http://www.thebradentontimes.com/news/2011/11/09/community/national_hunger_and_homelessness_awareness_week_puts_spotlight_on_increasing_need/</ref> Unemployment in the United States and many other countries remains high.<ref>http://www.bls.gov/fls/intl_unemployment_rates_monthly.htm</ref><ref>http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Unemployment_statistics</ref> In 2011, Cafe Press is selling unemployed sociology major bumper stickers.<ref>http://www.cafepress.com/+unemployed_sociology_major_bumper_sticker,25387924</ref>
|World economy continues to skate on thin ice and the Eurozone is experiencing significant economic problems.
|-
|mid-June 2010
|[[Atheistic]] [[Britain]] would embarrass itself in the [[World Cup]]<ref>News archives for June 2010.</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] shouts down any observation of the correlation between atheism and underachievement.
|"England's performance at South Africa 2010 was officially their worst at a World Cup finals, according to Fifa."<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8814195.stm</ref>
|July 2010
|-
|June 30, 2010
|In an [[Letter to Douglas Moo|open letter to a leader]] of a new revision to the [[NIV]] [[Bible]], ''Conservapedia'' expressed "concern that your Committee might produce a liberal translation that distorts and conceals references to the unborn child in appeasement of the pro-abortion position."
|No response to the letter, and a prior expression of ridicule of the [[Conservapedia Bible Project]] before that.
|The new version [[Feminist Bible|distorts and conceals numerous references]] to the unborn child in the Bible, apparently to appease the pro-abortion position.
|Nov. 1, 2010<ref>http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2010/10/new-niv-text-to-be-made-available-online-november-1/ (announcing availability of online version)</ref>
|-
|Feb. 28, 2011
|Predicted that [[Sarah Palin]] will not be the [[Republican]] nominee for president, after observing how [[Facebook]] (which personified her political approach) lost the [[Academy Award]] to ''The King's Speech''.<ref>http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=852880</ref>
|The [[lamestream media]] continued to promote Palin as a leading contender for more than six months.
|Palin announced she will not be a candidate for the nomination and has lost political influence.
|October 2011
|-
|August 2011
|In the late summer of 2011, a Conservapedian was very optimistic on [[Creation Ministries International]]'s [[Question evolution! campaign]] and continues to be very optimistic.
|Atheists and evolutionists whine about the campaign plus a YouTube atheist and/or evolutionist creates a fairly popular yet ultimately ineffective video which is easily refuted. See: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRz0ORtoIRg&feature=BFa&list=PL12B8A2B1F72664EC&lf=plpp_play_all 15 Questions Evolutionists STILL can't answer!]
|The website traffic of [[Creation Ministries International]] (CMI) sees significant growth post August 2011 (see: [[Essay: Grinding up American atheism into a fine pulp|CMI web traffic growth]]). Atheists and evolutionists have yet to adequately answer the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions that satisfactorily evolutionists cannot answer] which is the focus of the [[Question evolution! campaign]]. Global atheism continues to fall in the number of its adherents.
|Fall of 2011
|-
|July 2, 2011
|[[Chris Christie]] will endorse [[Mitt Romney]] for president
|The [[lamestream media]] insisted that Christie was a contender himself.
|Chris Christie made a special endorsement of Mitt Romney for president
|Oct. 11, 2011
|-
|Sept. 3, 2011
|Large earthquakes are increasing in frequency.<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Counterexamples_to_an_Old_Earth&oldid=909160</ref>
|[[Liberal denial]] becaues this would suggest that [[atheist]]ic claims of a stable [[Old Earth]] are untrue.
|"A remarkable increase in the rate of (magnitude 3) and greater earthquakes is currently in progress," according to a presentation at the Seismological Society of America.<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/17/us-earthquakes-usa-idUSBRE83G1FL20120417</ref>
|April 17, 2012
|-
|Nov. 2, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed that [[Pacific Institute]] was not a non-partisan environmental group but deceitful liberals promoting lies.
|Pretend that Peter Gleick and other environmentalists don't utilize bad science or push political agendas
|Pacific Institute's president Peter Gleick promoted bad science and pushed a biased liberal political agenda by admitting to fraud in 2012. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/21/climate-scientist-admits-stealing-docs-from-conservative-think-tank/ Climate scientist admits stealing docs from conservative think tank, Fox News, February 21, 2012]</ref>
|Feb. 21, 2012
|-
|Dec. 11, 2011
|Conservapedia claimed neither Chris Christie nor Mitt Romney would have a role in a [[Gingrich Administration]].
|Further support of Romney [[stalking horse]] Rick Santorum.
|With Gingrich withdrawing from the Presidential race, it is clear that neither man will have such a role.
|April 25, 2012
|-
|Jan. 3, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Iowa Caucuses]] before all the results were in, and despite polling suggesting he would only attain third place
|For weeks the [[lamestream media]] insisted that [[Mitt Romney]] won.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|late January 2012
|-
|Feb. 7, 2012
|''Conservapedia'' declared [[Rick Santorum]] the winner of the [[Colorado]] primary relatively early in the evening, long before all the results were in, and despite Romney later surpassing Santorum during part of the night
|Liberals delayed for hours before admitting that Santorum would win.
|Eventually the lamestream media admitted that Rick Santorum was the winner
|early February 2012
|-
|March 14, 2010<ref>http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Presidential_Election_2012&oldid=762021</ref>
|''Conservapedia'' predicted that [[Rick Santorum]] was a stalking horse of [[Mitt Romney]]
|Santorum is viewed as the only other option besides Romney, at the expense of [[Newt Gingrich]]
|After taking votes away from Gingrich, Santorum dropped out of the race, practically giving the victory to Romney
|April 2012
|-
|mid-March 2012
|"Disney movies, which have churned out liberal claptrap for more than a decade, strike out again on opening night for Disney's lame ''John Carter''. The last Disney movie to qualify for [[Greatest Conservative Movies]] was its brilliant Beauty and the Beast (1991)."
|Liberals don't criticize Disney as long it continues to promote [[feminism]] and other liberal drivel.
|The Disney film unit chairman "resigned following the company’s $200 million loss on the science-fiction picture 'John Carter,' possibly the biggest ever for a single movie."
|April 20, 2012
|}

==See also==
*[[Conservapedia proven wrong]] - A much shorter list!

== References ==

<references/>
[[Category:Conservapedia]]

Talk:Best of the public

2012-03-03T19:08:21Z

AngusT: /* Further questions on experts */ new section

== A third "Invisible Hand?" ==

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating the importance of the concept you've articulated. It seems to be that best of the public, when applied to an academic endeavor, creates a third "Invisible Hand"--an "Invisible Hand of Insight," if you will, with the power to lead to deeper and more powerful insights than conventional, expert-dominated processes.

Indeed, it may well be that best of the public is, in fact, the driving mechanism behind '''all''' of the Invisible Hands. Certainly, Smith's Invisible Hand can only function in a free market, where the best of the public is free to produce goods and generate wealth. The Invisible Hand of Marriage only functions in a society where those who believe in the value of the family are free to marry and raise children to share those values--again, the best of the public coming to the fore.

Thus, best of the public would be a central force. When applied to economic matters, it would result in Smith's invisible hand; when applied to social matters, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Marriage, and when applied to intellectual, it would result in the Invisible Hand of Insight.

In fact, best of the public provides a powerful means of explaining exactly why big government liberalism is so harmful. Invariably, dependency on big government intervention interferes with the best of the public, and thus, with the ability of the Invisible Hands to act.

Really, a remarkable piece of insight. It succinctly and concisely identifies the engine behind conservatism. Well done, indeed!

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:18, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:That's brilliant, Ben. You (or the public!) could develop your marvelous insight further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 15 December 2009 (EST)

::Well, thank you, Andy! I'm honored and flattered that you find it so. I'll certainly work on this (and I hope others will, too)...but perhaps tomorrow, when I'm not nodding off at the keyboard. :) Have a pleasant evening! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:46, 15 December 2009 (EST)

I think there may be Coase theorem implications as well. When property is owned individually, by the public, regardless of what property or who owns it, an economic system flourishes. However when property is owned collectively, even by well meaning institutions run by experts and people who think they know best for others, economic decline and catastrophe are inevitable. It is almost as if an invisible hand guiding the public works better than the all too visible hand of the experts. --[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 23:00, 15 December 2009 (EST)

:I may work this into my final lecture for my Economics class, which I must complete tomorrow (Wednesday). Perhaps students -- and the best of the public here -- can develop it even further!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:25, 15 December 2009 (EST)

== Boston Marathon ==

It's not quite true that "anyone can enter" the Boston Marathon--I cannot,as I have yet to meet their standard of completing a marathon with a time better than 3 hours 10 minutes (the minimum required for a male in my age group). [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 00:54, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That's a new strict condition. Good point to raise it. I'll replace the Boston Marathon with the New York Marathon to avoid that issue.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::It's interesting to note that the Boston Marathon has resulted in few world records--one men's and two women's, none more recent than a quarter of a century ago--and all three of those were controversial in some way. On the other hand, the Chicago Marathon, which lacks the restrictive entry requirements of the Boston Marathon--has had four, and the Berlin Marathon--which prides itself on the number of people who participate, and also doesn't appear to have an entrance requirement--has had 7, the most of any marathon. This would seem to be strong corroborative evidence that the best of the public principle is valid; otherwise, you'd expect the races that only allow "expert" runners to produce the most records. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::That's an intriguing insight, Ben--you should add it to the article, and I should consider setting my marathon goals "lower" and find a cheap flight to Berlin!! [[User:AlexWD|AlexWD]] 19:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::The Chicago Marathon actually sets so many records because it is held in a very mild time of year, and Chicago is an incredibly flat city. The Fargo Marathon features a similar route without hills, and is used by many to qualify to the Boston Marathon.--[[User:Rcgallup|Rcgallup]] 23:09, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Would somebody please add to our [[Marathon]] article the number and type of records set at each major venue? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 26 December 2009 (EST)

The [[Boston Marathon]] is only for runners who have completed at least one marathon, and they must meet the designated time standard that corresponds with their age group [http://www.marathonguide.com/news/regfeatures/BostonQualifying.cfm]

The [[US Open]] tennis championship runs a free qualifying tournament beforehand, [http://queens.about.com/cs/sports/a/us_open.htm]
but top players don't have to qualify.

The US Open chess tournament has a $135 registration fee (waived for grandmasters).

So there is somewhat of a [[barrier to entry]], but it seems intended just to weed out people who aren't serious about competing. It's not like academic [[peer review]], which is often abused to censor new ideas that challenge the mainstream. In America, many sports and games are genuine arenas of competition where skill and ability can rise to the surface. (I must make an article about this.) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:44, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:I think that's a good distinction to make, Ed. If I really wanted to run in the Boston Marathon, I could go out and run around my block to train. Eventually, I'd be in good enough shape to make the grade, and could easily do so by running in a smaller marathon. I wouldn't have to go to "Marathon School," or establish my bonafides; there wouldn't be a panel of marathon runners sitting in judgment to determine whether or not my running technique was worthy of inclusion. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Kasparov vs. the World ==

This is a fascinating article and I'm sure you're on to something here. I have another apparent "counterexample", the close consideration of which I hope can lead to new insights on this topic, and I certainly don't expect to refute it. In 1999 the chess champion Kasparov played a match in which his opponent's moves were decided by popular vote. More than 50,000 players participated, but Kasparov emerged victorious nonetheless. Do you have any reflections on this match, and can it help refine the notion of "best of the public"? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:47, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:That seems much more like an example of mob rule than of Best of the Public! If the opponent's moves were the ''best'' suggested moves rather than just the ones the mob voted for, I suspect Kasparov would have had a harder time. What we're doing here at CP isn't decided by popular vote of 50,000 random people; rather it is truly the best of the public. [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 19:55, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::Daniel raises an excellent point. Simple majority vote doesn't ensure that the best of the public will prevail. If anything, it makes it very difficult. Suppose ten of those 50,000 players were capable of beating Kasparov. All of them saw clearly which moves would defeat him; all of them voted for those moves. Unfortunately, twenty thousand not-so-good players all voted for a different set of moves--resulting in a win for Kasparov. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:03, 17 December 2009 (EST)
:::Benp hits it right on the nose. Kasparov's victory just shows he's better than the average chess player, since good and bad players voting on moves will be average. We already knew Kasparov was better than average. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Super point by JimR, and even better responses. As noted in response, we don't decide by majority vote here. The winner of a gold medal at the Olympics is not chosen by popular vote either.

::::The better analogy is if Kasparov played a "best of the public" opponent consisting of a ''Conservapedia''-like, rule-based process for welcoming, accepting, debating and then making each move. Timing would be an obstacle but in the real pursuit of knowledge there are no constraints of chess clocks. Kasparov would lose a contest against the best of the public. Indeed, if the best of the public could use computers, as our best of the public can, there would be no doubt that Kasparov would lose.

::::Thanks for the tantalizing point that illustrates how powerful the "best of the public" is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:17, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Ah, you're right of course! But that there could be ten of those (non-expert) players capable of beating him seems extremely unlikely to me -- any such player could turn professional and make large sums of money, and so probably would for economic reasons. On the other hand I am sure that for each move, there were members of the public who found the ideal move, one which would give the best overall chance. Can this fit into the theory? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 20:18, 17 December 2009 (EST)
::::::Although I am not sure of the exact situation in this particular game, I have seen games played on other forums following this format. What tends to happen is one or two people (self titled "experts" usually) monopolize the conversation and shut out the rest of the people who want to contribute. Since the public views are largely ignored by a vocal minority who are more interested in self aggrandizement than success, the process results inevitably in failure.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::As an interesting aside, this is perhaps much why Wikipedia is such a failure - a vocal minority want to argue and set aside the persuasive arguments of others primarily for their own sense of well being rather than helping the project.--[[User:PThomson|PThomson]] 20:32, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Brilliant point. I suppose it is a thin line between the "best of the public" and the "worst of the public"! Wikipedia, with its lack of meaningful rules, approaches the "worst of the public." As with the US Constitution, the rules make all the difference in bringing out the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:14, 17 December 2009 (EST)

A better analogy with the advancement of knowledge would be Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against the best of the public. Kasparov would lose nearly all of those games. Limiting the contests to just one game at a time artificially helps Kasparov in a way that is not realistic in the search for knowledge.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:20, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:Actually, this is a common event in chess (called a "simul" for short), in which a grandmaster plays a large number of members of the public at once. Usually the master dominates the event, while losing a few games -- in one performance the great Jose Raul Capablanca played 103 games simultaneously, winning 102 of them and settling for a draw in the other. Kasparov has played these too and I don't think he ever lost nearly all. Now, perhaps this isn't the "best of the public" he's up against, but if he's playing against more specialized members of the public, aren't these just more experts? Understand that I appreciate this observation, and I'm just hoping to refine my understanding of it! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 22:05, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia. As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time. If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves. Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public. Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public. Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)

::::Having a chess game where the public goes up against the public is an interesting concept, but wouldn't prove anything. It is a fairly safe assumption to make that we don't share brain power or intelligence directly with other human beings. We can collaborate and share ideas, which can lead to new discoveries, but I can't add my brain power directly to BenP's intelligence, and Andy can't use mine. One other thing: what exactly makes the 'best of the public'? Is it Education, scope or depth of knowledge, morals? Is it an amalgamation of traits, and if so, which traits? In my opinion it begets a slippery slope. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 22:52, 17 December 2009 (EST)

:::::In response to JimR, I am familiar with those simultaneous matches, and I recall my brother [[User:RSchlafly]] competing in one as a youngster (and as a member of the public) when a grandmaster visited our small town. As I recall, the expert beat everyone except RSchlafly, who was then playing simply as a random young member of the public.

:::::But while that made for a powerful childhood experience, it wasn't what I really meant here. I suggested Kasparov playing 100 games simultaneously against opponents, ''each'' of whom consisted of a process generating the best of the public. If Kasparov focused all his efforts on one or two of those matches, then he might win those, but he would lost perhaps 98% of the matches overall (simultaneous matches are difficult for the person who must hop from board to board). This set-up of course allows the public to harness its greater numbers to its advantage, as often many minds are better than one. But this is a closer analogy to the advancement of knowledge than artificially limiting the contest to merely one chess match between one man and everyone else, a structure that benefits the one man.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:24, 17 December 2009 (EST)

To me, the idea of the public, collectively knowing what is a better solution, or having the power to best the so-called experts, mirrors the ideas put forward by Ronald Reagan.

It was Reagan, at his first inauguration, who famously declared that '''"in this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; ''government is the problem.''"''' President Reagan went on to outline his idea that the "common citizen" was more likely to come up with the right solutions to our problems than all the government "experts" combined.

Of course it is a proven fact that all of the great innovations of America have come from the public, not experts or Big Government. Perhaps I am being too obtuse here, drawing a comparison to the ideas of Reagan and Andy's point. To me the similarities seem striking! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 04:42, 18 December 2009 (EST)

==What's the difference between "experts" and "the best of the public?"==
:This is an interesting discussion, though I'm having a hard time seeing the difference between an expert and the "best of the public." Isn't an expert precisely that, someone among the public who was gifted enough at something to go through specialized training and become even better? From my own experience, I had a certain degree of musical talent as a child, but would not have excelled had it not been for great teachers and hours of hard work. I calculated the other day that I've practiced the piano somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 hours in my lifetime, with probably around 2000 of those being intensive private work with a teacher of some kind. It's probably true that one of my gifted 10-year-old students could play better on a good day than I could on a bad day, but the experience does count for a lot.

:I realize that when it comes to certain problems (the kind of systemic problems Reagan talked about come to mind), common sense counts for a lot more than expertise. But at any rate, I don't see how translating the Bible or playing chess is more a matter of common sense than experience. That's why Kasparov vs. the World shows precisely that talent and expertise can beat amateurs putting their heads together. Having thousands of hours of work under your belt gives you a much more comprehensive perspective, much more depth, than having a few good and untested ideas. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:03, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::I agree completely, and I feel you are exposing an aspect of the problem which needs to come to light. There is a difference between [[expertise]] (as in actually having the skill of playing the piano well) and holding the status of an [[expert]]. Expertise must be manifested, while being called an expert is often only political.

::They awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore, even though he knows nothing about [[global warming]] science and has been scolded by British courts for lying to the public. He's an example of the kind of "expert" who retards progress in science and the humanities.

::The promise of online encyclopedia projects is that contributors with true expertise (such as yourself) will emerge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:32, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Excellent points, but in response to JDWpianist an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits. Typically experts are from middle or upper class families that value credentials. Women who have children during those ages -- the most natural ages for childbearing, are disqualified. Also, criticizing the mainstream or saying something politically incorrect is a disqualification. Only a tiny percentage of the public fits this narrow track of an "expert".

:::The best of the public draws on the entire population, including those who worked full time during the formative age group but developed expertise later, and those who reject the politics of academia. With the far greater numbers and freedom from political restraints (politics in the sense of political correctness), the "best of the public" is far better and yet is remains a largely untapped resource. Obviously there is self-interested opposition by entrenched interests to even developing this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:48, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::(Replying to TK above) An excellent modern example of one person getting the answer when hundreds of government experts were failing is the [[Challenger disaster]]. It was maverick physicist [[Richard Feynmann]] who deduced that rubber sealing rings exposed to excessive cold had cracked. Meanwhile, all the "experts" were going through a process that almost seemed designed to '''hide''' this fact.

::Of course, if Feynmann weren't a celebrity he never would have been able to penetrate the stonewall of the investigation (coverup?), but that's precisely my point. At Conservapedia (and some other online encyclopedia projects), we are opening up the possibility of criticizing the mainstream - and we are showing the mainstream to be wildly incorrect in many instances. The recent exposure of the climate fraud (see [[Climategate]]) is something we've been covering here for over 2 years.

::But it's not just us on the Internet (a purely American invention, by the way). It's American democracy, with [[freedom of the press]], which allows the best ideas to bubble up and reach the surface. No one can put a lid on the truth here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 10:11, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Ed brings up an interesting example, and I can think of a few other cases in the sciences where a non-expert or group of non-experts has had important ideas. It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to harness the "best of the public" toward a specific problem in science. For example, if I set up a Wiki with rules along the lines of CP (or even just used CP), recruited helpful and skilled editors, and had access to the most important data, what is the chance that the editors would be able to improve on the theory of relativity, showcasing the power of the "best of the public"? I think the answer is probably no. But perhaps such a program could succeed with something a little easier first. I more interested in the principle of the thing and the limitations of the BoP methodology. Do you think it would be possible to utilize the best of the public in such a manner, toward a very specific goal? --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 10:43, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::::Well, let's take a slightly different example. If you took a group of students and showed them an "unsolvable" math problem, what are the odds that the best of them would be able to solve it, when the solution had eluded the experts for years? Of course, this is a little bit of a trick question, as it actually happened--George Dantzig, a student, copied down two problems from the board. Not realizing that they were on the board as examples of theorems for which nobody had been able to work out a proof, he proceeded to do exactly that. Had he known that the problems were "unsolvable"--in other words, had he been more fully immersed in the subculture of expertise--he likely wouldn't have even attempted to solve them. It might not work so well all the time, but it undoubtedly works. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:52, 18 December 2009 (EST)

'''To Andy:''' That's an interesting distinction, the first time I've heard it put that way. Still one point for me is unclear. Are you saying that the "best of the public," as per your definition, is made up of people who '''do''' have expertise in a field, just not the credentials required for them to be called "experts?" Or are you saying, rather, that one does not need to invest time and hard work in a field at all to contribute meaningfully to it?

'''To Ed:''' There's a certain blindspot that can indeed occur with experts: I'm no conspiracy theorist, so I'll always assume "groupthink" over "coverup" in these types of situations unless extraordinary evidence surfaces. As to this blindspot, I'm reminded of a quote from the great British music-critic Donald Francis Tovey, noting that when approaching certain complex musical passages, analysts can be guilty of "making an exhaustive chemical analysis of a plum-pudding and omitting to ascertain that the cook had boiled it in a cloth." Sometimes the simplest explanations are invisible to the technically-minded experts, but we also can't forget that the right answers are always found by people who know their stuff, whatever their credentials. In other words, Joe the Plumber could not have made any meaningful guess as to what brought the Challenger down. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 18:15, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:JDWpianist, you still seem to cling to the "expert" point of view, as though being "smart" means having superb insights, while not being "smart" means an incapability to do so. In fact, excellence can appear from unexpected places. Bob Beamon set a record for the long jump that lasted perhaps 30 years even though he was not generally a great long-jumper. Or purely mechanically, a broken clock is ''more'' precise than a working clock is, twice a day. Some of the very best songs (e.g., American Pie) have been by artists incapable of anything comparable.

:Whether you understand occasional insights as inspired achievement, the work of the Spirit, or simply luck, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that greatness often comes from outside of the recognized experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:53, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::But how to decide when a broken clock is precise? To check the two times a day, you need another chronometer, i.e., a kind of expert in time-keeping :-)
::It's the same problem as with Perelman's proof: you need someone to recognize that something marvelous has happened.
::Take for instance the ''squaring of a circle''. Every mathematician knows that it is impossible, using only a ruler and a compass. But nevertheless, there are lots of ''members of the public'' who think that they found a way, and are just ignored by the ''mainstream mathematicians''...
::AFAIK, in the beginning of the 20th century, the university of Goettingen employed a mathematician just for the task to refute all the attempts of laymen to proof Fermat's conjecture: many of the public where inspired by Paul Wolfskehl's reward, all of them were wrong.
::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:56, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::(edit conflict)
::(You can call me John by the way...) Actually, I have a very open mind about this, as it's been clear to me for a long time that creativity and inspiration are very different animals than competence and technique. And all of these are still different from the issue of "credentials" you gave earlier. Your "American Pie" example blurs the lines between these: it was a great song written by a competent professional singer/songwriter. The fact that Don McClean was able to write a song at all shows that he at least knows how to sing, how to play an instrument or two, how to set text to a melody, and how harmony works together with melody. Any one of these are considerable technical achievements, and that's why not everyone can write a song, much less a good one. The fact that he hasn't come up with anything comparably great has little to do with his abilities as a musician, and more to do with a lack of inspiration or creativity.

::My biggest question is still with the definition of expert. Ideas are different things than achievements, don't you agree? Would the Wright Brothers have succeeded without expertise in engineering, math, and a deep understanding of scientific trial and error? Those skills did not fall from the sky. So are you saying that your definition of "expert" is only a matter of credentials, regardless of abilities obtained through practice and hard-earned knowledge? Or are you saying that the "best of the public" don't need credentials '''or''' an ability to turn ideas into achievements? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::John, an "expert" is someone who has traditional credentials, is recognized by his peers, and plays the system often to maximize credit for himself. If you're suggesting I'm somehow against learning and hard work, I'm obviously not. Contributions by non-experts typically, but not necessarily always, are by people who picked up their own knowledge through hard work and non-conventional paths. There can be "flashes of genius" too, like the woman who woke up in the middle of the night with verses to the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." If you're determined to deny a role for inspired wisdom, then obviously I'd disagree with you about that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:52, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::An expert ''plays the system often to maximize credit for himself''. This addendum to your prior explanation guarantees at least that no one will see himself as an expert under your definition.
::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 01:01, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Frank, what are you talking about? Let me tell you about myself. I love math, and my career goal is to become a math professor - do what I love all day and get payed for it? Sign me up! In order to do this, I have to make sure that my work is accredited to me. I freely admit that in pursuing my goal of becoming an expert in mathematics, I will try to make sure that my work is attributed to me. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 01:11, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*at least for me,''playing the system'' seems to invoke only negative connotations
::::::*would you say that Perelman is an ''expert mathematician''?
::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 07:03, 21 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::If you're defining expert as somebody who is extremely good at something, as you seem to be inclined to do. If you accept our position here, then no, since he [http://top.rbc.ru/society/22/08/2006/94703.shtml doesn't even work in the field]. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:59, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::FrankC, your talk, talk, talk is contrary to our [[90/10 rule]]. Your solitary substantive edit in your last ten is of a trivial nature. Please contribute substantively, for your benefit and that of others.

::::::::In response to your question, Perelman ''rejected'' an attempt by "experts" to honor him as one of their own: he ''declined'' the Fields Medal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::Gee Andy, if you put it that way, who would want to call himself an expert? :)

::::All joking aside, this is a very stimulating topic, and I believe that there are some very vital issues being raised by the whole debate, some of the most vital I've seen on Conservapedia so far. That's why, you'll notice, I came into this thread not with criticisms and complaints, but only with questions.

::::That being said, I'll agree to disagree on your definition and many of the examples on the main page, for several reasons. I'll lay them out for you, and you can feel free to integrate what's valuable to you and ignore the rest:
::::*As my quip at the top implied, this definition has such a negative slant that it basically ensures no one will dare disagree with the formulation "The best of the public is better than a group of experts." It's the classic [http://www.richarddooling.com/index.php/2006/11/08/if-by-whiskey-before-the-campaign-speeches-fade/ "if by whiskey"] problem. When you said up above that I "seem to be clinging to the expert position," I would have to agree with you, but only according to the dictionary definition of expert: "A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject."
::::*This definition lumps all areas of knowledge or skills together. This is especially a problem with fields in which experts, by your definition, simply ''do not exist''. Take your musical examples: it's essentially meaningless to call pop/rock singer/songwriters "the best of the public," because there's no such thing as a credentialed path in pop songwriting. Artists rise or fall from obscurity based on the quality or popularity of their songs, and there's no clique of credentialed pop songwriting academics conspiring to keep anyone out. Therefore, everyone who writes a song or a song text, by your definition, is "the best of the public." These examples, and any others having to do with creative pursuits, are strawmen.
::::*It's the same problem with inventions that represent something radically new. Take the Wright Brothers: at the time they invented the first successful flying machine, there were no "aviation experts." There were lots of ''competitors'', some who had successfully scored government grants, and like with any new invention, there were several competing factions and a lot of harsh words thrown around. This is not the same as a clique of credentialed elitist experts trying to keep the Wright Brothers out of the picture. By definition, whenever something new is invented, your kind of "expert" is nowhere to be found.
::::*Your definition excludes professions where credentials are desirable and even necessary. Obviously, you would prefer a surgeon who's been to medical school performing your triple bypass, or a licensed pilot flying the plane you're on. Perhaps this problem solves itself, because your concept deals mostly with innovations and new insights, whereas these fields I mention require competence and conservatism by definition. Still, it might be a thought worth considering as you sharpen your argument on the main page.
::::*To sum it all up, the definition you created is applied inconsistently in the page's examples. I would recommend narrowing the page's focus to the fields with a real opposition between groupthinking closed-minded experts and open-minded mavericks.

::::For the record, I do think that you're on to something very important with this concept. The dialectic of "inspired wisdom" vs. "entrenched thinking" is a compelling one. As a musician, teacher, and writer on music, I deal with this problem daily in my own work. It's my hope and prayer that after I've become one of those entrenched members of the academic establishment, I'll still have an open mind for ideas that come from outside of the maistream. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:34, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::John, you make many points in your comment above. The bottom line is that you deny how wrong, how biased, and how unproductive groups of experts are. For example, in the Wright Brothers case you avoid the basic point and instead remark that there were no "aviation experts" at that time. Aviation is simply a branch of mechanical engineering; it existed and its experts insisted that heavier-than-air flying machines were impossible. Similarly, re: music, your comments are again off-point to the observation that one-hit wonders are better than what the "expert" musicians produce in pop music.

:::::The fundamental insight here is not simply opposition by the establishment, but rather that the best of the public really is better at innovating, at communicating, at open-mindedness, at being free of fear of retaliation, and at honesty than any group of experts is. There are many, many reasons experts are second-best, yet you only recognize one or two.

:::::This debate illustrates how efficient a political explanation is. Liberals ''prefer'' a system of control by experts because experts can be so easily influenced and controlled themselves. The global warming scam is just one of many illustrations. Also, liberals rely on reassurances by experts that, for example, Hell somehow does not exist. It's a misplaced reliance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I had intended to just let my suggestions stand, but I think you've fundamentally misunderstood my position, so I'll try to clarify it:
::::::Your main point, as I understand it, is that in every field there is a group of credentialed experts who are the gatekeepers of all ideas falling under their domain. Because of their narrow-mindedness and orthodoxy, they are unable to produce any radically new insights. Therefore, people who fall outside of this group, "the best of the pubic" as you call them, will produce the most interesting insights. Have I understood this much correctly?
::::::The problem with this model is, if there's no group of credentialed experts in a certain field, then there's nothing to compare. If "the best of the public" represents anyone outside of this elite group, then without the elite group everybody counts as the best of the public.
::::::According to your definition there '''''is''''' no group of recognized experts in creative fields; you can't go to the university and get a songwriting degree, there are no distinguished professors in songwriting at Princeton (last I checked). In your last post, you said something about "expert" musicians, but then you're falling back on the traditional definition, not your own. The fact that your original definition doesn't work with pop music means that either the definition is flawed, or the examples do not match your definition.
::::::My basic position is, I'm in total agreement with the spirit of your argument: that essentially, the best ideas come from outside of the established modes of thinking. But I believe the main page does not yet express that concept with clear-headed logic, as there are too many examples that do not fit with your definitions. You've embraced a very narrow definition of "expert" and are unable to use it consistently through to the end. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:54, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::John, I don't see logic or specifics in your comment. "Nothing to compare," you say. Of course there's something to compare: the output of experts to the output of the best of the public. And in every field, the latter wins easily, as the many specific examples show.

::::::::You keep returning to music and ignoring all the other fields, but the same observation holds true in music. One-hit wonders are an undeniable phenomenon, and they surpass the best of the experts. The "credentialing" in music includes acclaim by peers and the prestige of insider awards and status, just as in other fields. The Beatles were experts, yet no song they produced was as good or as appreciated as the one-hit wonders.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Andy, I guess we're just talking past each other now. That probably means it's time that we agree to disagree and call it a day. Again, congratulations on a fascinating new concept, and good luck as you refine it further. Merry Christmas to you and your family. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:50, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::That's kind of you John. We can always revisit this issue some time next year. Merry Christmas to you and your family!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:00, 23 December 2009 (EST)

Andy, were the Beatles really experts? Yes, they certainly knew a good deal about music and were payed to make it, but were they trained as musicians? Eventually they became acknowledged as one of the best bands, just as eventually Galois is now recognized as a brilliant mathematician, but does that make them experts? I'd say both are examples of the best of the public! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 21:38, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Galois is a superb example to add to the entry. The Beatles were thoroughly embraced and given awards and held out to the public as "experts". Academic training in music seems less significant, as John pointed out. But there's room for debate at the margins.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::Andy and JDW are in partial agreement, and I hope the article can reflect that agreement. But as for me, I'll just say that there have been many times when the "credentialed crowd" has used their credentials as a crowbar to hit newcomers over the head when they challenged mainstream expertise. That's the real story here.

::Now, the challenger can often be a mere beginner. I've lost count of how many situations I've walked into, where I could see clearly what others were overlooking. Some people call this beginner's luck. But there are many situations when an outsider or newcomer has been able to point out a marvelous new approach to an old problem - which, sooner or later, comes to be recognized as having hit the nail on the head.

::I might be departing a bit from the theme of "best of the public" here, but going off on tangents is what I do best around here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:16, 24 December 2009 (EST)

== Linux/open-source an example of this? ==

Is this reasonable to add to the [[Linux]] article? I thought I would ask this here, instead of the talk page for Linux, to hopefully reach more members and get some feedback. Even though many of the developers throughout the [[Open source|open source movement]] could be considered experts (in the colloquial sense that they know their field very well and apply that knowledge with considerable dedication and skill) they are not experts in the modern sense. I would argue that the collaborative efforts of the open source community could be considered the "[[Best of the public]]," as even computer users without programming knowledge file bug reports and use the products daily, therefore increasing the quality incrementally. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 11:31, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:Excellent insight. Please do include this example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 18 December 2009 (EST)

::Thank you; I'll include this immediately. [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:06, 18 December 2009 (EST)

:::Even Microsoft acknowledges this power:
:::*"The ability of the [[open source|OSS process]] to collect and harness the collective IQ of thousands of individuals across the Internet is simply amazing." [http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html leaked internal memo] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:19, 18 December 2009 (EST)
::::I updated the [[Open source|open source]] and [[Linux]] articles accordingly. Should I add your reference to the open source article, Ed, or leave that to you? I feel we should include it as a great testament to its progress (especially if Microsoft feels partially threatened by it, as other parts of your link seem to indicate).[[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] 12:28, 18 December 2009 (EST)
:::::The funny thing is that while [[Linux]] shows how good The Best of the Public can be, [[Microsoft]] simultaneously shows the other end; being a company that is looked down upon by very many informaticians, while it is generally seen as the best IT company in the world. A closer look on their software, though, shows that their products are of very poor quality, and their programs would probably not be nearly as populair if it wasn't for Microsoft's monopoly in the IT market. [[User:MalP|MalP]]

== Perelman ==

I don't know for sure about the rest of the details, but calling him an "unknown" is an exaggeration. Perelman received a PhD from a top university and was already noted for his slick proof of the "Soul theorem" in Riemannian geometry, which had already become commonly taught. No, he wasn't a leading mathematician, but he was not unknown by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 11:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:The Perelman example is quite interesting: who ''decided'' that Perelman found a proof? The public? No, a couple of experts... [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What you have to understand is that "best of the public" doesn't exclude experts, or make light of their expertise. It just acknowledges the very obvious truth that they're not the ''only'' ones with expertise, and allows other voices and other perspectives to be heard. Rather than "I'm an expert, therefore you have to listen to my ideas," it's "You have good ideas, therefore we will listen." --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:32, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::(edit conflict)I expected the Perelman example to ruffle the feathers of expert-defenders, precisely because it illustrates the point so well. I don't think "Perelman received a PhD from a top university," though I have an open mind about it (I think he received something other than a PhD from an institution ranked nowhere near the international top). More importantly, Perelman was not given a permanent job, was not recognized as an expert, and indeed was somewhat ostracized by the experts to the point where he was left to produce his great work on his own from his mother's apartment. Then an expert allegedly tried to take the credit!

:::Note that Perelman himself has been highly critical of the expert mentality in mathematics, to the point where he sacrificed much money to turn down the experts' honors. Sorry, not even mathematical experts are better than the "best of the public," despite the discomfort some will have with that revelation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:40, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::At the risk of beating the drum too loudly on ClimateGate, it was outside mathematicians (not climate "experts") who showed the [[Michael Mann]]'s denial of the worldwide [[Medieval Warm Period]] was statistically unsound (at best) and really just a crude example of [[academic fraud]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::Excellent point, Ed. Could you add an item to the entry about who those outside mathematicians were? (I don't know).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:57, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::*[[Climategate mathematicians]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:10, 21 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I'm not arguing that Perelman doesn't belong on the list, I'm arguing that to call him an "unknown" is simply wrong. He had done other fairly important work before this. --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:08, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::You are probably right about his degree not being from a top university internationally; but it was at Leningrad, one of the top schools in Russia. He then held positions at Steklov, SUNY Stony Brook, Berkeley, and Courant. These are all major research centers -- off the top of my head I can name Fields medalists currently at each of them except Courant, and it wouldn't surprise me I'm forgetting one there too. Perelman apparently had job offers from Stanfold and Princeton -- such offers go only to the very top prospects, and certainly not "unknowns". --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 14:23, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Wow, you're awfully tough on me here, JimR. You can decide for yourself whether you're applying a [[double standard]] in your reaction. Note, for example, in a very well-written article by the liberal Independent, it describes Perelman as an "unknown Russian" right in its headline.[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/has-an-unknown-russian-quietly-solved-a-puzzle-that-has-baffled-the-finest-mathematicians-for-a-century-538077.html] Is that article also objectionable?

::::::::As to your statement that Perelman "held positions," those positions were insulting for someone on track to produce the greatest proof of our time. Those schools may well have Fields medalists in respectable positions, but that's the point: Perelman was never offered a respectable position commensurate with his talent. Your argument is as fallacious as bragging that a brilliant coach was offered a staff position ... as water boy.

::::::::Tell you what: I'll change "unknown" to "little known." OK?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:34, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::Looks good to me. Thanks! --[[User:JimR|JimR]] 19:14, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Manhattan project ==

The ''Manhattan project'' seems to be an ultimate example for a great innovations of America which came not from the public, but from experts and ''Big Government''. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:12, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:But follow the project back to its roots, Frank. You'll find that many of those whose ideas led the government to pursue that line of research are a splendid example of "best of the public." Nobody's saying that experts can't take the ball and run with it, but frequently, it's someone outside their little circle who tosses the ball in the first place. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:38, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Wright Brothers ==

People seem keen to find counter-examples, so let's talk about some examples. What about the Wright Brothers? They certainly weren't part of any elite fraternity of engineers--neither one even graduated from high school. Their endeavors were greeted with open mockery and accusations of fraud from the "experts" of the aviation community, particularly in Europe. They're certainly one of the finest examples of what American ingenuity and can-do attitude can accomplish. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:15, 19 December 2009 (EST)
:(whacks own forehead in mock despair) I should have thought of that myself! Not only did they make a lighter, more powerful engine, but they weren't professionals at all: mere bicycle mechanics, really. And yet they solved the crucial aspect of [[powered flight]]: controlling the aircraft in the air. Their idea of warping the wings prefigured [[ailerons]], and was the chief reason their flights succeeded while everyone else's ended in crash after crash. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:59, 19 December 2009 (EST)

== Galileo ==

Another maverick, wasn't astronomer [[Galileo Galilei]] largely self-taught? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:Galileo isn't a clear-cut case. He was more of a political figure who was wrong about some basic stuff (like tides). His own contributions were not substantial.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::What's about [[Albert Einstein]]? In 1905, he was an unknown clerk at a Swiss patent's office, but the leading experts of his field instantly accepted his work! [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 17:27, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::Intriguing suggestion, but also potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:39, 19 December 2009 (EST)

::::It seems like sometimes overcompensation occurs. A member of the public is scoffed at by the experts, turns out to be right, and is eventually put on a pedestal and held to be infallible. I doubt that Einstein would approve of the way people treat his theories as if they were unquestionable. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:04, 19 December 2009 (EST)

:::::''"If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"'' The same can be said about mathematicians in general - most of the public will shy away from this area. And though the feuds over precedence between mathematicians are legendary ([[Cardano]]/[[Tartaglia]],[[Newton]]/[[Leibniz]]), generally mathematicians are more respected for their work than their positions and titles (Paul Erdős).
:::::But it's a game played by experts in front of other experts: the ''public'' doesn't understand most questions (''Consider a compact 3-dimensional manifold V without boundary. Is it possible that the fundamental group of V could be trivial, even though V is not homeomorphic to the 3-dimensional sphere?''), and even less the answers (''No'').
:::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:34, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::: The public is 6 billion people and, yes, many of them are capable of understanding higher math. Your comment, Frank, illustrates the very harm caused by an "experts only" mentality. By false pretending that no one else can understand something, the "experts only" mentality shuts out and censors many people who are brighter and more productive than the arrogant experts ... as Perelman and others like him are.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:54, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::: But Perelman is an expert:
:::::::''an "expert" is a particular type of person who pursued a particular credentialing path. It usually entails years of specialized learning from ages 16 to 25, at the sacrifice of other activities or pursuits.''
:::::::He filled his years of ''specialized learning'' with a degree of a ''Candidate of Sciences'', the soviet version of a Ph.D. He didn't dibble around with mathematics as an amateur ([[Fermat]]), he was a full-time scientist.
:::::::He's an eccentric expert, but an expert nonetheless.
:::::::BTW, the segment of the 6 billion people who understand mathematics way beyond ''higher math'' are called ''experts'' or ''mathematicians'' (well, sometimes ''physicists'').
:::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:12, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::Frank, you're simply redefining "expert" more broadly once you see how members of the public achieve more than experts do. In Perelman's case, he didn't even have a math job, and he expressly criticized and repudiated the math experts who control the field. Apparently Perelman has even given up math because of the suffocation (and non-productivity) caused by the math experts.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:21, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::*When he proved the theorem, Perelman had a ''math job'' (several, I think...)
::::::::*Aren't you an expert in law? Do you have a ''law job''? If you hadn't, would you be no expert any longer?
::::::::[[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:23, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::''Justice'' seems to be an interesting test for your principle: though ''juries'' introduce a public element (I don't think that they are meant to be the ''best of the public''), it doesn't seem to be a good advice for a defendant to do without an expert counsel, i.e., a lawyer. [[User:FrankC|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 16:45, 20 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::::...but haven't you just answered your own question, Frank? If expertise was the be-all and end-all of justice, then there would be no need for a jury; the matter would be entirely in the hands of the judge and the attorneys. However, the Founding Fathers, while respecting the expertise of such individuals, ultimately chose to trust in the wisdom of the public to render a verdict. Would you argue that their choice was unwise? I think our system of justice has worked out pretty well, personally. In fact, I think you may have offered up one of the finest and clearest examples of the principle yet. "Best of the public" is ''exactly'' what jury deliberation represents--the faith that a group drawn from the public, without any special credentials or qualifications, can, through deliberation and collaboration, achieve insight. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:27, 20 December 2009 (EST)

::::::::::I like the jury example too. Cases aren't decided by panels of lawyers, but by a (hopefully) representative sample of one's peers, drawn from all walks of life. They don't have to have expertise in law to be given good instructions by the judge as to what laws matter in the case at hand, and they are trusted to use those instructions and the evidence to render a fair verdict. It's not a perfect system, but I feel there are no better alternatives so far. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 10:02, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Formatting ==

Would it make more sense to create a section for the examples under the table of contents? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:06, 19 December 2009 (EST)

: That would be great, Ben! Please continue to improve as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:48, 20 December 2009 (EST)

== A different take on this ==

I've been reading this thread and watched the Colbert segment mentioned in the article, and I think I figured out the inherent problem with the phrase "The best of the public is better than a group of experts".

As others have pointed out above, the best of the public are often experts themselves. The definition of "a group of experts" was then qualified to state that it's not expertise that's bad, but the groupthink, stubbornness or elitism that can result when experts in a field have a reluctance to embrace radical change or innovative ideas even when they are proven to be right. That's why I like the open source analogy - Microsoft was content to decide how fast the browser should be improved and in what ways, but the Mozilla project was more innovative because it was driven bottom-up by merit instead of top-down by policy.

Christianity experienced this when Martin Luther posted his Theses. He was certainly an expert on religion and the Bible, but his ideas were out of favor with the ''establishment'' leading the Catholic Church, which was resistant to change. His work didn't invalidate Catholicism, but public acceptance of his insights led to some bad practices being ended by the Catholic Church, and triggered the entire Protestant Reformation.

In short, it's not expertise that's the problem, it's a group of people declaring that they are the gatekeepers for contributions to a field of expertise, and subsequently stifling innovation. What I'd suggest as an alternative is this: "The best innovations of the public can outdo the ''established'' experts". This isn't as catchy as the original, but it seems to hit the core point without sounding as self-contradicting. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 00:30, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:You make some interesting and challenging points, and I hope to respond more fully tomorrow. But as a quick response, I feel you overlook key issues, such as "inspired wisdom" (e.g., Gospel of Mark, or authorship of "Battle Hymn of the Republic") and also how "expertise" can have a blinding effect as well as a beneficial one (e.g., Wright Brothers, Fosbury Flop). In sum, any alternative articulation of the rule would have to explain the many examples, and I'm afraid yours isn't quite there. But thanks for sparking thought about this.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:21, 22 December 2009 (EST)
::I'm not looking to take anything away from contributions that comes from flashes of insight, but those are really in a different category altogether. It seems like harnessing of the power of individuals shouldn't necessarily depend on some of them having inspired moments of insight or inspired wisdom, because I thought the whole point of the original comment is that the best ideas need to be allowed to surface and circulate regardless of how they came about.
::I'm also not sure I understand how my comments overlooked what you call thee "blinding effect of expertise". What I was trying to say is that when experts form an establishment that acts as the filter, judge and jury of new ideas in a given field, the result can be helpful (i.e. in determining the safety of new drugs before they are allowed to be sold) or harmful (i.e. tying up the use of valuable radio spectrum while "expert" stakeholders with billions at stake decide how it should best be used). In an ideal world there can be any number of experts out there, but little to no barrier for the circulation and promotion of the best ideas from among them. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 08:44, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:::ChrisY, you don't specifically address the many diverse and specific examples of where the "best of the public" is better than any group of experts. And I don't see anything ambiguous or confusing about the phrase the "blinding effect of expertise." Becoming an expert means committing oneself to a particular approach, and that obviously has a blinding effect on innovation and alternative approaches. An alternative approach might even discredit an expert's lifetime of work, which no one would expect him to welcome. It's been observed that innovation cannot occur until the older generation of "experts" passes away, and even that the 40 years of Israelites wandering in the desert was intended to erase the debilitating mindset of slavery. "Experts" have a mindset, and it's less productive than the best of the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

It's typical of liberals to muddy the waters with verbal quibbles. Everyone knows what we meant when we said the public can often outdo the experts. The word ''expert'' is clearly understood in that context, Chris, to mean "established experts" or "acknowledged experts". Only a fool (or an enemy) would think (or suggest) that we meant that having expert knowledge was useless.

If I see any more of this malarkey here, I'm going to start deleting comments and blocking accounts. Kindly confine your comments to points that are relevant to improving the article.

It's one thing to disagree, and that sort of feedback can often be editorially valuable, but to pretend not to understand is [[liberal deceit|deceitful]]. You have been warned. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:17, 22 December 2009 (EST)

:Thanks, Ed, for your sage remarks and policy. Honestly, the more I review the objections here, the more I think it boils down to this: liberals cling to the (absurd) view that experts ''define'' the truth, and can eliminate accountability (like Hell). Such a view is shocked by the reality that experts are not even as good as the best of the public at what the experts do, let alone about things experts know nothing about.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:36, 22 December 2009 (EST)

::I offered some constructive comments above that were described by others as "interesting and challenging", and now they're "malarkey". Sorry I said anything at all, Ed. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 20:05, 22 December 2009 (EST)

== Examples, part 2 ==

We have many examples of the best of the public making extraordinary achievements, but non of experts being wrong or creating obstacles. Off the top of my head, Lord Kelvin claiming heavier than air flight was impossible and that radioactivity was impossible. I'll try and think of more examples (not right now, I am leaving for a 5 hour drive in a few minutes) but soon. What does everybody think of these kinds of examples? Worth including? [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 18:40, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:Sounds great. That's interesting about Lord Kelvin.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::I almost think that should be an article unto itself. It's certainly an important topic. Not sure what it would be called, though. "Expert Obstructionism?" "Expert Error?" --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 23:14, 23 December 2009 (EST)

:::The obstructionism is a bigger problem, but the error is a problem too and its term is more concise and easier to remember. So I'll start "[[Expert Error]]" and have another entry called "[[Expert Obstructionism]]" that redirects to it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:33, 23 December 2009 (EST)

::::I would strongly recommend going back to the line of "Expert Obstructionism", which is an actual problem. There's nothing wrong with anyone, even experts, making errors as long as they are accepting of being corrected. To criticize error itself is to criticize the spirit of risk-taking, which I doubt folks here want to do. I recall Edison saying something along the line of "I can fail many times, but I only have to succeed once", and the number of failed attempts at a viable light-bulb filament before his success. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 09:38, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:::::You make a valid point, but "obstructionism" is a clumsy label and errors by experts are a big problem and intrinsically different to correct. An expert's insistence on an erroneous position is inherently obstructionist, so in practice there may be little difference between the two labels. If you see something included where an expert erred but welcomed correction, then let's discuss it, but those examples are few and far between.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::::You're right, Andy. How about "Expert Blindness" or "Expertise Blindness"? This is simpler, and ties into points you've made above. --[[User:ChrisY|ChrisY]] 11:13, 24 December 2009 (EST)

* As an ethnic Hungarian, [[Ignaz Semmelweiss]]' status as an outsider seemed to undermine his credibility and, despite the clear evidence that he compiled, doctors refused to accept that they were killing their own patients. [http://drvitelli.typepad.com/providentia/2009/01/the-semmelweiss-mystery.html]

He was the first to compile systematic and practical evidence for what later came to be known as Pasteur's [[germ theory of disease]]. He was truly the "best of the public", but vilified and rejected by the experts of his time. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:53, 24 December 2009 (EST)

:Superb suggestion, Ed. I'm familiar with that case and it does illustrate the point well. Would you like to add it?

:Chris, I don't think "blindness" is an appropriate metaphor. "Blindness" implies an ''involuntary'' disability. Expert errors and obstructionism are very intentional.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:21, 24 December 2009 (EST)
:::For those who are interested in expanding [[Expert Error]], there are a TON more in my one reference that I haven't added (some because they weren't experts in the field they were commenting on, eg, Einstein on geology) but are still very interesting. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:24, 24 December 2009 (EST)

::::I also see a tie-in to [[Upward mobility]], a concept that liberals routinely ignore with a deafening, reverberating silence. They love to pretend that our economic system is so unfair as to be repressive, when precisely the opposite is true: we've designed it to all cream to rise to the top. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

==[[Founding Fathers]]==
America can be thought of as the best of the public. The framers came together as a group, not as experts but to represent the colonists. The nations articles of confederation were crafted in such a way that describes authentic representation, public servants, elected by the public, serving the needs of the public and not themselves. Nobody back then would believe that the public, on its own, would come to the same conclusion and separate from the British Kingdom.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:That's really odd. I could've sworn I'd included our democratic republic as an outstanding example of "best of the public"--as opposed to the European ideal of "expert" hereditary nobility, or the mobocracy of pure democracy. Did it get removed for some reason? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:50, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::Ah, found it--it was in the text of the article, but not the list of examples. Fixed. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:55, 26 December 2009 (EST)

Interesting about the Founding Fathers: they tried to ensure the Best of the Public in government. They restricted the franchise to only property owners. This was intended so that only those with intelligence and a work ethic could vote. The point was to ensure that only the best of the public could control government. This was the real check against mobocracy. A mobocracy occurs in anytime time and place where there's universal franchise.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 11:30, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

:Thanks for your fascinating point about how Founders might have viewed the restriction on franchise. But the universal franchise may have made the nation more conservative in many respects. Many [[pro-lifers]], for example, would not have qualified for voting under the Founders' view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:16, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

My main point was that if you want to talk about how the founders prevented mobocracy, restricting the franchise ought to be mentioned, since this is a method that they obviously used. However, to respond to your point, yes maybe people of good conscience would have been barred from voting. The point of restricting the franchise was not to ensure that every good person voted, but to ensure that all (or at least most) voters were good. It seems obvious to restrict the franchise, after all, intelligent or capable of government is a prerequisite to just government. If this is so, then it seems only natural to restrict the franchise to those who have proven themselves to be intelligent and/or hard working, so that only those people can control the government. I find it incredibly hypocritical sometimes, that people praise the founding fathers for the government they set up, but ignore that that government had restricted franchise. Finally, I'm almost certain that if George Washington could see the state of our republic with universal franchise, he would horrified.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 19:20, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

: You make a libertarian point here, and you make it well. But if you were correct about this, then the wealthier a society is, the less socialistic it should be. That's not true. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and one of the most socialistic. When it was poor, it was more conservative than today. An increase in wealth sometimes brings an increase in [[liberal]] falsehoods.

: I'm not convinced that limiting franchise would limit the size of government or liberal falsehoods. I think our nation is more [[conservative]] with universal franchise than it was when franchise was limited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

My point was not that wealth should dictate the franchise, but that there should be qualifications, and I have alternatives to property ownership. Further, if universal franchise made the government more conservative, how do you explain the election of George Bush or Barack Obama. It's obvious that a limited franchise would result in more limited government. Take any nanny state program like social security, universal health care, or free public education, and you find that the wealthy aren't the ones who actually benefit from these programs. Only the poor can stand to benefit from these programs. Take into account also, the way our tax system is set up. The federal tax system, taxes the poor substantially less than the rich. Many Americans pay no taxes at all because they are poor. Why would the wealthy be in favor of a tax system that favors the poor over the rich. So at this point, not only is the tax system redistributing the wealth, but the government is running programs (that no one has any intention of stopping) that give goodies like education and health care to the poor. Now, if the American voters are so conservative, answer this: why does the government favor the poor so much. Better yet, tell me why poor Americans will vote for a flat tax rate, which would increase their taxes. I sincerely doubt that universal franchise has helped, and it's obvious that a qualified voter is always preferable to unqualified voter. Wealth isn't necessarily the ideal qualification, but if only rich people had been voting throughout American history, I doubt we'd have social security. The current problem is that many wealthy people have been taught to accept a particular ideology without question. When you have an open mind, it's hard to deny the wisdom of the Founding Fathers limiting the franchise. The problem is, most people have been taught from their childhood to accept universal franchise unquestionably.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:22, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

:Your theory, while ostensibly using logic, doesn't match up with the data: wealthy areas tend to be very liberal. Atheists, who tend to be wealthy, want bigger government to squeeze out charity and religion.

:If wealth were such a factor in political decisions, then why did the socialistic Obama raise far more money than the more conservative McCain? Studies show that church attendance is a better predictor of voting patterns than wealth.

:The flat tax is opposed for valid reasons in addition to invalid ones. Taxing consumption can distort the free market and might increase the power of government over the free market. It would also further marginalize the states.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:51, 22 May 2010 (EDT)

Remember, wealth doesn't necessarily have to be the qualification. To respond to your points though, atheists are a political minority. Nobody in politics cares about winning the atheist's vote. On the McCain question, no one liked McCain enough to support him (he was a liberal trying to beat a liberal). You still haven't refuted many of my significant arguments. The tax system favors the poor and productive, and why would the poor vote against this? If the poor are so conservative then explain while they'll vote for a tax increase.You'd probably find that the middle class is the most reliably conservative group. It's true, the wealthy and elites are part of the problem, but they didn't do it alone. Why would the rich want to have a tax system where they have to pay more, or a government where their tax dollars along go to fund free government programs for the poor, it only redistributes their wealth.

But back to voter qualifications, rather than wealth, let's say military service is a qualification for voting. You have to serve as an officer for at least five years before you can vote. Voters would have intense physical training, meaning they wouldn't be adverse to suffering, they would have good education, and they would be selfless. This is simply a suggestion; I'm open to other ideas on how to limit the franchise. Universal franchise is a uniquely modern idea. Few republics of the past have accepted the idea: the greeks, the thirteen colonies.
Finally, if mobocracy is so bad, then universal franchise is obviously bad. Mobocracy occurs whenever all citizens are allowed to influence the government, even if they do it through elected representatives. Remember, I never said that wealth was the qualification, or that only the wealthy should vote, but there should be some qualification.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:03, 23 May 2010 (EDT)

== Lincoln ==

Your "Best of the Public" is a terrific idea! I've watched CP for some time and I've been really impressed with the quality of conservative thinking here. I've made my first humble attempt at contributing to your great encyclopedia and I really hope you appreciate it. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:08, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:How about some more "humble" edits that are even better? Lincoln was a wealthy railroad attorney, a congressman in the 1840s, has a monument in his honor today, and is praised by every expert from here to Kalamazoo. Surely we can find better examples of non-experts today.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::But he ''wasn't'' an expert in national politics when he became president! [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 18:47, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::Your example raises more questions than it answers. Lincoln was more qualified than other potential and actual presidents, and it's unclear what you think Lincoln achieved that an expert would not have.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::I wonder, though: would [[Sarah Palin]] qualify? Though she's certainly an established figure today, she worked her way up to the governorship of Alaska largely on her own merits, which in turn prompted McCain to select her as his running mate. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:16, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::Thank you for responding to my point, Mr Schlafly. Clearly you are more expert on this than I am and I stand corrected. I simply thought that the contrast between Presidents Lincoln and Buchanan was a striking example of the much less qualified (much less expert!) person becoming a much greater president. Does any other US president fit your concept of the "best of the public" achieving great things? Chester Arthur, maybe? A tax-cutting president who brought honesty back into national politics. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:20, 26 December 2009 (EST)

:::::"Alec", your sarcasm is silly, and your knowledge of history is not overwhelming. Lincoln had been on the national stage for years before being nominated and elected president. His contest in 1858 against Stephen Douglas, for example, attracted national interest and substantive debates. How about some substantive editing now?

:::::Ben raises an interesting question about Palin. She does succeed against the best efforts of the experts. She did have an early impact on the health care bill, but perhaps it's too early to assess her achievements. I've got an open mind about that interesting pick, though, and perhaps it would make for good addition, at least on a tentative basis.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:29, 26 December 2009 (EST)

::::::I cheerfully admit that, being British, my knowledge of USA history is not comprehensive. But it doesn't seem very polite to describe my description of Chester Arthur as sarcastic. I understood he rose from complete obscurity on the national political stage to become a much-respected president. Clearly I got that one wrong and I defer to your expertise. I shall try to think of some "Best of the Public" in a different field of achievement. [[User:AlecD|AlecD]] 19:36, 26 December 2009 (EST)

[[Abraham Lincoln]] is an example of the parallel concept of "[[self-made man]]". He also courageously bucked a major trend ([[slavery]]) and made a lot of insightful observations on human nature and society. Let's not try to fit every round block into a square hole.

Several non-contributors have logged in merely to dispute the major point of the article, rather than help us contributors write it. They have muddied the waters, brought up irrelevant points and so on. Clearly liberals dislike the idea that individuals can contribute to society by marching to a different drummer. They want us all to dance to their tune, or to sit back passively while they establish a totalitarian dictatorship where they can call the shots.

If they could create a genuine paradise by taking away our freedom, I suppose I might be interested (in a theoretical way), but since the track record of the anti-freedom crowd has only and always been sheer misery, then they'll have to count me out. Liberals praise communism and socialism as progressive trends which naturally arise when the time is right, but real progress in the world is almost always made by outstanding individuals. Sometimes, these men are credentialed experts, but all too often the experts are the people who tell you that your discovery is impossible. (Like the farmer who, when told what a giraffe looked like, said, "There ain't no such animal.")

The best of the public are people who (despite their lack of credentials or position) have made important contributions to American life and often even world-wide benefit. We need to provide more support for these pioneers and whistle-blowers, rather than trying to destroy them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:51, 29 December 2009 (EST)

==Stopping terrorists and other mass murderers==

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126180624205805587.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read Yawn] how many more examples do we need? Here, a passenger - not a "trained flight attendant" - subdued some fool trying to set an airplane seat on fire. And don't forget the [[Colin Ferguson]] case, where two stockbrokers talked it over before deciding to tackle the Long Island Railroad shooter.
The supreme case is the [[9/11]] Pennsylvania downing of Flight 93 (see [[Todd Beamer]]).

Experts failed to stop the Middle East man who only wanted to "steer" (not take off or land) a jumbo jet, fearing lest the as investigators they would be charged with "[[racial profiling]]" for '''correctly''' identifying someone who fit the terrorist profile.

Then there are all the school shootings when a teacher (not a cop or security guard) runs to his car, gets his gun, and stops the killer with a shot - or the mere '''threat''' of a shot. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:58, 26 December 2009 (EST)
:This clearly proves why less gun control is needed. The more sane people with scatterguns in their trunk, the less likely someone is to try shooting ("Are ya feeling lucky?). [[User:Geo.plrd|Geoff Plourde]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 20:02, 26 December 2009 (EST)

== Question ==

Isn't this an ambiguous, uncertain, open, indistinct, doubtful concept, like "public interest" or "common well-being"? Who decides what is "best of the public" anyway?

Happy 2010! --[[User:Evelyn|Evelyn]] 11:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

: Interesting comment, but isn't your suggested focus on "who decides" illustrative of the problem with experts? Why is it necessary for anyone to "decide"? No one "decides" for everyone else, for example, who wins the gold medal in the 100-meter dash at the Olympics, or whether 2+2=4.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:53, 27 December 2009 (EST)

::Sorry I couldn't reply you earlier, but Mr. Poor prevented me from doing it. Anyway, it seems that those examples of "Best of the public" demonstrate that "experts" are not necessary, which would be a great mistake. As an "approach to education, scholarship, and biblical translation", as you boldly stated, the best of the public is still a very open concept, and ultimately does it work only after it has been validated by everybody, or what? --[[User:EvelynM|EvelynM]] 21:25, 27 December 2009 (EST)

Andy makes a good point here, and this certainly works for matters of mathematical certainty, but what about those more subjective instances? Music, especially, comes to mind as a field in which no one can say objectively what the "best" is, nor is "expert" even well-defined in the field of popular music. What makes The Beatles experts but not Don McLean? I believe both were largely self-taught, and neither had extensive training in performance or composition at institutions such as Julliard. The Beatles were more successful, but certainly success does not equate to expert or the idea of best of the public is a paradox. I think Elvis is a better example of an expert, as most of his hits were written by other professional/expert songwriters, and the same goes for much of the pop music of today. [[User:DanL|DanL]] 10:23, 28 December 2009 (EST)

== Definition ==

The definition of "Best of the public" is currently scattered along the length of the article. Many of the supporting examples are given before the term has been explained, and the reader must piece it together for himself over the course of reading the full page. If it's alright with others here, I'm going to try to attempt a clear definition of the term to put in the opening paragraph. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 13:32, 14 January 2010 (EST)

: Please do ... as long as it does not dilute the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:13, 14 January 2010 (EST)

== Arthur Ashe ==

Perhaps Arthur Ashe's stunning upset victory to win Wimbledon should be included next.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
:Didn't he also receive a presidential medal of freedom? I may be thinking of someone else, but if so, the top civilian award might stand for something too. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:10, 23 July 2010 (EDT)
::Looks like it was awarded posthumously. I don't know too much about him since I was pretty young in '93, but so far he has my vote. (references for the medal: [http://www.nndb.com/people/228/000023159/][http://essentialtennis.com/spotlight/2010/04/arthur-ashe-citizen-of-the-world/] )[[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 09:13, 23 July 2010 (EDT)

== "The ark was built by amateurs, but professionals built the Titanic” ==

The header above is a famous quote that seems to epitomize the point of this article. [http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/the_ark_was_built_by_amateurs_but_professionals_built_the_titanic/ I don't know who to attribute the quote to], and I'm not sure how to incorporate it into this encyclopedic article, so I thought I'd mention it here. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 23:58, 11 May 2011 (EDT)

== Personally speaking... ==

I find that technical expertise trumps folk wisdom and nickel know-how a lot of the time. I pay a mechanic to fix my car, even though my friends and I hanging around for a couple of hours could do an adequate job, and I go to a doctor when I'm under the weather, even though I know some remedies for coughs and colds. The doctor and the mechanic have spent years learning their trade; I've got nothing on that.

:Do you think this contradicts anything in [[best of the public]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:32, 2 June 2011 (EDT)

== Clarence Thomas quote ==

The Thomas quote is being misunderstood in the context of this article - he's clearly saying that he believes the 'bloggers' who complain about his clerks are a little self-important - 'jumped-up' as it were, and not as well informed or educated as his clerks. His "that's the attitude you're dealing with" comment is obviously referring to the fact that their bragging about their supposed superiority annoys him, and he ''doesn't'' think that the 'bloggers' know more than his clerks. I'm new here so I didn't want to just take it out without discussion. [[User:GennaS|GennaS]] 13:30, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

== Common Law ==

I deleted Common Law as an example because the Common Law was created by experts-judges and attorneys who received formal training in the subject, passed some sort of licensing exam, had their decisions were reviewed by peers, who were similarly trained, etc. [[User:Lawstudent|Lawstudent]] 20:33, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

:Nearly all of the common law developed before there was any formal legal training or licensing exams. Many of the attorneys and judges were simply ordinary people drawn to that field.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:27, 20 June 2011 (EDT)

== Further questions on experts ==

I'm sorry if some of this is covered above, but I haven't read through all of the comments, as there's an awful lot of them. I have a question about what constitues an expert, especially in the sports section. Don Larsen, a starting pitcher for the Yankees in the World Series, seems like as much of an expert as one can get in that field. Sure, he's not as well known as Sandy Koufax or Cy Young, but he's hardly an amateur. Likewise Tom Brady. Yeah, he was second string, as most quarterbacks are in their early careers, and if experts "undergo highly specialized training, and in the process, become immersed in a sub-culture of like experts" then I can't see how playing football for a major college team doesn't qualify. Just because he wasn't a star from the get-go like Peyton Manning was, I don't see how his training and career in the NFL make him much different than any other player, except that his talents weren't recognized early on. If they had been, would that have somehow made him an expert? Above Einstein was dismissed because it was "potentially confusing because Albert Einstein is so widely publicized as the quintessential expert today. Someone reading the entry might think, "If Einstein isn't an example of an expert, then who would be?"" I think the same could be said for Tom Brady today. The Dallas Mavericks too. They may not have had as well known players as the Lakers, but these are guys who had been playing professional basketball for years, earning millions of dollars doing so, and surely basketball had been the focus of most of their efforts in college. I'm not sure simply being an underdog can necessarily make one the best of the public rather than an expert, especially when their backgrounds are nearly identical. The musician section is also somewhat confusing. I don't see what sets some of these one hit wonders apart from other musicians in their expertise. If they had no formal musical training then I guess that would qualify them, but that's true of many (perhaps most) contemporary popular musicians. Lennon and McCartney had little, if any, formal training, they just had the basic talent to write and perform popular music. The only bands or musicians that would seem to fit the article's definition of "expert" would be ones who attended Julliard or something, or at least studied music performance or composition at some higher level. Outside of classical music, that's probably very few in this day and age, and I don't see what warrants a mention of someone like Johnny Nash over just about any other more successful musicians. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 14:08, 3 March 2012 (EST)

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-02-01T18:30:49Z

AngusT: /* Potential Democratic Candidates */

'''''The next elections are caucuses on February 4 in [[Nevada]] and [[Maine]]'''''.<ref>For the primary schedule, see http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012-republican-primary-schedule/</ref> The next '''''debate''''' is scheduled for February 22.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012, and no candidate has been able to win more than 50% in a single primary. Increasingly the race is a two-man contest between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]]. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except Florida seeks winner-take-all, at half the delegate count, for its primary on Jan. 31).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas will probably be proportional anyway.</ref><ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref>
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|Preferred by [[RINO]]s and heavily favored by the Establishment; has business experience and was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Big money backs Romney in a big way, enabling him to benefit from millions of dollars in negative ads against his opponent Newt Gingrich. Mitt came in second in Iowa, first in New Hampshire, a distant second in South Carolina, and first in Florida. Has received endorsements from moderate-to-liberal Republicans, such as [[Bob Dole]], [[John McCain]], [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Jon Huntsman]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Was defeated by a landslide in [[South Carolina]], despite being endorsed by foreign policy [[hawks]] [[John McCain]] and [[John Bolton]], and despite having finished a close second in the Iowa caucuses and first in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. Romney has been strong in most of the debates and in national polling but weak in almost every straw poll. The majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The [[pro-life]] candidate most opposed by [[liberal]]s, due to his political effectiveness in accomplishing [[conservative]] goals. Newt is the only contender who stands up to liberals and to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational. Has been endorsed by conservatives such as [[Fred Thompson]], [[Rick Perry]], [[Michael Reagan]], and [[Herman Cain]].
|His long record of many decades in public life makes him vulnerable to negative political ads. His personal life has been criticized: he divorced twice and married three times. Ron Paul is particularly critical of Newt, although many of Dr. Paul's supporters are likely to prefer Newt rather than Mitt Romney.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. With Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if neither Mitt nor Newt can gain a majority of the delegates; in the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race, however. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if neither Mitt nor Newt can win a majority of delegates. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|Pulled out on the even of the South Carolina primary, so his only chance is to be selected at the [[Republican National Convention]]. But he may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his electability. Suspended his campaign on January 19, two days prior to the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats.
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he originally announced that his candidacy would continue, but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|Almost certainly a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states. Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was an also-ran behind Gingrich and Romney in the South Carolina and Florida primaries.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

The most likely thing that would remove Obama from the 2012 ticket would a court ruling ineligibility due to not being a natural born citizen. However, as Obama will use all his political power to delay this as long as possible, it is unlikely such a decision would come before the November election. Depending on the timing of this, it is likely he would automatically be replaced by his successor, Vice President Joe Biden.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls show Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:Rugby World Cup

2012-01-29T21:56:29Z

AngusT: /* New Zealand */

== Superbowl comparison ==

Just to clarify, I think the Superbowl comparison is inaccurate due to fact that "Superbowl" essentially describes one game at the end of an annual national tournament, whereas "Rugby World Cup" is the name for this four-yearly international tournament as a whole. Perhaps a better example would be to compare it to the soccer world cup. Your decision of course, but why is this so important? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 19:44, 23 January 2012 (EST)
:Ask [[User:RobSmith|this guy]]. [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 19:47, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::It is a reasonable comparison perhaps, but I should like to hear a reason for its inclusion contained within the article. We could just as easily compare it to the soccer WC or the cricket WC or the world series etc. I would like to hear why the superbowl in particular is the prefered comparison. (And I don't care at all that NFL is related to rugby in its infancy) --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:48, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::What sort of TV viewship ratings does the World Cup average in comparison to the Superbowl? how much does a 30 second ad spot cost in comparison to the Superbowl? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:07, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::::A typical Superbowl gets 93 million viewers apparently, practically all of them in the States. Cumulative TV audience for the 2007 World Cup was 4.2 billion over 42 matches, so an average of 100 million per match with the highest figures being for the final. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:36, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::::Not sure why that is relevant, but I'd say the total expenditure worldwide for a 30 second ad at halftime in the WC final would be about the same. Of course rugby is a continuous sport so there aren't random ads in the middle of a game. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 21:03, 28 January 2012 (EST)

==New Zealand==
New Zealand won the Rugby World Cup ''twice'' in the past 25 years? Amazing accomplishment for a (unnecessary insult removed). Perhaps the list in mainspace is a little too Anglo-centric. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:10, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:Anglo-centric? I haven't heard that word outside of a humanities classroom at a university in a long time. [[User:RachelW|RachelW]] 19:11, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::Well, sure. In the 24 years cited, only seven countries are credited as champs -- all English speaking members or former members of the British Empire and Commonwealth of nations. Didn't any non-English speaking members of the British Empire win, or other (unnecessary insult removed) besides New Zealand? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:15, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::Actually if you count again you will see that only 4 countries have ever won it. --[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 20:59, 28 January 2012 (EST)
::::"In the 24 years cited, only seven countries are credited as champs" Really? Wow. In a 4-yearly tournament that's been running for 24 years, how many champions would you expect there to be? --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 21:23, 28 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Got it. So the event is held only once every four years. Perhaps that can be clarified. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:43, 29 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Since the article was created several years ago, the second sentence has made it clear that it is held every 4 years. I'm not sure how much clearer it can get. Also, only 4 nations have won in 7 contests, not 7 nations. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 16:48, 29 January 2012 (EST)
:::::::Thank you. The WP article states 22 member nations to the Rugby Union, if that is reliable information. I have no idea. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:53, 29 January 2012 (EST)
::::::::Our article says 20. I'd trust that over Wikipedia any day. Is there an official rugby union website we can double check? [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 16:56, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Rugby World Cup

2012-01-29T21:48:04Z

AngusT: /* New Zealand */

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-29T21:05:43Z

AngusT: /* Potential Democratic Candidates */ there are some Democrat joke candidates (but "Democrat joke candidate" is redundant)

'''''The last Republican presidential debate was on Thursday, January 26 in Jacksonville. The next primary election is on Tuesday, January 31, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, heavily favored by the Establishment, has business experience, was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Romney is a prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner who won the initial primaries in Iowa and New Hampahire. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Was defeated by a landslide in [[South Carolina]], despite being endorsed by foreign policy [[hawks]] [[John McCain]] and [[John Bolton]], and despite having finished a close second in the Iowa caucuses and first in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. Romney has been strong in most of the debates and in national polling but weak in almost every straw poll. The majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The only candidate who stands up to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including his [[pro-life]] positions and his passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government. His story of overcoming being orphaned is inspirational.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax), a [[Con Con]], and limited amnesty. On a personal level, Newt divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. For a period after 9/11, Newt adopted more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. With Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt. Endorsed by Rick Perry. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|Jeb is the most likely to win if neither Mitt nor Newt can gain a majority of the delegates; in the general election, Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|Jeb's only chance is if there is a deadlock at the [[Republican National Convention]]. Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Though Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|The second most likely to win if neither Mitt nor Newt can win a majority of delegates. Sarah is empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|Pulled out on the even of the South Carolina primary, so his only chance is to be selected at the [[Republican National Convention]]. But he may be more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his electability. Suspended his campaign on January 19, two days prior to the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he originally announced that his candidacy would continue, but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|Almost certainly a [[stalking horse]] for [[Mitt Romney]], hoping Mitt will appoint him to a government position. Rick's all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states. Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was an also-ran behind Gingrich and Romney in the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no serious challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls show Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

John Yoo

2012-01-28T17:06:02Z

AngusT:

'''John Yoo''' (born July 10, 1967) is an American attorney, law professor, and author. He is best known for his role in the Bush administration, defending the use of enhanced interrogation methods against terrorists, despite the opposition of liberals, who side with terrorists. He is a possible contender for a role in the [[Gingrich Administration]] (perhaps Attorney General), though Yoo, an Asian American, will likely be filibustered by liberals.
[[Category:Lawyers]]

Essay: Gingrich Administration

2012-01-26T17:15:32Z

AngusT:

The '''Gingrich Administration''' is the expected leadership of the [[Executive Branch]] of the [[United States]] government from 2013 to 2017, assuming that [[Newt Gingrich]] wins the [[Presidential Election 2012]].

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Position
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Actual Appointment
|-
|[[President]]
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|
|-
|[[Vice President]]
|[[Rick Perry]] <ref> Arguably the second strongest Republican candidate, it would be a very wise political decision for Gingrich to choose him as a Vice President to unite his party, like how Ronald Reagan appointed George W. Bush as his Vice President after he won the Republican nomination in 1980</ref>
|
|-
|[[Secretary of State]]
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Defense]]
|[[John McCain]]<ref>While McCain has endorsed Romney, he could stil be a good fit for this position. It woud have the further advantage of removing him from the Senate, where he could be replaced by someone with a more conservative record</ref>
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|
|-
|[[Attorney General]]
|Possibly [[John Yoo]]
|
|-
|[[White House Press Secretary]]
|a [[Fox News Channel]] analyst
|
|-
|Secretary of Veterans Affairs
|[http://independenceave.org/congress/member/nm/01 Heather Wilson]
|
|}
==Republicans who will not appear in the Gingrich Administration==
*Mitt Romney - despite the potential for being able to woo RINOs and others with whom Romney is popular, Romney's terribly negative campaign against Gingrich has effectively shut him out
*Christ Christie - a major supporter or Romney

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

Essay: Gingrich Administration

2012-01-26T17:09:27Z

AngusT: saying who it might be is far more useful than saying who it won't be

The '''Gingrich Administration''' is the expected leadership of the [[Executive Branch]] of the [[United States]] government from 2013 to 2017, assuming that [[Newt Gingrich]] wins the [[Presidential Election 2012]].

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Position
!Conservapedia Prediction
!Actual Appointment
|-
|[[President]]
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|
|-
|[[Vice President]]
|[[Rick Perry]] <ref> Arguably the second strongest Republican candidate, it would be a very wise political decision for Gingrich to choose him as a Vice President to unite his party, like how Ronald Reagan appointed George W. Bush as his Vice President after he won the Republican nomination in 1980</ref>
|
|-
|[[Secretary of State]]
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Defense]]
|[[John McCain]]
|
|-
|[[Secretary of Health and Human Services]]
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|
|-
|[[Attorney General]]
|Possibly [[John Yoo]]
|
|-
|[[White House Press Secretary]]
|a [[Fox News Channel]] analyst
|
|-
|Secretary of Veterans Affairs
|[http://independenceave.org/congress/member/nm/01 Heather Wilson]
|
|}
==Republicans who will not appear in the Gingrich Administration==
*Mitt Romney - despite the potential for being able to woo RINOs and others with whom Romney is popular, Romney's terribly negative campaign against Gingrich has effectively shut him out
*Christ Christie - a major supporter or Romney

== See also ==

*[[Presidential Election 2012]]
*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]

== Footnotes ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-26T15:41:44Z

AngusT: /* Potential Democratic Candidates */

'''''The next Republican debate is on Thursday, January 26. The next primary election is on Tuesday, January 31, in [[Florida]]'''''.

The '''Presidential Election 2012''' is on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. No incumbent has won reelection in the past 70 years with unemployment above 7.2%; reported unemployment is nearly 9% (and real unemployment much higher) less than 12 months before the election. [[Barack Obama]] also cannot win reelection unless he carries [[Florida]], where he has a high disapproval rating; he is likewise polling poorly in the key swing states of [[Ohio]], [[Virginia]] and [[North Carolina]].

For the Republican nomination, in early December it seemed to become a two-man race between [[Newt Gingrich]] and [[Mitt Romney]], but then [[Ron Paul]] ran devastatingly negative political ads against Gingrich in [[Iowa]] that dropped Newt to fourth place there.<ref>For the dates of early primaries, see http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/events.phtml?s=c</ref> Still, Romney was unable to attain a commanding lead. About 1,214 delegates<ref>http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/republicanracelateentry/</ref> are needed to win the nomination. Primaries held before April 1, 2012, will award delegates based on the proportionality of the votes (except for Florida, which will be winner-take-all but only half its delegates will count).<ref>Beginning on April 1, the traditional winner-take-all system may be used by states, but Texas is going to be proportional anyway.</ref> It is virtually impossible for a candidate to win a majority of delegates before June 2012.
__NOTOC__
== Ranking by Likelihood of Winning Republican Nomination ==
<center><big>'''Candidates who are still running'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Mitt Romney]]
|First runner-up in 2008, heavily favored by the Establishment, has business experience, was a Republican governor of a Democratic state who cut taxes and the deficit. Romney is a prodigious fundraiser and tireless campaigner who won the initial primaries in Iowa and New Hampahire. Only 26% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for him, which is the lowest negative of any major Republican candidate.<ref name="Quinnipiac">http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1595</ref> Has come out with a new jobs plan. Received endorsements from [[Kelly Ayotte]], [[John Thune]], [[Chris Christie]],<ref>[http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Chris-Christie-Mitt-Romney-Endorse-GOP-Republicans-2012-131530343.html]</ref> [[Dan Quayle]], [[Nikki Haley]] and [[Tim Pawlenty]].
|Has big weaknesses with "[[Reagan Democrats]]," making it unlikely Romney can win the general election: Romney has a pro-[[abortion]] record and favors big corporations; Romney also continues to believe in [[liberal]] propaganda claiming [[global warming]] and is criticized for standing behind his [[ObamaCare]]-like health plan in [[Massachusetts]], which featured "the mandate" and taxpayer-funded abortion. Won only 15% in the South Carolina primary in 2008. The lack of criticism of Romney by the [[lamestream media]] suggests that they want him to win so that they can defeat him in the general election.
|Was defeated by a landslide in [[South Carolina]], despite being endorsed by the [[hawks]] of [[John McCain]] and [[John Bolton]], and despite finishing a close second in the Iowa caucuses and first place in the [[New Hampshire]] Primary. Romney remains strong in national polling. He's done well in most of the debates so far, yet Romney has done poorly in straw polls, and the majority of [[Republican]] voters are apparently still looking for an alternative.
|-
|[[Newt Gingrich]]
|The only candidate who stands up to the [[lamestream media]]. His debate performances have earned him a reputation as the Republican most capable of winning debates against Obama. Newt had the early backing of Fox News before [[John McCain]] backed [[Mitt Romney]] instead, which caused Fox News to switch sides. Newt has by far the strongest record of achievements of any candidate, including his [[pro-life]] positions and his passing [[conservative]] legislation that included welfare reform, [[DOMA]], the [[Solomon Amendment]], and even [[term limits]]. Newt also had the courage to shut down the government.
|Has previously endorsed [[liberal]] ideas like "[[cap-and-trade]]" ([[global warming]] hoax), a [[Con Con]], and limited amnesty. On a personal level, Newt divorced twice and married three times, most recently to a woman 23 years younger than he; has never won statewide office. For a period after 9/11, Newt adopted more big-government and pro-regulatory [[neoconservative]] views, unlike the push for limited-government and [[deregulation]] he spearheaded during the 1990s.
|Rousing debate performances the week of Jan. 17th in South Carolina led to a landslide victory for Gingrich in the South Carolina primary. Prior to that, his strong debate performances and the weaknesses of other rivals to Romney had already pushed Gingrich up to #2. Despite having led in most polls conducted in late 2011, he lost the #1 spot on Dec. 24th due to the toll taken by attacks from the media and other candidates and his failure to qualify for the ballot in Virginia even though he lives there and is in first place in its polling. His strategy of criticizing the media in the debates has been brilliant. With Romney unable to gain 50% support in any State there remains an opportunity for conservatives to rally behind Newt. Endorsed by Rick Perry. See: [[Gingrich Administration]] for an analysis of his assumed Cabinet.
|-
|[[Ron Paul]]
|Terrific on economic issues, can raise the money needed to win; people may look to an anti-war Republican; Won the [[CPAC]] Poll. Appeals to many social liberals. Runs [[pro-life]] ads while Romney says little about the issue. Also, Obama's support in polls is lowest when Paul is his opponent.
|Voted twice to repeal [[DADT|Don't Ask, Don't Tell]], which the vast majority of Republican primary voters support; his age (76 in 2012) will be used against him; has never won statewide office; his views on the war on drugs and the military also alienate many Republicans. Other candidates have adopted some of his economic ideas. The media in general treats him as a non-contender despite his performance in polls and the early voting.
|Finished a strong third in Iowa and second in New Hampshire, and is the only candidate other than [[Mitt Romney]] to qualify for the ballot in Virginia; Paul has won at least fifteen regional straw polls and online polls and, surprisingly, won the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]] in a landslide in Oct. 2011.
|-
|[[Rick Santorum]]
|Outspoken supporter of conservative values as a senator, well-received by evangelicals, strongly conservative across the board.
|His all-out support of [[RINO]] and now-Democrat [[Arlen Specter]] prevented [[Pat Toomey]] from defeating him in 2002, although he regretted it at CPAC 2010; endorsed Romney in 2008. His tax plan has been criticized for adding even more people to the number not required to pay federal income taxes.
|Won an upset victory in the [[Iowa Caucuses]], is fabulous in debates and television interviews, but has been near the bottom in polling in some key states. Campaigned relentlessly in Iowa and succeeded in picking up several important endorsements. Then sagged to only 9% of the vote in the New Hampshire primary and was an also-ran behind Gingrich and Romney in the South Carolina primary.
|-
|}

{{clear}}

<center><big>'''Candidates who have dropped out'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Rick Perry]]
|Announced his candidacy late, on August 13. He is a conservative-talking governor who has run [[Texas]] for a decade (since [[George W. Bush]] became president); crushed [[RINO]] [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] in the 2010 primary and then won a landslide in the general election, carrying others to victory on his strong coattails; has an excellent jobs record in his State and which he can contrast with liberal-run states. Strong religious faith that he is not afraid to show. Understands the concept of [[states' rights]]. Is a formidable fundraiser with plenty of funds on hand.
|It can be argued is more conservative in his rhetoric than his policies; endorsed [[RINO]] [[Rudy Giuliani]] in 2008; tried by executive order to force all schoolgirls (except for parental opt-outs) to receive the [[HPV vaccine]]; raised business taxes while governor; supports exceptions for allowing [[abortion]]; and continues to champion a Texas policy that allows in-state tuition for illegal immigrants. Did poorly in the Values Voter Summit [[straw poll]].
|Stumbled in his first major statements on [[abortion]], [[same-sex marriage]], and the question of building a fence to reduce illegal immigration. Was ahead in national polls after his declaration of candidacy, then fell dramatically following a series of poor debate performances that raised doubts about his electability. Suspended his campaign on January 19, two days prior to the South Carolina primary.
|-
|[[Michele Bachmann]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who "knocked the ball out of the park" with her nationally televised response to Obama's [[State of the Union]] address in January 2011, Bachmann is popular with the [[Tea Party movement]]; she is a strong fundraiser and won a stunning 52-40% landslide in 2010 in a liberal-leaning district in [[Minnesota]]. Did very well at [[CPAC]] in Feb. 2011. Bachmann's beliefs are similar to [[Ron Paul]]'s, but she is more of a conservative than a libertarian and is trying to appeal to Ron Paul fans who agree with him on domestic matters but still want a strong military.<ref>http://www.lewrockwell.com/politicaltheatre/2011/06/dont-read-that-dangerous-mises/</ref> Thus, a Bachmann candidacy had the potential to unite Tea Party conservatives.
|Stopped her campaign on Jan. 4, 2011, one day after the [[Iowa Caucuses]]. When she was a contender in the polls, [[liberal bias]] was at its worst against her.
|Had done extremely well in the debates, particularly the first one, and held #1 in Zogby poll of primary voters at one point. Won the [[Ames Straw Poll]] but was upstaged by Rick Perry's declaration of candidacy on the same day. Slipped badly in the polls thereafter. Tireless campaigning and strong debate performances earned her renewed respect but only small gains in the polls. Bachman withdrew from the race after a poor finish in Iowa.
|-
|[[Jon Huntsman, Jr.]]
|Has foreign policy and executive experience. Appealing to moderates, although this is because he holds numerous liberal stances.
|Quit in mid-January 2012. Other negatives include how he worked in the Obama administration; criticized the [[economic stimulus package]] as not being big enough, favors Comprehensive Immigration Reform, supports civil unions, and is a believer in man-made global warming; the "civility" candidate adored by the media for being more willing to attack his fellow Republicans than the Democrats; could simply be a [[Utah]] decoy used by [[Team Newt]] to siphon support from [[Mitt Romney]]
|Getting little support nationally, except among the media and multiple Democrats. Bypassing Iowa, Huntsman put his all into the New Hampshire primary and finished third. Claiming that there are three tickets out of New Hampshire (the usual observation made about Iowa, not New Hampshire), he originally announced that his candidacy would continue, but dropped out of the race less than a week later.
|-
|[[Herman Cain]]
|Seems less scripted than other candidates. A former successful Godfathers Pizza CEO, conservative radio host, Tea Party favorite, tremendous speaker, triumphed over a health problem. Won a stunning landslide victory in the Florida [[straw poll]] on September 24 that led to an October surge. Finished second in the Values Voter Summit in Oct. 2011 and took the lead in several national polls.
|His 9-9-9 plan for tax reform and economic recovery helped him gain a nationwide following but also drew fire for introducing a new federal tax resembling the tax of the left-wing [[European Union]]. Cain has had few staff and little organization in the early primary and caucus states. Has never held elected office. Stated on CNN that abortion should be a [[Pro-abortion|decision of the family and not the government]].<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/</ref>
|Cain suspended his campaign on December 3, 2011, several days after stating his wife was unaware of gifts and money he had given to a woman who had alleged a 13-year long sexual affair with him. He denied any wrongdoing.<ref>[http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/herman-cain-suspends-his-presidential-campaign/ Herman Cain Suspends His Presidential Campaign] Susan Saulny and Robbie Brown, December 3, 2011, The Caucus: The Political and Government Blog of the Times, NYTimes.com, retrieved December 3, 2011</ref> His candidacy may have been damaged by inexplicable lapses during televised interviews as well as by charges of sexual impropriety.
|-
|[[Thad McCotter]]
|Congressman from Michigan who is sometimes promoted by [[Fox News]], and does not need to read from a [[teleprompter]] to give a speech.
|''Thad who?'' Not enough people know who he is. Twice this year voted against ending the preference for union labor in government construction projects. Could have been seeking name recognition rather than the Republican nomination.<ref>http://apps.detnews.com/apps/blogs/watercooler/index.php </ref>
|Never rose above 1% in polls. Ended his campaign on September 22, 2011 and endorsed Romney.
|-
|[[Tim Pawlenty]]
|Young; popular in his home state of [[Minnesota]]; Had a surprisingly good record on immigration.
|Still not well known outside of Minnesota; signed $893 million in meddlesome fees/taxes including a "health fee" for cigarette smokers (which was ruled unconstitutional), a harvest fee for farmers, a 9-1-1 fee on all telephone lines, a fee for traditional marriage, and large increase in parking fees;<ref>[http://tinyurl.com/3k4p8jf ''Duluth News Tribune'': Fees soar as state taxes hold steady] (2006)</ref> supported the liberal [[cap and trade]]; accepted stimulus funds after arguing against them; lacks a socially conservative base; arranged a meeting with a liberal medical society in 2003 in order to cave into the pro-[[abortion]] side by downplaying medical harm caused by abortion,<ref>http://www.lifenews.com/2003/12/30/state-281/</ref> despite hard-fought passage of the Woman's Right to Know Act mandating disclosure. Came off as drab and uncompelling. He endorsed Mitt Romney after he ended his own bid.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/12/pawlenty-endorses-romney-for-president/</ref>
|Lost ground after a perception of underachieving in the first debate June 13; then his criticism of Michele Bachmann seemed to backfire with her rebuttal in the second debate. Pawlenty finished third in the Iowa Straw Poll and quickly announced that he was ending his bid for the nomination.
|-
|}

{{clear}}
<center><big>'''Candidates who never declared a candidacy (but possible Vice President picks)'''</big></center>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
!Trending ...
|-
|[[Jeb Bush]]
|The opportunity for Jeb to win is now, not in 2016 when another Republican would be the incumbent; Jeb is sure to win Florida and Obama cannot win reelection without Florida; [[George W. Bush]]'s book sold far better than expectations, making the name an asset again; Jeb could unite the Republican Party with a late candidacy; is more conservative than his brother [[George W. Bush]]; Jeb has already criticized Palin as a rival candidate might;<ref>In a Newsmax interview in February 2010, Jeb criticized Palin by saying, "my belief is in 2010 and 2012, public leaders need to have intellectual curiosity." [http://www.newser.com/story/81720/jeb-bush-sarah-palin-not-intellectual-enough.html]</ref> Jeb published an editorial on Jan. 3, 2011 taking credit for saving Florida [[public schools]] with vouchers.<ref>http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/jan/03/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-touts-education-gains-wall-street-journal/</ref>
|The deadlines have passed for getting on the ballot in New Hampshire, Florida and South Carolina. Also, in February Jeb polled unusually poorly (54-34%) against [[Barack Obama]];<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/14/obama-would-beat-jeb-bush-big-says-poll/</ref> Jeb says he does not intend to run in 2012. Knows that he would be viewed negatively by some as the "third" Bush, refused to run in 2008 on these grounds. Is disliked by many Tea Partiers.
|Stands at #3 with the inability of any other candidate to win a majority, thereby increasing the likelihood of the winner being chosen after many ballots at the convention. Though Romney's strong performances so far make him look more formidable than he did earlier in the race. Jeb will not want to wait until 2020 to run, which may be his next opportunity if a Republican wins in 2012 amid the persistent high unemployment.
|-
|[[Marco Rubio]]
|A [[movement conservative]] who could unite the Party, he is the most charismatic speaker in politics today; in the general election he would pull [[Florida]] and many Hispanic voters away from the Democrats. Both of his parents were Cuban exiles at the time of his birth in Miami, making him an inspiring, uniquely American success story. Many Republican voters think he would be the ideal candidate for Vice President.
|Could face the liberal [[double standard]] on three fronts: 1) what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a [[conservative]]. 2) Liberals who have been deriding the strict definition of "natural born citizen" which some conservatives have been applying to Obama might also turn around and use the same logic with Rubio, claiming that his non-citizen parents invalidate his natural-born status. 3) Rubio's restatement of the exact year in which his parents arrived in the USA has been seized upon by Democrats hoping to hurt him with Hispanic voters and also get even with Conservatives for questioning Obama's place of birth. 
|Declared on October 5 that he will not be a candidate for Vice President
|-
|[[Sarah Palin]]
|Empathetic, attracts crowds, personally [[pro-life]], fiscal conservative, popular, track record of supporting upset victories in primaries; had a popular television series and book tour that emphasized the grassroots rather than the "inside the Beltway" mentality. Relies heavily on [[Facebook]].
|Her taxation policies were somewhat liberal.<ref>http://community.adn.com/node/112712</ref> Appointed a former [[Planned Parenthood]] board member to the [[Alaska]] Supreme Court and inexplicably resigned early as governor; lagged in fundraising despite publicity, came in a disappointing fifth in the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010 and fared badly at [[CPAC]]. Several of her prominent 2010 candidates (Ken Buck, Joe Miller, Christine O'Donnell) struck out on Nov. 2nd, and many Republicans from [[George W. Bush]] (allegedly) to [[Peggy Noonan]] have been critical of her running for president.<ref>http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Election-2010/Vox-News/2010/1106/Republican-establishment-takes-on-Sarah-Palin</ref> 58% of American voters in a May poll said they would '''''never''''' vote for her.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>. Frequently mocked by the [[liberal media]].
|Announced on October 5 that she would not be a candidate for president in 2012. Marist poll conducted September 13-14, 2011 showed gains for her but also that a large majority of Republicans still didn't want her to run.
|-
|[[Mike Huckabee]]
|Pro-life in rhetoric, pro-Second Amendment and pro-Bible; strong in polling, particularly among evangelicals
|Announced on May 14th that he's not running; was stuck at 20-30%; as governor raised taxes and state spending; released man who later killed officers; disliked by [[CPAC]]-types and by [[Club for Growth]]; supported the cave-in by the Republican leadership to continue funding [[Planned Parenthood]] (the nation's largest [[abortion]] provider) as part of the budget deal in April 2011. Has ruled himself out of contention.<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2011-05-15-republican-huckabee-president_n.htm</ref>
|Losing relevancy
|-
|[[Rand Paul]]
|Could be the next [[Ronald Reagan]]; is the heir-apparent to massive support for [[Ron Paul]]; won the [[U.S. Senate]] seat by a 56-44% landslide in 2010, despite an intense effort by [[liberals]] to smear and defeat him; is 100% [[pro-life]]. Failure of Congress to cut spending enhances likelihood that voters will turn to someone strong on reducing government.
|Rand, immensely popular after his landslide victory for Senate, will not run for president unless his dad drops his own campaign for the same office. Time is running out for Rand to assert himself as the candidate in 2012.
|Supporting his dad's run for President.
|-
|[[Allen West]]
|'America First' conservative patriot, Lt. Col West knows leadership from experience. He won the Florida [[U.S. House of Representatives]] seat in the [[2010 Midterm Elections]], and kept a high profile ever since. Sports a crew cut, usually rises above petty [[inside the Beltway]] bickering, and carries a camouflage bag rather than a briefcase
|New to national politics, not well known and maybe a future presidential candidate beyond 2012.
|A terrific congressman
|-
|[[Jim DeMint]]
|Strong support by social conservatives, libertarians,<ref>Jim Demint has the best favorable-unfavorable rating of anyone at CPAC 2010.</ref> Tea Party, and evangelicals; a tenacious advocate willing to criticize Obama
|Stated at a conservative conference in July 2010 that he is not running for president, but after [[Mike Pence]] pulled out in Jan. 2011 Jim DeMint is showing interest again, before announcing again in late March that he is not running; as a Southern conservative, he would need to work hard to gain support in Iowa and New Hampshire, the key early primary states<ref>http://politics.theatlantic.com/2010/02/the_2012_dark_horse_is.php</ref>
|Definitely not running now.
|-
|[[Ken Cuccinelli]]
|Has won statewide office. Leader in challenging [[ObamaCare]], advancing [[pro-life]] principles, and opposing the [[global warming]] hoax, including investigating Liberal [[University of Virginia]]'s involvement in the [[Climategate]] scandal. Wants to stop the homosexual agenda prevalent at the University of Virginia and other Virginia universities.
|Only 42 years old, he'll probably become governor of Virginia before running for president. Not as frequent a speaker at Tea Party events as others, such as Steve King and Michele Bachmann. Also, Cuccinelli may be more influential on domestic policy in his current position than a president is.
|Running for governor in 2013.<ref>http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/1211/Cuccinelli_I_have_decided_to_run_for_governor.html</ref>
|-
|[[Bobby Jindal]]
|Conservative Governor of [[Louisiana]], strong critic of [[Obama]]'s handling of the [[Gulf oil spill]] in the summer of 2010.
|Says he's not running for president. Has endorsed Perry.
|Made a good statement on birth certificate issue
|-
|[[Mitch Daniels]]
|Signed a law that defunds [[Planned Parenthood]], has been an effective [[Rust Belt]] governor and critic of the Obama administration, promoted heavily by [[neoconservatives]]
|Stated in May 2011 that he's not running for president. Sided with [[Democrats]] in 2011 in opposing [[right-to-work laws|right-to-work legislation]], is little known nationally, was criticized when he tried to downplay significance of social issues, is not telegenic, lacks a socially conservative base, and his state budget relies heavily on [[gambling]] revenue. Has chastised conservatives for calling Obama a [[socialist]].
|Although not a candidate for President, he has declined to rule out accepting the nomination for Vice President.
|-
|[[Steve King]]
|A conservative Iowa congressman who could win the [[Iowa caucuses]]; resonates well with independents; recommended by Bachmann<ref name="Bachmann">http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/app/blogs/politically_speaking/?p=1205</ref>
|Not well known yet; has never won statewide office.
|Once thought likely to endorse Michele Bachmann, he has declined to endorse anyone. Will stay in the House.
|-
|[[Mike Pence]]
|Communicates a very strong conservative message: "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." Won straw poll held at the [[Values Voter Summit]] in September 2010. On Nov. 3rd, gave up his House leadership position. Has since announced a run for Governor of Indiana in 2012.
|Announced on Jan. 27, 2011 that he's not running for president; previously he unsuccessfully proposed a "comprehensive" immigration plan that was widely criticized by conservatives; lacks legislative achievements; not well-known and has never won statewide office; either he or Huckabee could become a stalking horse for Newt Gingrich with respect to evangelical voters in Iowa
|Focusing on the Indiana governorship
|-
|[[Todd Akin]]
|A [[movement conservative]] from Missouri, which he serves as a congressman
|Running to win a [[U.S. Senate]] seat from a [[liberal]] instead
|Gaining in ability to defeat an incumbent liberal senator
|-
|[[Bob McDonnell]]
|Won landslide election as [[Virginia]] governor; has Obama's height
|Not widely known yet, but gave Republican response to State of the Union in 2010; seemed more conservative as a candidate than as governor
|Falling into obscurity but may re-emerge as a Vice Presidential contender because of Virginia's importance as a swing state that Obama won in 2008.
|-
|[[Rudy Giuliani]]
|Widely respected for his post-9/11 leadership in New York City
|Struck out completely as a candidate in 2008; very weak on important social issues; cross-dressing for comedic purposes when it suited him
|A throwback to an era and issues that matter less now
|-
|[[Dick Cheney]]
|Prominent and consistent opposition to Obama
|Of dubious health; has explicitly disavowed interest in running
|Not running
|-
|[[John Bolton]]
|Expert on foreign policy and national security issues <ref>[http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9I4TTT82&show_article=1 POLITICAL INSIDER: John Bolton weighs a WH run, Breitbart, September 10, 2010]</ref>
|Polarizing figure that Democrats refused to appoint to permanent UN position
|Has ruled out running.
|-
|[[Fred Thompson]]
|Former Republican Senator from [[Tennessee]], former presidential candidate, has a loyal following
|Hollywood type, sided with McCain in campaign finance laws that the Supreme Court overturned.
|Not running
|-
|[[Scott Brown]]
|Proven ability to appeal to moderate voters even in a blue state
|Inexperience; already voting with the Democrats in the Senate; voted to repeal [[DADT]], will not repeal [[Obamacare]].
|Is running for re-election to the Senate
|-
|[[Haley Barbour]]
|Rose in ranking based on the victory of his choice as the new [[RNC]] chairman;<ref>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/14/barbour-defeats-boehner-proxy-battle-control-rnc-s/</ref> has a [[conservative]] record as governor of [[Mississippi]] but is rarely seen at conservative conferences. He was a consummate lobbyist and could raise many tens of millions for a campaign.
|A [[Deep South]] Republican, Barbour seemed unable to attract independent voters. He announced in late April 2011 that he is not running.
|Isn't running
|-
|[[John Thune]]
|Defeated [[Tom Daschle]], relatively conservative voting record for a senator; also taller than Obama, and enjoys broad support
|Announced on Feb. 22, 2011 that he's not running; may lack an essential "fire in the belly";<ref>http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/assessing-john-thunes-2012-cha.html?referrer=emaillink</ref> voted for TARP financial bailout<ref>http://hoghouseblog.com/2009/09/01/thune-wants-to-end-bailout-he-voted-for/</ref> and McCain-Feingold campaign finance; no-show at some conservative events; hasn't effectively criticized Obama; could simply become a stalking horse candidate for Gingrich, brought 100 million worth of earmarks in a spending bill, then awkwardly claimed he backed the projects but opposed the bill.
|Not running
|-
|[[Jan Brewer]]
|In 2010, stood up to [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] on issue of [[illegal aliens]]
|Caved in to the [[liberals]] in vetoing legislation requiring a birth certificate to get on the presidential ballot for Arizona in 2012; if Brewer ever was conservative, she seems increasingly less so
|Not even conservatives support her after all her vetoes of good bills this year
|-
|[[George Pataki]]
|Well known former 3-term Gov. of New York. Has a track record of tax cuts
|[[RINO]] candidate, [[Pro-abortion]], had health issues in the past, not very compelling
|Not running
|-
|[[Peter King]]
|Conservative congressman from New York that supports [[Pro-life]], energy independence, free trade, expand border fence, battles Muslim extremists in the USA by Homeland Security position.
|Fiscal conservatism lacking: voted for TARP, Cash for Clunkers, CHIP. He is also a co-sponsor of [[SOPA]]. King tends to support bills that enable the federal government to become larger and more intrusive.
|Seems more focused on his Homeland Security position in the House than any Presidential aspirations
|-
|}

=== The Chess Game for the Republican Party ===

====Short form====

The short form analysis is this: it probably requires a minimum of $25 million in campaign funds to win the nomination, and more if the candidate lacks a strong [[conservative]] base. Many of the candidates are probably looking to big fundraisers for support, but they are unsure of whom to back. Karl Rove, with all of his contacts from the Bush years, may be able to raise $20 million for a candidate; Haley Barbour might be able to raise even more. Fox News and its allies can raise eight figures also, as they helped reelect [[John McCain]] as senator in 2010.

The fundraising obstacle is no problem for Mitt Romney. Ron Paul could sustain his campaign as he did in 2008, relying heavily on the internet. Rick Perry has some fundraising strength. Newt Gingrich may be able to raise funds if promoted by the [[Fox News Channel]]. But others lacking in a strong base will struggle unless they can obtain the support of either the Bush/Rove group, or Barbour's network, or Fox News and its allies.

====Long form====

There are three key steps to the Republican nomination: Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. Mitt Romney won both the Iowa caucus (although Rick Santorum nearly tied him) and the New Hampshire primary. Newt Gingrich won the South Carolina primary.

There are four basic components of the Republican Party. '''To win the nomination, a candidate needs to obtain the support of at least two out of four''':<ref>Traditionally commentators have referred to the three legs of the Republican Party: the values voters, the small businessmen, and the national security supporters. While that model still has support, it fails to account for recent shifts (such as the Tea Party Movement) and the impact of new media (such as FoxNews).</ref>

#social conservatives (pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-Republican Party platform)
#libertarians (lower taxes, less government, pro-market, anti-union)
#religious voters (Baptists, Presbyterians, Catholics, evangelicals, Mormons)
#neoconservatives (foreign intervention, "better" government)

In 2008, John McCain won the nomination by capturing the support of 1 and 4 above. Ron Paul had the support of 2. Mitt Romney enjoyed support by 2 and part of 3. Mike Huckabee had support of 1 and part of 3. The division of 3 by Romney and Huckabee caused them to block each other: Huckabee blocked Romney in Iowa, and Romney returned the favor in New Hampshire. This dynamic prevented either from winning the nomination.

In 2000, George Bush won with the support of 1 and 3. But John McCain enjoyed the support from 2 and 4 and this enabled him to win the New Hampshire and Michigan primaries, giving Bush a close contest. Some felt McCain mishandled his victory in Michigan.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the support of 1 and 2.

== Potential Democratic Candidates ==

While shortly after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] a McClatchy-Marist survey revealed 46% of Democrats and Democratic leaning independent voters said they don't want President Obama to face a Democratic primary challenge, with 45% saying they do want such a challenge to occur, no such challenge has emerged. As of early 2012, it is too late for another Democrat to launch a campaign for the Presidency. Nevertheless, 40% of Democrats and independents who lean towards the Democrats say they prefer a more conservative challenger, while 39% say they want a challenger who is more liberal.

===Popularity of Obama===

A Quinnipiac University survey released after the [[2010 Midterm elections]] indicated that a plurality of Americans don't think Obama deserves to be re-elected to a second term, and an Associated Press-GfK survey in the same time span indicates that 54% believe Obama should be voted out of office in 2012.<ref>http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/24/poll-democrats-split-on-2012-obama-primary-challenge/</ref> Former DNC chairman [[Ed Rendell]] suggested on [[MSNBC]], liberal anger over Obama's escalation of the war in Afghanistan could lead to a primary challenge.<ref>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011923-503544.html</ref>

More recent polls show Obama running close to even with his most likely opponents. <ref>[http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll]</ref>

The ''[[New York Times]]'' reported many [[liberal]]s are so upset over recommendations by the Deficit Reduction Commission which President Obama himself created after the Democratic controlled Congress voted the idea down,<ref>http://peoplesworld.org/senate-defeats-deficit-commission/</ref> "if Mr. Obama were to embrace its major parts, he would invite a primary challenge in 2012."<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/us/politics/12fiscal.html</ref> Clarence B. Jones, who was a personal advisor, legal counsel, and close friend of Dr. [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], has called for a primary challenge to President Obama.<ref>http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/former-mlk-advisor-calls-primary-chal</ref>

Also Obama's [[Libya#Libyan_uprising_2011|Libyan intervention]] has raised the ire of many prominent leftists who question the [[wisdom]] and [[legal]]ity of the president's actions.<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Barack Obama]]
|Ability to compromise and act in a spirit of bi-partisanship when his back's against the wall and career on the line; he's not Hillary Clinton, and he receives enduring support from the media. Has the historical benefit of being the incumbent.
|He depends on a teleprompter to speak, and has run the nation into the ground. Numerous broken<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/</ref> and unfulfilled<ref>http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/stalled/</ref> campaign promises, implementation of socialist [[Obamacare]] program. Maybe uphill without help from [[ACORN]].
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|}

===Others who might have run, but have decided not to===
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Candidate
!Pros
!Cons
![[MSNBC]] exposure
|-
|[[Hillary Clinton]]
|Her criticism of Obama's massive deficits hinted at a possible run against him in 2012, and [[Ted Kennedy]] cannot interfere with her nomination this time; moreover, waiting until 2016 is unattractive because she will be 71 then. A recent Bloomberg poll shows she has a 64% approval rating, higher than any other national political figure.<ref>[http://yourjewishnews.com/11198.aspx Hillary Clinton approval rating jumps to 64%.], September 17, 2011. October 1, 2011.</ref> Tested the waters with Bill backing a challenger to Obama's Colorado Senate candidate (who then lost), and by Hillary saying she won't serve a second term as Obama's Secretary of State. The chances of Hillary running and winning the nomination increase with every decline in Obama's approval ratings.
|Has stated numerous times that she will not seek an elected position once she leaves her current position as Secretary of State. Her [[feminism]] is disliked by conservatives, but is popular with liberal women. She'd lose the general election as [[Martha Coakley]] did.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Randall Terry]]
|Pro-life, and ardently so, unlike most Democrats. Will make this issue, which most Americans agree with, the cornerstone of his campaign. Is a conservative, and argued in favor of Terri Schavio's family in the case to allow her to live.
|Only recently joined the Democrats, in order to run against Obama in the primary; largely seen as a 'joke' candidate by most people; no media attention, and he likely will never get a chance to go up against Obama in a debate.
|Disfavored on MSNBC, when he's mentioned
|-
|[[Russ Feingold]]
|His dedication to [[progressive]] causes rivals that of Obama, Feingold now has the time to run since his defeat in the 2010 midterms.<ref>http://usforruss.com/?p=55</ref>
|Considered a maverick and [[reform]]er within the Democratic party.
|Disfavored on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Howard Dean]]
|Liberal media personality, politician with physician's license and a former Vermont governor. Opposed [[Obamacare]] in its current form, and declared that government cannot force people to buy health insurance.
|Progressive/Socialist/Marxist philosophy combined with numerous public gaffes. Dean ran in the 2004 presidential elections.
|Heavily promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Bernie Sanders]]
|Has pledged to "do whatever I can" to thwart compromise and thinks the President's legislative proposals are "an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people."
|Genuine out-of-the-closet [[Socialist]], will need to formally register as a Democrat.
|Has appeared on MSNBC.<ref>http://www.thestatecolumn.com/blog/2010/12/sen-bernie-sanders-issues-a-challenge-to-president-obama/</ref>
|-
|[[Evan Bayh]]
|Democratic base sees Bayh's retirement from the Senate as "a symbol of what's wrong with the party" as moderates are increasingly marginalized. <ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/evan-bayh-for-president-s_n_463202.html?view=screen Evan Bayh For President? Senator May Be Eyeing White House Run,] Ryan Grim, ''Huffington Post'', 02-15-10.</ref>
|Lags behind Obama in fundraising. [http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00003762&cycle=2010]
|Has appeared on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Dennis Kucinich]]
|Outspoken critic of Obama's escalation of the War in Afghanistan, sellout of the public option and tax cuts for the rich.
|Perennial favorite of special interests, particularly [[AFSCME]], lacks popular support and a wider appeal.
|Promoted on MSNBC.
|-
|[[Alan Grayson]]
|Could do well to rally the progressive base in the anti-war early primary and caucus states of Iowa and New Hampshire.<ref>[http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/12/28/an-anti-war-challenge-to-obama-in-2012-the-case-for-alan-grayso/ "An Anti-War Challenge to Obama in 2012: The Case for Alan Grayson"], ''Politics Daily'', 12-28-2010.</ref>
|Ethical concerns over his 2010 failed reelection bid for the House.
|Heavily favored on MSNBC.
|}

== Independent Candidacies -- Mike Bloomberg or Donald Trump ==

The man who spent $185 per vote to garner 51% of the vote to remain as Mayor of [[New York City]] in 2009, [[Mike Bloomberg]], is increasingly looking like an independent, self-funded candidate for president in 2012.

$185 per vote times 50 million voters equals $9.25 billion, which Bloomberg can easily afford as one of the richest men in the world. The catch is that 50 million Americans are not as likely to be persuaded by self-funded campaign ads as 51% of New Yorkers were. Also, it is possible that money is becoming ''less influential'' in campaigns, not more so. The most likely result from a Bloomberg candidacy would be a split in the [[pro-abortion]], pro-[[homosexual agenda]] vote with the [[Democratic]] nominee, facilitating election of the Republican nominee.

Donald Trump is also considering an independent bid for president, particularly after he changed is party affiliation in December 2011 to "unaffiliated". What a difference a few months make. In April 2011, Trump was tied for first in the [[Gallup Poll]] among Republican contenders.<ref>As of April 22, 2011.</ref> He forced Obama to take seriously voters' concerns over his birth certificate, and was willing to criticize liberal media; he has business savvy and resources as a billionaire and is well-known.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/05/trump-seriously-considering-presidential-bid/?test=latestnews Trump 'Seriously Considering' 2012 Presidential Bid, FOXNews, October 5, 2010]</ref> His unscripted, abrasive and arrogant style may be just what voters want, and not being a career politician helps his cause. But he is rightly criticized for his ego and has never held elected office. He would needs to explain his previous support of liberal policies such as socialized medicine,<ref>http://www.slate.com/id/2291263/</ref> as well as donating to various Democrats including [[Harry Reid]] in the past. A reliable poll (Quinnipiac) found that 58% of voters said they would '''''never''''' vote for Trump.<ref name="Quinnipiac"/>

== Minor Parties ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Party
!Candidate
!Comments
|-
|[[Libertarian Party]]
|[[Gary Johnson]]
|The former [[Republican]] two-term governor of [[New Mexico]], Johnson favors legalizing marijuana, expanding legal [[immigration]] and allowing same-sex unions. Given Ron Paul's libertarian campaign for the Republican nomination and the exclusion of Johnson from most of the debates, there was little room for Johnson as a Republican this election cycle. He announced his candidacy for the Libertarian Party's nomination on December 28, 2011.
|-
|}

==References==
{{reflist}}

== See also ==

*[[Endorsements 2012]]
*[[Swing States 2012]]
*[[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]]'' for other presidential elections
*[[Gubernatorial elections, 2010]]

[[Category: United States]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Elections]]
[[Category: United States Presidential Election, 2012]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2012-01-23T20:23:53Z

AngusT: /* Democrat list again */ new section

I think the biggest negative about John Thune (other than the fact that he's not really well known right now) is that he supported the McCain-Feingold bill. He's since admitted that that was a mistake, and no one is perfect, of course, but if he does seriously run in 2012, people are going to bring that vote up.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 22:56, 12 February 2010 (EST)

:Good point, I'll add it. I don't think it disqualifies him.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 12 February 2010 (EST)

Is Mitt Romney "regularly" on Fox? I haven't seen that, but I don't watch it regularly.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:44, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:If no one can vouch for Mitt Romney being "regularly" on Fox, then I'll revert it back to something like "rarely" on Fox.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 15 February 2010 (EST)

:::While "regularly" is obviously a subjective measure, he's been on Fox a lot lately. He was on Hannity on January 20th, on "On the Record with Greta van Sustern" on January 11th, and on Hannity again on December 18th. Of course, a lot of that was to discuss the Scott Brown race. Sean Hannity also had him on a lot in 2008 after John McCain got the nomination to analyze the presidential race. While I don't have an opinion as to whether or not that counts as regularly, I thought you might like to know.--[[User:Whizkid|Whizkid]] 17:23, 15 February 2010 (EST)

::::That's helpful, but doesn't seem to be nearly as much as the Fox favorites of Palin, Huckabee and Gingrich. So perhaps "on occasionally" might describe this best. 2008 is ancient history and not relevant to appearances in connection with 2012.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:54, 15 February 2010 (EST)

==Hillary Clinton==
Of all potential candidates, Obama, Palin, McCain, Romney, ''et all'', [[Hillary Clinton]] currently enjoys the highest approval ratings at 58%. It is hard not to believe the Clintons are not seriously mulling thier options at the moment. This article should note the distinct possibility of a Democratic Primary challenge in 2012 as ''[[US News]]'' has reported. [http://www.usnews.com/blogs/peter-roff/2010/01/27/a-hillary-clinton-primary-challenge-to-obama-in-2012.html] Obama recently remarked on the possibility of being a one term president in his Diane Sawyer interview and Hillary stated she cannot see herself being Secretary of State after 2012. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 10:02, 15 February 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Is "irrational liberal hatred of her" really a con? It seems it will just make the Democrats look foolish when they foam at the mouth and drive more voters to the Republicans. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 13:40, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

: You may be right, but it could be a hurdle. The liberal media are losing market share but still have some.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:00, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
::I'm guessing it'd come down to her performance. If she does well in debate and interviews, the rage will look silly. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 17:10, 31 March 2010 (EDT)
:::People resent seeing those like them being attacked. They look at Palin and see someone they know IRL. We all have family dramas and tribulations. Those outside the political world don't see her quitting as Governor to be as bad a thing as the media and political world make it out to be, to use but one example. --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:20, 31 March 2010 (EDT)

== Ken Cuccinelli ==
Why is "effective critic of Obama" under cons? I have a feeling that might have been vandalism. Does anyone oppose if that is moved to a pro?--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:45, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

: Please do. Great point, thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:06, 6 July 2010 (EDT)

== A concern ==

Does anyone feel like having so many potential Republican candidates is a detriment? It just feels like the Republican Party is so divided these days.
As for Clinton and Obama, if Clinton wins over Obama I'd be thoroughly surprised. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the incumbent president has never been beaten in the primaries by someone else in their own party. Also, I think Obama has kept a lot of moderates on his side. However, he's never been a friend of the right, and he's alienating the left. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:JasonN|JasonN]] 12:40, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

: In 1968, incumbent [[Lyndon Johnson]] felt compelled to withdraw from the race after being humiliated by the strong showing of [[Eugene McCarthy]] against him in the first primary.

: As to the large number, that's appropriate at this stage so that no one is missed. Competition is a good thing!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:14, 24 August 2010 (EDT)

== Rubio and Experience ==

I'm curious what you all think about Rubio in 2012. The article says "Will face liberal double standard: what's OK for Obama (e.g., inexperience) is somehow not OK for a conservative." But it seems to me that by pushing him in 2012 we might be equally guilty of a conservative double standard: Obama was quite rightly attacked by conservatives for inexperience. But what's not OK for Obama is OK for Rubio? My perspective is that Rubio should serve out his term and consider a run in 2020, probably holding a high office (maybe VP) during the 2017-2021 term of whoever ends up beating Obama. Thoughts? --[[User:LanceS|LanceS]] 22:31, 3 November 2010 (EDT)

:Most conservatives criticized Obama for being too liberal. I don't think Obama's inexperience was the major basis for criticism, but it will be when liberals criticize Rubio.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:47, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

::Obama was criticized, and rightly so, for ''absolutely no executive experience''. He had experience as a legislator, but had never actually held a job that required executive experience, running a company and meeting a payroll. Since that criticism was rejected by the Obama camp, one would think it would be off-limits for them to use it against Rubio. But since liberals don't think logically, and only care about smearing their opponents, as Andy said.....of course they will use it! --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big>/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:08, 4 November 2010 (EDT)

== "New" president ==

I just made a minor edit, but have a feeling it may be contentious, so I'll explain a bit here. The opening sentence said the election is when the U.S. "picks a new president." I removed "new" because, inasmuch as it's likely that Obama will not be re-elected, it's still possible, meaning the country may not have a new president, but rather the same old one. [[User:EMorris|EMorris]] 13:34, 15 November 2010 (EST)

: Thanks for your clarifying edit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:45, 15 November 2010 (EST)

== Sarah Palin ==

Sarah Palin did appoint a judge who is not pro-life, but with the way the Alaskan Constitution is written she had to appoint one of the people nominated by the Judicial council. Her choices were anti-life, more anti-life, and most anti-life. She chose anti-life. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 21:45, 6 February 2011 (EST)

:I don't agree. Palin picked the more anti-life candidate, and of course she did not have to pick anyone at all. Moreover, good politicians anticipate tricks by the other side and advert crises before they occur ... if they want to, that is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:45, 17 February 2011 (EST)

== Question ==

I understand that the Republicans are ordered by likelihood of success, but have you done the same for the Democrats? If so, I really don't see Mike Gravel having any chance of winning the nomination. He is too far left for most of the democratic base and he is an incredible flip-flopper (he ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008). Otherwise, this is a fascinating article. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 13:23, 17 February 2011 (EST)

:Excellent point. I've improved the ranking on the [[Democratic]] side. Please feel free to improve further.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:42, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::The new ranking is great. It would be very interesting to see Hillary Clinton attempt another primary run against Obama. [[User:JimFullerton|JimFullerton]] 16:56, 17 February 2011 (EST)
:::That would be silly of her. She'd have to resign as SoS to do so effectively since all Obama need do is keep her bogged down with impossible tasks. She'll bide her time until 2016. [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 18:05, 17 February 2011 (EST)
::::She'd have to pick a fight with the Admin, claiming the President is to soft on Iran or the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood for instance, and she's unable to continue her duties as SoS. In reality, this in unlikely, for the simple reason she doesn't have any fresh faces to bring into a Hillary Administration; Obama pretty much fired all his old Chicago mafia after the midterm fiasco and replaced them with Clinton retreads. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 14:51, 19 February 2011 (EST)
:::::SoS ''used'' to be the place to gain experience for POTUS position but that was "back in the day" right after the Revolution. Who ''was'' the last President that held the SoS job in a previous administration? [[James Buchanan]]? [[User:DevonJ|DevonJ]] 20:40, 20 February 2011 (EST)

== Mitch Daniels ==
His star is dropping rapidly among conservatives. Recently, he spoke well of Democrats fleeing their duties, then backtracked. He was behind stalling the right to work legislation for another date. He called for social conservative issues to be put aside while we work on the economy. Liberal press all buttons on all fronts, they don't say hold off and focus here or there. Daniels needs to drop on our list. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:46, 25 February 2011 (EST)

:I agree. I don't see any plausible scenario now in which Mitch Daniels could win the nomination. Pawlenty, unlikely himself, has a far greater chance of winning the nomination than Daniels. Please downgrade Daniels as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:54, 25 February 2011 (EST)

== Dropping Christie ==

Swapping Palin with Christie in the ranking makes sense. The rumor in [[New Jersey]] is that [[Chris Christie|Christie]] is going to run candidates in the primary ''against'' incumbents more [[conservative]] than he.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:27, 6 March 2011 (EST)

== Trump/Gingrich ==

Should Trump's 2 divorces and his much younger wife (24 years difference) be listed as cons when Gingrich's are? [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 16:27, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

:Good question. Maybe it should be. But one difference may be this: Trump may have converted to a churchgoing life ''after'' his divorces, unlike Gingrich. Also, the circumstances of Trump's divorces may have been significantly different from Gingrich's.

:Reagan's first wife left him. Is that something voters should have used against him?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)

::Trump cheated on his first wife with his second one. I'm not sure about the circumstances behind the second divorce. As to his religion, I haven't read anything stating when he converted.

::There is certainly a huge difference between one's spouse leaving and being unfaithful. If Reagan's wife left for reasons other than him cheating on her or abuse, then no, it shouldn't be held against him. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:25, 27 April 2011 (EDT)

:::I thought a precedent had been established that what a person does in their private life is nobody's business? Were not holding Republicans to a different standard than we would Democratic officeholders, are we? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:43, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Then we should either remove the mention of Gingrich's multiple marriages or add Trump's multiple marriages. It shouldn't be considered a negative for one and ignored for the other. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:55, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== the republican table ==

I was wondering, for ease of viewing, if we could make 2, one for those who have and those who have not announced they are. Or is that not a good idea?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:01, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

:Ideas for improvements are welcome, but I'm not it is meaningful whether someone has formally announced or not. Mitt Romney, for example, has not announced yet but he's the clear frontrunner. Meanwhile candidates who announced long ago have almost no chance of winning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:09, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
::You never know. But it might help, if we won't do a separate table, to at least make them be more noticeable, since at the moment I can't actually tell who's running and who we think might run--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 10:11, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

== Idea for improvement ==

Hi, this is my first edit, though I have occasionally browsed Conservapedia in the past. I was linked to this page from the front page news item about George Will. From reading the page, it doesn't seem clear to me what the methodology of the rankings are. For example, New Gingrich is listed as second most likely to win the nomination. Most polls I have seen show him far behind Mitt Romney, polling close to candidates like Ron Paul or Tim Pawlenty. It also seems odd to me that Donald Trump is number three, as only a few polls have shown him with a lead, and recently that lead has disappeared. It seems a bit unencyclopedic to rank candidates by likelihood without clearly saying what the methodology is.

By the way, the article about George Will seemed to imply that he believed that Pawlenty and Daniels were the only Republicans who could win the general election, not that they were the Republican frontrunners.

I apologize if I sound like I'm telling editors how to run this wiki. However, I think many readers would appreciate seeing where this ranking comes from. [[User:DaleHoward|DaleHoward]] 22:57, 15 May 2011 (EDT)

== trump ==

"In trademark Trump fashion, he maintained he could have won the election if he wanted to."[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/16/trump-declines-run-president/] LOL! Maybe [[Richard Dawkins]], "the Donald" of atheism, will say he could win a debate against [[William Lane Craig]] if he wanted to! :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:40, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

== Avoiding liberal double standard apropos Rubio ==

Let's face the facts, Marco Rubio's parents weren't citizens when he was born. Nevertheless, he was born in Florida, grew up in the USA, and cannot fairly be called anything other than a natural born citizen. That may not stop some liberals from raising the issue out of spite. By the same laws, Obama is a natural born citizen too. Or, they're both not. There's no logical way you can claim that one is and the other isn't. So let's emphasize the positive here. Rubio's immigrant background makes him a uniquely American success story. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: Rubio's parents were refugees who unambiguously sought to be Americans and fully subjected themselves to American jurisdiction immediately. Not so for both of Obama's parents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Does the Constitution make express claims about a child's parents' behavior/intentions? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:09, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

:::That's the debate. So the question is: Since Obama's father did not submit his-self to U.S. jurisdiction - in that he did not seek citizenship and was merely a student visiting - would that affect whether Obama was born "''subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]''"? (Citizenship Clause) (His mother, it should be noted, was an American citizen.)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 11:42, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Iduan states the issue well. The real issue is whether the family subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the United States. Visitors, diplomats, students on visas and (200 years ago) Native Americans typically do or did not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:02, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::No, but American citizens -- like, say Anne Dunham and her child, Barack Obama -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Where exactly in the case law or the Constitution is there a provision that BOTH parents or even the father must be "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when ascertaining whether or not an individual is a natural-born citizen? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:10, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::"Subject to the jurisdiction" can't have anything to do with a person's actions but his status. If you're in the US on a visa you're subject to its jurisdiction - you can get sued, you can get arrested, etc. Diplomats and foreign heads of state can't. Please show us one single case that says visitors are included in the list with diplomats and foreign heads of state. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 13:22, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Exactly -- people on an F-1 visa have to file tax returns with the IRS, obey US law, fill out census forms, etc. etc. In what way, exactly, are they not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 13:26, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::Andy, with all due respect, the issues you're bringing up have nothing to do with the natural born citizen requirement. The most obvious definition of the term in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA. There is not and has never been a tradition of ''jus sanguinis'' in the USA, so the parents' status in the overwhelming majority of cases plays absolutely no role in the child's status. The exceptions and gray areas to this are very narrow indeed, and none of them apply to either Obama or Rubio. You're simply inventing ambiguity where there is none. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:48, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::: JDW wrote, "The most obvious definition of the term [natural born citizen] in the American context is having citizenship conferred to you at birth in the USA." Right, no problem there. But implicit in that concept -- and made explicit by the [[14th Amendment]] -- is that the family submit to the jurisdiction of the United States as its national sovereign. That's what is lacking in births to diplomats, visitors, Native Americans circa 1800, students on visas, etc. There is nothing "very narrow indeed" about those exceptions. The Native American population was large, for example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:21, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::Seeing as the words "parent," "parents," "mother," "father" or "family" do not appear in the 14th Amendment, where do see the question of a familial commitment to US sovereignty coming into play? Also, in what ways do students on visas not submit to the US as national sovereign? Are filing tax returns, being subject to the law of the land, obliged to fill out the census and other obligations not an aspect of their being subject to US sovereignty for the duration of their stay in the US? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 21:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

::::::Many visitors insist on being deported rather than being subjected fully to U.S. laws. When those visitors take that position -- or act in a way indicative of that position -- then they do not submit fully to the jurisdiction of the United States and their children born during their visit are not "natural born citizens" of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:17, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
That does not answer the more substantive point of my argument -- the fact that the 14th Amendment says nothing about parents or family. Moreover, the fact that some people get legally deported only speaks to the fact that they are subject to US sovereignty, as it's American law that determines their status in the country. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:23, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: The [[14th Amendment]] defines citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, '''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States''' and of the State wherein they reside." (emphasis added). Many people have been born here who do not accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Really? Who? And more to the point, does the refusal of some people to recognize US sovereignty has anything to do with any particular individual's eligibility? Is there any evidence that Anne Dunham's baby boy did not "accept being subject to the full jurisdiction of the United States?" [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 22:53, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
:::Andy, from the opinion in Wong Kim Ark:
::::"The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,
:::::"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and ''subject to the jurisdiction thereof'', are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.
::::"As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, '''this was not intended'' to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or '''to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States''' who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption."
:::From that legal precedent set by the opinion of the Supreme Court, I think the case is settled that being born in the US means you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". [[User:BradB|BradB]] 00:11, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

::::If you were right, then no one born on American soil would ever be deported. But this has been done by government, including high-profile cases.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:43, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::So your argument here is that because some people born on American soil are subject to deportation (which demonstrates that they are subject to US law, as it is US law that is determining where they might live), a child of a citizen and a non-citizen born on US soil may not qualify as "natural born," and this is backed up by the 14th Amendment, which says nothing about a child's parents or family. Moreover, because of the preceding, a child born to two non-US citizens has a greater claim on being a natural-born citizen than does the child of the American citizen. And Anne Dunham's baby may not have accepted US sovereignty, though you still have not provided any evidence for that claim. Do I have that right?[[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 09:06, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::Vague anecdotes fail to persuade. Binding legal precedent set by the Supreme Court clearly says you're wrong. [[User:BradB|BradB]] 11:52, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
Isn't one of the main rationales to keep those detainees at Guantanamo Bay that they would become ''subject to the jurisdiction'' of the United States if they ever set foot on American soil, as they owe allegiance to no other sovereignty (most obviously, they aren't soldiers)? Whether they were willing to accept this or not? And isn't that the idea behind the “wet feet–dry feet” policy, too? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:44, 24 May 2011 (EDT)
:My point exactly. Since when is national sovereignty/jurisdiction something that an individual can choose to recognize or not. Here's a thought experiment: ask someone from another country to come to the US and do something in the US that is illegal in America, but legal back home. When they are arrested and tried, go with the defense of "My client doesn't recognize US sovereignty or jurisdiction, and should be released." See how far that goes with a jury, if the judge even allows such a defense. With the very narrow and specific exception of diplomatic immunity, which is not really relevant in this case, anyone entering the US implicitly recognizes US sovereignty and jurisdiction. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:02, 24 May 2011 (EDT)

== ".... giving him a greater claim to being a natural-born citizen than Obama has." ==

So the child of ZERO American citizens is more likely to be a citizen by birth than is the child of ONE American citizen? Seriously, Andy, I think you need to reconsider this position -- or at least show us something in American citizenship laws that backs this up. [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 10:46, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

: See above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:06, 23 May 2011 (EDT)
::Where does the law say that any of that is relevant? [[User:LloydR|LloydR]] 11:07, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

== Separating out the Real Presidential Candidates ==

Now that several republicans have declared that they will run in the primaries, is it appropriate to remove the non-declared candidates to a new table? [[User:BenDylan|BenDylan]] 09:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

: No, I don't think so. Whether someone has declared or not is only one factor -- and not the most significant factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:24, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:: Nevertheless, don't you think it would make this table clearer? Perhaps the easiest thing would simply be to add a 'Declared?' column that has an 'X' or something in it - because even though it's not the only factor, it is a very important one? This is certainly the case as time marches on? [[User:JanW|JanW]] 17:29, 9 June 2011 (EDT)

::Do you think it is a good idea to explicitly state what the factors are / what criteria is used to rank the candidates? Even if the ranking is just based on the sum of "pros" vs. the sum of "cons," I would think that some issues receive heavier weighting than others, and it might be helpful to readers if this were made clear. --[[User:Toadaron|AaronT]] 12:04, 30 May 2011 (EDT)

:::Obvious factors would include:

:::*a political base
:::*a principled stance on issues
:::*ability to distinguish oneself from other candidates
:::*ability to obtain financial backing for a presidential campaign
:::*articulate
:::*ability to handle the hostile press
:::*proven electoral success

:::Perhaps others can add or reorder the list.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 01:00, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, I think we could add a few more columns to the table. Right now, each candidate has just two very general paragraphs about their pros/cons, but most of this information is opinionated and while I think the rankings are fairly accurate, I think we could increase the precision of the rankings (or just further justify what we already have) by being much more specific as to examples of each candidate's abilities in each area. Perhaps, like Aschlafly said, we could have a column for "X Candidate's ability to handle the press" and give links or examples of when they successfully managed a hostile situation with the media. That way we're not just throwing out opinions.

::::Also, forgive my boldness, but should Jeb Bush really still be second on the list? I do believe that with his name recognition and history in politics he could have a good chance at winning if he were to run, but since he has not declared I think the liklihood that he wins the nomination is decreasing quickly. There is a fast-moving trend in the media to say "Okay, this is our field. Let's work with what we have." And so if Jeb Bush is going to run, the longer he delays now the more he is going to hurt his own campaign. I would suggest keeping him in the Top Five or Top Seven, but moving him out of the second spot, just because he hasn't declared. Texas Governor Rick Perry should probably be moved up a little since the common stance is that he will be running, but I wouldn't put him in the second spot. Maybe move Bachmann up after her excellent performance in the debate? And then Gingrich in third? [[User:Jpope1487|Jpope1487]] 10:48, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

::::: You make good points and feel free to add information as long as it does not obscure with less significant complexity. Note, however, that this is not merely a mirror of the [[lamestream media]]. [[Jeb Bush]] would objectively be the second most likely to win the nomination, whether he's running now or not. I don't see anyone else at this time (other than Romney) who has a higher likelihood, although obviously that will change as the deadlines for candidates to formally file election papers approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 18 June 2011 (EDT)

== Democrats ==

Why are those other than Obama included? It is highly unlikely that there will be a primary challenge to Obama. If no one opposes I say this section be removed. [[User:TheoCaldwell|TheoCaldwell]] 23:32, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

:At this early stage, it makes sense to include many possible candidates. There is time to trim the list of candidates as primaries approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:59, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

== Huntsman ==

I would like to move Huntsman up. Somewhere around number ten. Does anyone mind? I don't think it makes any sense to have him at number twenty-nine (assuming I counted correctly) behind Dick Cheney. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 22:30, 28 June 2011 (EDT)

== Bump paper tiger RHINO Romney from #1, replace him with Bachmann ==

Conservative populism is on the rise. Bump the paper tiger RHINO Mitt Romney from the #1 position and replace him with Michele Bachmann. Plus, setting aside whether it is right or wrong, a significant number of Christian evangelical Republicans in Iowa, the South, the Midwest and elsewhere are less favorable to Romney because he is a Mormon (about 30%).[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-23/romney-gets-59-favorable-rating-from-republicans-in-presidential-poll.html] It's probably going to be a horse race and in horseraces, winner often win by a nose so that 30% could make a difference. Plus, on the very important likability factor (I like Ike, Reagan, etc.), Bachmann wins hands down.[http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/it-39-s-mr-no-comment-versus-ms-accessible-20110702]P Also, she did very well in the debate and is surging in the polls.[http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/romney-vs-bachmann-iowa-6013232] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:32, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
:I must agree here. Though Romney isn't exactly a liberal, he's definitely not a true conservative either. Here at conservapedia, we like real conservatives. [[User:MeganH|MeganH]] 01:36, 3 July 2011 (EDT)

::The observations above are astute but we strive for objectivity here and it seems Romney is still in first place, though obviously rankings will change weekly or even daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:03, 3 July 2011 (EDT)
::::I don't think Republicans as a whole are very happy about the present field. The either have to know more about the existing candidates (Bachmann) or they want better choices (Perry/Christie). I also don't think Romney will be able to handle conservative political punches when they come his way and it will be a repeat of 2008. Hard to predict what is going to happen. Usually for Republicans, by now things are a lot more settled in terms of who is going to win. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:31, 4 July 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush/John Huntsman/Rand Paul ==

I'm new here, so I just wanted to give individuals a chance to object before I made these changes. In light of Jeb Bush's own son endorsing John Huntsman today it seems appropriate to move Jeb Bush down the rankings list, and it seems to make sense to move Huntsman up as well, I would suggest either right before or after Sarah Palin's current position. In addition, as Rand Paul has been actively campaigning for his father, and has been unequivocal in stating he will not run against his father, I propose he be moved farther down the list.
--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 16:27, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:I have made the changes, if any objections emerge, I am more than open to discussing them.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 17:15, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::You're welcome to make changes - the entry, like other entries here, is a work-in-progress benefiting from the [[best of the public]]. But I think you've moved [[Jeb Bush]] far too low. While candidates listed above him struggle to get 50%, Jeb increasingly looks like he could be the star player who enters late in the game to win it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:39, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

:::I moved Jeb Bush up a couple more spots in light of your suggestion. I placed him just above Chris Christie, another candidate who could be a star player if he entered late in the game. While I agree that if he were to enter Jeb Bush would be a major contender for the nomination, I believe this needs to be balanced against the actual likelihood that a candidate will enter the race. Jeb Bush has not expressed any willingness to run in this election, and his son's endorsement, and now position with the Huntsman campaign, seems to be another indicator that Jeb Bush will not be entering the race. It is possible that others believe Jeb Bush is more likely to enter, and if that is the case, as you suggest, they are welcome to move him up accordingly. I apologize for how long this is, I just want to make sure a change on an article such as this is acceptable.--[[User:Krayner|Krayner]] 18:25, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

::::I welcome your edits and comments, but honestly I just don't see Huntsman or even Perry having a greater chance of winning the nomination than Jeb. Note that Perry, like Jeb, has not announced yet either.

::::The endorsement by Jeb's son of Huntsman looks like an obvious attempt to keep Romney from winning the nomination at Jeb's expense. Jeb's son will surely endorse his dad once Huntsman gives up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 10 August 2011 (EDT)

== Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status ==

Given recent Gallup poll of Republican voters, it is time to remove Romney from front runner status: http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx The spread is significant, plus Gov Rick Perry's state has grown jobs and people don't like Romney's history when it comes to important issues to Republicans: healthcare, etc. Perry appears to be the front runner unless a scandal breaks or the electorate becomes significantly more conservative and moves towards Michelle Bachmann. I do think the biggest concern to voters is jobs and Perry seems to have the strongest public perception of strength on this issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:15, 24 August 2011 (EDT)

:Perry has been impressive so far, but he needs to take more questions and provide good answers before he can surpass the top candidates as the likely nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 24 August 2011 (EDT)
::I certainly didn't foresee Perry snatching defeat from the jaws of victory [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44675117/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/how-immigration-blew-rick-perry/#.TobRQnJfQZ4 vis a vis an unpopular immigration related policy statement] during a time of high unemployment. I thought he was enough of a political veteran to avoid that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 04:40, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

== Not running ==

With the field appearing mostly set (excepting the possible inclusion of Palin) shouldn't those who are not running or have made no indication that they will run be removed from the list? As of now it's a mess to navigate and I have no idea how you can even rank those near the bottom of the chart. I propose that the table be drastically trimmed to include only Romney, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, Johnson, Huntsman, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, and the possible candidates of Palin and Giuliani. Those who have given absolutely no indication that they will run, like Peter King (for example) should not be in the grid. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:13, 28 August 2011 (EDT)
:Well, since no one has voiced their objection I'm going to go ahead and reduce the Republican list to the 10 mentioned above. I hope this is OK with everyone. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Also, the list of possible Democratic candidates...it's evident that Barack Obama will be the 2012 nominee. There has not been a word from any of these people about a primary challenge, only MSM speculation. I'm going to remove them too. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 11:30, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

This is a list of the likelihood of someone winning, not a list of who has announced or not announced. Rick Perry was in the top ten before he announced, for example, and rightly so. Others could still announce in the future as well. The conventions that actually nominate the candidates are still about a year in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:But how can you even organize the bottom of the list? How can one intelligently say, for example, that Ken Cuccinelli is more or less likely to win than Mitch Daniels, when '''both are not running?''' That is why my list removed all of those who clearly are not going to be nominated, and kept in Giuliani and Palin, who both have not announced but may in the near future. Plus, the last time the presumptive nominee of either party was not finalized before the convention was 1968, a political lifetime ago, and the last time a dark horse took the nomination was Wendell Willkie in 1940. The convention is a formality in modern politics. If anyone other than the candidates I kept in my revised list is the Presidential nominee in 2012 I'll eat my hat. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:01, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::I don't think the Ford-Reagan contest in 1976 was truly finalized until the convention, or the Taft-Eisenhower contest in 1952. So that would be 4 times out out of the last ten or so contested primaries when the convention picked the nominee. That 40% chance of the convention picking the nominee is very significant, particularly when none of the front-runners seems able at this time to win the support of a broad spectrum of Republican voters.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:10, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But that was before the maturity of the current primary system. 1952 is ancient history as far as primaries are concerned, and I will grant you 1976 but it is clear that Gerald Ford had the advantage of incumbency, and there were only 29 primaries. Since the current primary system has reached maturity, (the 80's), no convention has gone down to the wire. I, and an extremely large majority of election-watchers, just can't foresee the nominee being anyone not on my revised table. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:15, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The primary system is certainly changing, but perhaps back towards the old model, when a challenger party picks its nominee '''''as late as possible'''''. Hence the surprising delays already seen in the campaign season for the Republicans, which hardly any expert predicted. Those delays may continue until the latest possible time: the convention.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:25, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::I disagree. The primary system has been remarkably stable for the past 30 years. Also, I'm surprised you are OK with the convetion picking the candidate, as in all likelihood the delegates would not pick a Tea Party-friendly candidate. The delegates are party insiders, and are most likely closest politically to Mitt Romney. There is just a complete lack of evidence that anyone not on my revised list will be the nominee, and absent entirely unforeseen circumstances, I don't see how it is possible for the majority of delegates, which in 2012 will total around 1200, to cast their votes for someone who did not run in the primaries and not expect a complete disaster of a convention. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:33, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

@Aschlafly- Back on the original topic of my edit, would you at least agree that the table needs some trimming? By my count there are '''37''' Republican candidates listed. If someone came to the article page for information on the election and candidates, would you expect them to read about all 37? Again, I propose trimming it back to the list I had of 11 or 12 viable, declared (or possible, like Palin and Giuliani) candidates. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 18:21, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

: I do disagree with removing so much information, and disagree with the criterion of whether a candidate says he is running. Note, by the way, that this information is useful in considering who is likely to be picked as the vice presidential nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::Then perhaps there should be a separate table for possible VP candidates. Also, I still stand by all of the edits I have made, although I am more than happy to engage in debate with you. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 21:24, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

:::OK, let's debate whether [[Jeb Bush]] might be nominated. Even though hasn't declared his candidacy, he's also refused to rule it out. If no other candidate wins a majority of delegates, then Jeb Bush could easily be a compromise nominee.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:45, 1 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Here is an excellent news story that backs up my position that one of my 11 or 12 will be nominated: [[http://conservapedia.com/User_talk:AaronL]]

== Separate section for declared and undeclared ==

I would suggest splitting the names into a list of declared and undeclared, as well as removing those that have declined to run. I would think that (with the exception of former-Governor Palin) there is a considerable jump in likelihood between those declared and those undeclared. Particularly because the only way an undeclared candidate can be nominated is in the nominating convention, when (from my understanding) every nomination in the past 50+ years was decided before the convention because someone achieved enough delegate votes beforehand to secure the nomination. - [[User:JamesCA|JamesCA]] 08:26, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:This article isn't worth debating over. A few sections up Andy made it very clear that he sees no difference between declared and undeclared candidates, hence why Jeb Bush is ranked #2, '''ahead of 10 people who are actually running'''. And you're mostly correct about conventions being formalities, the only nomination decided at the convention was in 1976 (Republicans nominated Ford over Reagan). If you actually do the work and separate them or eliminate those definitely not running (as I did) it will just be reverted. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:01, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::The table is a ranking by likelihood. Whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood. We had Rick Perry high on the list well before he declared, and rightly so. Likewise, Jeb Bush should remain high on the list because he could still decide to enter the race and would immediately become the frontrunner if he did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:22, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::But the difference is, there were rumblings of Perry running for months before he declared. That has not been the case with Jeb Bush, as it is highly unlikely he will run. You claim that "whether someone has officially declared or not is only one of many factors affecting likelihood"; I would like to see your paramaters for determining this likelihood. Do you have a formula? [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 09:37, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

::::The introduction and table in the entry explain the factors and reasons, and you're welcome to improve them, while adhering to the concise, informative format of the entry.

::::Politics is like an iceberg: 90% is below the surface. ''Conservapedia'' is not limited to the 10% that occurs above the surface.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:45, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::A few points for Mr. Schlafly...
:::::*A list of 37 when 12 would suffice is hardly concise. And a list of 10 Democrats when 1 would suffice is the opposite of concise. Your speculation on the Democrats dumping Obama is just that, speculation. The mainstream media speculates about hypotheticals like this and you jump on them for it. The fact that Ralph Nader is listed is absolutely laughable, considering that A) he likely tipped the 2000 election to Bush, and B) he's not even a member of the Democratic Party.
:::::*I still don't understand why you are unwilling to at least remove those who have explicitly stated they are not running, e.g. Thune, Trump (whose reputation is shot), Pawlenty, Pataki, etc.
:::::*Some you have listed will never be nominated by the Republican Party. Dick Cheney is still deeply unpopular within the party; he will '''not''' be the nominee, and wouldn't be even if he was in good health (which he is not). Ken Cuccinelli will not be nominated because he is only a state-level elected official. These are just two.
:::::*You claim that 90% of politics is under the surface. While it is true that there are backdoor machinations and such that the public may not see, this is like claiming that the 90% of the iceberg below the surface is colored like a rainbow and is home to a society of firebreathing elves. Your talk of stalking horses and "Team Newt" (who is holding on for dear life and is having no clear influence on this race) and other nonsense hurts Conservapedia's credibility.
:::::*If you are so confident in your methodology, then please explain to me why, to pick one of many possible examples, Fred Thompson is ''exactly'' 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer, no more, and no less. I am eager to hear your answer to this and my other points. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 17:25, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::The list should be updated as the race progresses. But the goal is to be over-inclusive rather than overlook a potential contender completely. The full list also serves as a set of prospects for VP, both Republican and Democratic.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:49, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::You did not address any of the points I made. And the race '''has''' progressed: Pawlenty dropped out, Trump rose and fell, Bachmann tailed off (recently at least) and Perry entered the scene. Your goal of over-inclusiveness is admirable, but you have included every single Republican the average person has heard of as a potential nominee. And no matter what you say, the Democrats will not be naming people like Ralph Nader as VP, and the Republicans won't be naming the Attorney General of Virginia as nominee for anything anytime soon. I'd like to see an explanation of your methodology, and why Fred Thompson is 4 spots ahead of Jan Brewer. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 00:37, 17 September 2011 (EDT)

Andy,

I removed many candidates discussed earlier who, by all indications, will not be nominated for President. Since you have deemed yourself in charge of this article you can make a VP table if you would like. I and users should feel no obligation to work on this article if you are going to revert back to your, frankly, pretty awful version. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 12:36, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

: Your comments your welcome, and your additions would probably be welcome also. But deletions of information are generally disfavored on this site.

:In response to your question about Fred Thompson and Jan Brewer, Fred Thompson has run before and that gives him an edge over Jan Brewer. Whether someone has run before (or has name recognition due to a family member running before) is a big factor.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:19, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
::You didn't fully answer it. If you ae so confident in your ranking, then please tell me why Fred Thompson is '''exactly''' #31 and Brewer is '''exactly''' #35. [[User:AaronL|AaronL]] 13:34, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Ron Paul taken seriously by the media now? ==

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, I contributed the maximum allowable contribution to his presidential campaign this go round and last one. The media does not take him seriously, he is very serious but the media is not. Even FOX treats him like a joke. I apologize for the quality and the fact that it's the Daily show but take a look at this piece right after the [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUXBz6AGJFM Aimes Iowa straw poll.] --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 16:45, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

==Moving to [[United States Presidential Election 2012]] ?==
Because Presidential Election 2012 may also refer to [[Finnish Presidential Election 2012]], [[French Presidential Election 2012]], [[Indian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Mexican Presidential Election 2012]], [[Russian Presidential Election 2012]], [[Taiwanese Presidential Election 2012]], [[Venezuelan Presidential Election 2012]]--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 22:57, 25 September 2011 (EDT)
::Does anybody care ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:27, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Be Bold! Atleast wikipedia would say that haha. I'd say move this and then make this article a disamb.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:29, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::ARamis, this isn't Wikipedia. We're not trying to be "globalist". I think people know to which election this entry is referring.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:35, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::Oops, already did it. Revert if you think it is better the other way.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:37, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, why not trying to be globalist ? What's wrong with it ?--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 16:38, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::I get what you mean, although if we kept it with the US election the primary,we could give the disamb be its own page, linking to all of them (with a "If your looking for others, go to here") at the top to take you there? Fair compromise.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 16:42, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::::::In response to ARamis, globalism is counterproductive when it causes more confusion than progress, as illustrated by requiring visitors to click twice in order to find the "Presidential Election 2012" in the U.S. that most will be looking for. Another example of misguided globalism was the failed effort to convert the U.S. to the metric system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:55, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

::::::::Here I created a new page [[Presidential Election 2012 (disambiguation)]] with a link in this page.--[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 17:07, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush? ==

I'm going to revert BrentH's edit...he should know this article is Mr. Schlafly's domain and any attempt to change it is forbidden. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:53, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
:Since WHEN?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:54, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::Have you observed this article? I have, as a long-time lurker. Andy Schlafly rejects any attempt by any editor to change the article. Another user tried to trim it and Andy refused to consent. It's not a de jure policy, but it most certainly is a de facto one. [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 18:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

:::Edits to this and other entries are welcome if they have a logical or factual basis (and comply with the simple [[Conservapedia Commandments]]).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:59, 26 September 2011 (EDT)
::::But edits have '''not''' been welcome to it. There have been attempts to remove people who are not running, and they have been rejected. Are you OK with the ranking as of BrentH's last edit, which has Jeb Bush (who is not even running) in 1st ahead of numerous declared candidates? [[User:GeraldA|GeraldA]] 19:01, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== When will Jeb be moved down the list? ==

I think the chances of Jeb running are extremely slim, How long should we wait (with out him making any moves) to move him down? --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 21:57, 26 September 2011 (EDT)

== Sarah Palin not running ==

She just announced. --[[User:CalebN|CalebN]] 18:45, 5 October 2011 (EDT)

== It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him ==

It's time to downgrade Cain - third woman has come forth accusing him of harassment.[http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2011/11/Herman-Cain-sexual-harassment-accuser--560559/1] I think the voter "three strikes and your out" rule now kicks in. :) I never liked Cain as he is a bankster sympathizer who formerly worked the [[Federal Reserve]]. WorldNetDaily recently had an article declaring the race is now going to be a battle between [[Ron Paul]] and Rommey as they have firm supporters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:50, 2 November 2011 (EDT)

== Democrat list ==

Is it time to remove the section on possible Democratic challengers? If someone were going to run against Obama in the primaries they would have announced by now. Seems they're dumb enough to back an obviously losing horse this time. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 09:37, 6 December 2011 (EST)

== Long Form Republican Nomination ==

It says that Mitt Romney can't win Iowa even though he did...this should be updated.

== Reverted ==

I reverted the deletions of both Republicans and Democrats. Instead of deleting, they should be segregated into different categories - still in race, dropped out, considered but didn't run, never thought about it. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:30, 19 January 2012 (EST)

== Can someone explain this to me... ==

Romney "won" Iowa by 8 votes, but when the count is finished and certified, it is considered a "virtual tie" when Santorum wins by 34 votes? Sorry, Romney lost and Santorum won - by a bigger margin than Romney's declared win. --[[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 14:48, 19 January 2012 (EST)

== Democrat list again ==

I'm sorry but the list of potential Democrat challengers at this stage looks silly. Other than a few joke candidates, no Democrat is running against Obama, and it's really too late for anyone to get in the race. Barring something like a photograph of him praying to Mecca or his Kenyan birth certificate surfacing, he will be the Democrat nominee. Some of the polls cited in that section are almost two years old, and no longer relevant. Time to trim the section. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 15:23, 23 January 2012 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Gingrich Administration

2011-12-19T18:11:47Z

AngusT:

To me the obvious choice for AG would be John Yoo. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 08:16, 13 December 2011 (EST)
:The position calls for an attorney, yes, but one who is ideally also knowledgeable about other fields, such as technology/engineering (so he can take into account the effects of rapid technological development on the law), education (so that he can make the tough decisions easy to understand for the regular guy), and religion (so that his decisions are guided by faith, a close knowledge of Biblical text is a must). [[User:ScottDG|ScottDG]] 19:59, 13 December 2011 (EST)
::I'd go further and say that he has to be so knowledgable about the Bible that he can identify the liberal bias inserted by the famously leftist 17th century English. And given the importance of the internet in modern society a thorough knowledge of blogs, or even wikis, is essential too. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 20:11, 13 December 2011 (EST)

This article is just silly. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 08:48, 19 December 2011 (EST)

I think Hannity is the most likely for Press Secretary, and Ron Paul would be a great Treasury Secretary. He'd get us back on the Gold Standard, eliminate the Fed, and work to overturn Dodd-Frank. Should these be added to the article? [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 13:02, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Here are my picks, assuming Gingrich is President:
*VP: Marco Rubio
*State: Rick Perry
*Treasury: Ron Paul
*Defense: John McCain
*Justice: John Yoo
*Interior: Sarah Palin
*Agriculture: unsure
*Commerce: department will be eliminated
*Labor: Scott Walker
*Health and Human Services: Mike Huckabee
*Housing and Urban Development: unsure
*Transportation: unsure
*Energy: Dick Cheney
*Education: department will be eliminated
*Veteran's Affairs: Bob Dole, if he isn't deemed too old
*Homeland Security: Michelle Bachmann
*Press Secretary: Sean Hannity (though he'd have to take a huge pay cut, so maybe not)
*National Security Advisor: Paul Wolfowitz
I'd be curious to hear others' thoughts as well. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 13:11, 19 December 2011 (EST)

Talk:Essay: Gingrich Administration

2011-12-19T18:02:00Z

AngusT:

Talk:Essay: Gingrich Administration

2011-12-19T18:01:59Z

AngusT:

Talk:Essay: Gingrich Administration

2011-12-13T13:16:50Z

AngusT: Created page with "To me the obvious choice for AG would be John Yoo. ~~~~"

To me the obvious choice for AG would be John Yoo. [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 08:16, 13 December 2011 (EST)

George Takei

2011-12-13T01:39:43Z

AngusT:

'''George Takei''' (b. 1937) is an American film and television actor and [[homosexual recruiter]]. He is best known for the role of Mr. [[Sulu]] in the [[Star Trek (original series)|Star Trek]] television series, and in subsequent feature-length movies that continued the Star Trek franchise into the 1990s. In September 2008, the [[homosexual]] Takei had a [[gay marriage]] with his longtime business manager, Brad Altman, in [[California]] <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7616129.stm</ref>.

Takei has a strong following on the [[liberal]] website [[Facebook]], where he uses his status among science fiction fans to promote his gay lifestyle and other liberal causes.

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Takei, George}}

[[Category:Actors]]

George Takei

2011-12-13T01:38:21Z

AngusT:

'''George Takei''' (b. 1937) is an American film and television actor and [[homosexual recruiter]]. He is best known for the role of Mr. [[Sulu]] in the [[Star Trek (original series)|Star Trek]] television series, and in subsequent feature-length movies that continued the Star Trek franchise into the 1990s. In September 2008, the [[homosexual]] Takei had a [[gay marriage]] with his longtime business manager, Brad Altman, in [[California]] <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7616129.stm</ref>.

== References ==

<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT:Takei, George}}

[[Category:Actors]]

Talk:United States presidential election, 2012

2011-12-06T14:37:03Z

AngusT: /* Democrat list */ new section

Talk:Essay: "We Are atheism" campaign faces some challenges

2011-12-06T13:16:50Z

AngusT: /* Question … */

== Numbers ==

I'm not too sure about this essay because it gives atheists an opportunity to score some points. Both QE! and "We are atheism" have Facebook pages. The atheists have 3,208 likes since August. QE! has 21 since May. I'm not saying these numbers mean anything, but you better believe that atheists are going to. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 18:23, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::First, where is this Question evolution! Facebook page that you are referring to? Second, unlike [[global atheism]], the Question evolution! campaign is growing.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/our-growing-question-evolution-campaign.html] Third, has the [[Question evolution! campaign]] decided to pursue an aggressive Facebook campaign yet or are there other tactics/strategies being employed at this stage? Last time I checked, Rome wasn't built in a day! :) Lastly, I am not impressed by a bunch of village atheists doing some Facebook likes. Global atheism is shrinking and continues to shrink. There are 10+ major obstacles facing American Atheism and global atheism. See: [[Essay: Will American atheism be cut by at least 50%?|10 major obstacles for atheism]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:59, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::Go to Facebook and search for "Question Evolution," and you'll find it. As for other tactics they're pursuing, you tell me. This is the only place I've heard about QE! I'd say that not promoting themselves on Facebook would be a serious mistake though. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 18:49, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::One major difference between Western atheists and Christians is that Christians have patience and do not have the childish expectation of overnight results. I suggest reading Jesus's [http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/parable-of-the-mustard-seed-faq.htm mustard seed parable] and reading this article [http://users.adam.com.au/bstett/BChristianIncrease12.htm 2000 years of Christian increase]. Did Christianity start out with 12 disciples? How big is it now? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:56, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::By the way ClearView, do you fit the stereotypes found [http://conservapedia.com/Essay:_%22We_are_atheism%22_campaign_faces_some_challenges#Overcoming_the_stereotypes.3F_You_be_the_judge.21 HERE?] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:03, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Why would I? I'm not an atheist. What's your problem that you immediately start throwing accusations at the faith of anyone who doesn't agree with you? --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 19:09, 5 December 2011 (EST)
I just asked a simple question. You seem awful defensive. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:17, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:You asked an offensive question, and implied that I'm an atheist. That was completely uncalled for. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 19:18, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::You are not an atheist? Well, I am glad we can agree that atheism has no validity. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::One last thing, what do you think about [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/weareatheism.com/ this graph?] and [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/weareatheism.com this report] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:47, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::::I think I'm not interested in what you have to say until you apologise for insulting me. --[[User:ClearView2011|ClearView2011]] 19:52, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::ClearView, let me give you clearer view of a certain Question evolution! campaign group and their recent Facebook exploits: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2011/12/facebook-and-our-question-evolution.html Facebook and our Question evolution! campaign group]. Many atheists make the mistake of thinking only things they can see are occurring which certainly has its limitations. :) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVDGgphmcX8&feature=related A good man always knows his limitations.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:40, 5 December 2011 (EST)

== The website WeAreAtheism.com desperately needs some MACHISMO! ==

Take a look at [http://siteanalytics.compete.com/weareatheism.com/ this graph] as far as the web traffic at WeAreAtheism.com :) Take a look at [http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/weareatheism.com this report.] The website is not exactly doing as well as [[Tim Tebow]]. :) Please see: [[Essay: Atheism vs. Tim Tebow - Tebow wins]]. The website definitely could use some [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|MACHISMO]]! :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:57, 5 December 2011 (EST)

== Question … ==

Conservative, I can see how you link atheism to obesity and that global atheism is shrinking, however the devil's advocate in me also knows that globally there's increasing rates of obesity. In fact the United States, one of the most religious countries, is also one of the most obese. How can this be? [[User:FelixD|FelixD]] 15:59, 5 December 2011 (EST)

::I know public school educated people often have low reading comprehension levels and are indoctrinated into atheism, but I would suggest reading the [[Atheism and obesity]] article and its associated talk page a few more times. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:11, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::(edit conflict)Worldwide atheism is decreasing, but in some specific regions it is increasing (along with those regions' populations, of course, rather than Christians being deconverted). [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:12, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:::Where? In secular Europe which is in the midst of financial collapse and losing its influence? In some liberal states in the United States which people are moving out of? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:22, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::::That's odd. I was pretty sure that at one point recently some states held increasing rates of atheism. I guess those figures are misleading though. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 20:38, 5 December 2011 (EST)
:My point is that even if atheism is growing in a particular state of the United States that particular state maybe losing influence as the total population of a state may be experiencing a net loss of citizens or stagnant in its growth. For example, California and New York have been losing people in recent years. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:19, 5 December 2011 (EST)
::According to the Census, in the last 10 years the populations of NY grew by 2.1% (not much, but still an increase) and California by 10% (above the national average). So despite growth in these places atheism is still on the decline! [[User:AngusT|AngusT]] 08:16, 6 December 2011 (EST)

Occupy Wall Street

2011-12-01T12:48:41Z

AngusT:

Leftist protest '''Occupy Wall Street''' is an ongoing anti-capitalism rally and rapists' and murderers' <ref>[http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-11-11/bay-area/30390080_1_highland-hospital-shooting-victim-encampment]</ref> playground, beginning as an [[astroturfing]] campaign funded by a [[George Soros]] group called ''Adbusters'', with the ultimate goal of replacing the [[United States Constitution]] with a form of government akin to communist totalitarianism<ref>http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-ows-demands/</ref>. Invoked by [[Bill Ayers]] "Days of Rage," the first Occupy protest was staged on September 17, 2011 in [[New York City]] after months of planning by co-founder of [[SEIU]] Stephen Lerner.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=345861 Protesters begin 'Day of Rage' against capitalism], ''[[WND]]'', September 17, 2011.</ref><ref name=SorosMoney>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/video-exposing-occupy-wall-street-was-organized-from-day-one-by-seiu-acorn-front-the-working-family-party-and-how-they-all-tie-to-the-obama-administration-dnc-democratic-socialists-of-america/ Video Exposing How 'Occupy Wall Street' Was Organized From Day One By SEIU/ACORN Fromt – The Working Family Party, And How They All Tie To The Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America Tides And George Soros], ''[[The Blaze]]'', October 7, 2011.</ref><ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/whos-behind-wall-st-protests-110834998.html Who's behind the Wall Street protests?], ''Reuters'' (news.yahoo.com), October 13, 2011.</ref> Occupy Wall Street protesters consist of radicals, anarchists, [[Nihilism|nihilists]], college students, hippies, special interest groups, [[labor unions]] and vendors. They dislike [[capitalism]], blame [[greed]], [[Wall Street]] and the [[banks]] for economic hardship, and while claiming to be peaceful, occupiers have been seen spitting on U.S. Military personnel,<ref>[http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013 Occupy Boston Protesters Spit On Coast Guard Member], myfoxboston.com, October 13, 2011.</ref> committing acts of rage, violence, vandalism, arson, rape, drug use, public masturbation, public deification, littering, public nudity, public urination, rioting, and other acts of assault. Similar 'Occupy' demonstrations have spread to over 200 cities in the [[United States]] and [[Canada]]<ref>http://www.occupywallstreetevents.com</ref> (often on a much smaller scale). The resulting mayhem has led to thousands of arrests and severe restrictions placed upon the protesters, which included the recent dismantling of tent "cites" on public and private property and, in some locations, use of force and nonlethal weapons on protesters who were in violation of police orders.<ref>Henderson, Peter and Randewick, Noel. "Oakland protesters plan march, mayor apologizes." October 29, 2011. Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/29/us-usa-wallstreet-protests-oakland-idUSTRE79R5LH20111029</ref><ref>"California campus police on leave after pepper-spraying." November 21, 2011. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/11/20/us/california-occupy-pepperspray/index.html</ref> As of November 2011, the cost to local municipalities, funded by taxpayers, approaches $20,000,000. <ref>[http://www.verumserum.com/?p=32348 Taxpayers Get the Bill for Occupations: $18.4M (Updated 11/23), Verum Serum, November 4, 2011]</ref>

The Occupy Wall Street movement was inspired by the Arab Spring protests in Cairo that were organized by the [[Muslim Brotherhood]].<ref>[http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40397 “Day of Rage” Obama re-election team in disguise?], ''Canada Free Press'', September 2011 (Accessed October 16, 2011.</ref><ref>http://biggovernment.com/taylorking/2011/01/29/did-muslim-brotherhood-learn-day-of-rage-egypt-protest-tactics-from-obama-allies-bill-ayers-and-code-pink/</ref> Egyptians camped out in Tahir Square until [[Hosni Mubarak]] resigned.

==Historical roots==
[[File:Protesters of Occupy Knoxville oct 2011.jpg|thumb|250px|Protesters in Knoxville, Oct 2011.]]
Inspired by the Arab Spring protests in Cairo that were organized by the [[Muslim Brotherhood]], the Occupy Wall Street protesters dubbed the September 17 rally a "Day of Rage," which finds its origin in "Days of Rage," a violent set of riots waged in Chicago in 1969 by the [[Weather Underground]] [[terrorist]]s Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. Staged by [[ACORN]] and SEIU affiliates, the September 17 US Day of Rage’s mission statement is “To help facilitate state and city level organization, and to organize the federal protest at the U.S. Capitol.”<ref name=SEIUstephenlerner>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/seius-stephen-lerner-invokes-bill-ayers-days-of-rage-to-take-down-wall-street-this-september/</ref>

During an interview with ''Chicago Mag'', Ayers, who was featured on a magazine cover while standing on the American flag, with no regrets, summed up his riot’s intended purpose, stating,
{{Cquote|Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents—that‘s where it’s really at.<ref>http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/</ref><ref name=SEIUstephenlerner/><ref>http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/index.php?cparticle=2&siarticle=1#artanc</ref>}}

* In a display of anti-American hatred, 'Occupy Portland' protesters rallied behind a sort of theme song, called "F*ck the USA."<ref>''Warning: Explicit Language used in linked Video recorded at an 'Occupy' rally in Portland, OR.'' [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKzGbgSe8lg&sns=em Occupy Portland Protesters Sing "F*ck the USA"], Recorded and Uploaded to [[YouTube]] on October 15, 2011.</ref>
* A protester identified only as OleJodie was photographed defecating on a New York City police car.
* An Occupy Seattle protester was arrested on October 18 for exposing himself at least five times to children at Westlake Park.<ref>http://www.komonews.com/news/local/132064518.html</ref>
* An “Occupy Cleveland” protester reported to the police that she was raped in her tent over the weekend on October 15 or 16.<ref>http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/girl-raped-at-occupy-cleveland-protest/</ref>
* A leftist radical at the Occupy Dayton protest declared, “F*** the military, f*** your flag, f*** the police.”<ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-dayton-protester-f-the-military-f-your-flag-f-the-police/ Occupy Dayton Protester: ‘F*** The Military, F*** Your Flag, F*** The Police'], ''The Blaze'', October 23, 2011.</ref>
* A gay [[porn]] movie was filmed at Occupy Oakland. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/25/gay-porn-movie-filmed-occupy-oakland Gay Porn Movie Filmed At Occupy Oakland, Newsbusters.org, November 25, 2011]</ref>
* Occupy Wall Street Sympathizer Threatens To Murder GOP Gov. [[Nikki Haley]] <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/11/26/occupy-wall-street-sympathizer-threatens-to-murder-gop-gov-nikki-haley/ Occupy Wall Street Sympathizer Threatens To Murder GOP Gov. Nikki Haley, Weasel Zippers, November 26, 2011]</ref>

Occupy Wall Street is a protest attempting to counter the influence of the real grassroots movement, the [[Tea Party Movement]]. The protest proclaims that thousands of cities in [[America]] will join their cause and that it will spread internationally to hundreds of cities. Many misinformed people see the protests as a worthy cause, with some falsely relating it to the Tea Party.

Occupy Wall Street is not and never will be worthy of legitimate comparison to the Tea Party Movement. The two movements, as OWS protestors so easily demonstrate with their offensive and criminal behavior, share absolutely nothing in common. As Barack Obama reaffirms his commitment to supporting the movement, the president has attempted to discredit the Tea Party by claiming it's related.<ref>[http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-occupy-wall-street-we-are-their-side_598251.html Obama on Occupy Wall Street: 'We Are on Their Side'], ''[[Weekly Standard]]'', October 18, 2011.</ref> The Tea Party movement is a collection of concerned citizens that care for future generations, fighting for austerity and an honest national government. Wall Street protesters are selfish, make silly demands, and have misguided rage toward job creators. Over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters have been arrested during its first month; after more than two years, zero arrests have been made in the Tea Party movement.

Unlike the Tea Party, [[Obama]] was quick to acknowledge Occupy Wall Street, offering it credibility and a share of frustration and support. <ref>[http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-draws-closer-to-occupy-wall-street-says-obama-is-fighting-for-interests-of-the-99-2011-10 White House Draws Closer To Occupy Wall Street, Says Obama Is Fighting For The Interests Of The 99%, Business Insiders, October 16, 2011]</ref> In fact, one chant you will not find at these any of these protests is anger directed at Barack Obama. Nancy Pelosi cried upon learning about the Tea Party; she offered her blessings to Occupy Wall Street. [[Rush Limbaugh]] argued that this protest was organized by the [[White House]] and Obama. [[Bill O'Reilly]] says the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are "far-left loons" and "anarchists."<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/10/09/wapos-wemple-really-disgraceful-oreilly-called-protesters-far-left-lo WaPo's Wemple: 'Really Disgraceful' That O'Reilly Called Protesters 'Far-Left Loons' and 'Anarchists'], ''[[Newsbusters]]'', October 8, 2011.</ref>.

Other reports indicate that sanitation is becoming a concern for Occupy Wall Street as the park where the protesters camp hasn't been cleaned since September 16 and [[Michael Bloomberg | Mayor Bloomberg]] indicates that the protests are costing NYC tourism dollars.

===Media Collaboration===

The [[Lamestream media | Democrat Media Complex]] is willfully covering up the violence, [[vandalism]], and anti-Semitism that truly does define the occupy movement. [[Conservative media]] has documented more than 300 incidents of their outrageous and appalling behavior. [http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/10/28/occupywallstreet-the-rap-sheet-so-far/ See the *UPDATED* #OccupyWallStreet: The Rap Sheet, So Far]

[[Andrew Breitbart]]'s BigJournalism website shows emails from well-known media members trying to facilitate a message for the protesters, insisting on demands so as to further report on the movement. <ref>[http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/10/16/journolist-2-0-occupydc-emails-show-msm-dylan-ratigan-working-with-protesters-to-craft-message/ Journolist 2.0: Occupy Wall Street Emails Show MSM, Dylan Ratigan, Working With Protesters To Craft Message, BigJournalism, October 16, 2011]</ref> Rush Limbaugh says the numbers of people involved in the protest are unusually small, troubling the MSM. <ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/17/journalists_are_advising_protesters Journalists are Advising Protesters, Rush Limbaugh.com, October 17, 2011]</ref>

[[The Daily Caller]] is reporting that a host for government-funded [[NPR]], Lisa Simeone has emerged as spokeswoman for the “Occupy D.C.” movement
<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/19/radio-host-with-ties-to-npr-becomes-spokeswoman-for-occupy-dc/?test=latestnews#ixzz1bI7VedDL Host of NPR Show Also Serves as Spokeswoman for 'Occupy D.C.', Fox News, October 19, 2011]</ref>

[[New York Times]] reporter Natasha Lennard is not merely covering the protests, but is also taking part in planning and executing them. <ref>[http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/10/24/nyt_reporter_outed_as_protester_occupy_wall_street_caught_putting_its_money_in_an_evil_corporate_bank NYT Reporter Outed as Protester; Occupy Wall Street Caught Putting Its Money in an Evil, Corporate Bank, Rush Limbaugh.com, October 24, 2011]</ref>

The [[Washington Post]] and the New York Times have generated a total of 224 stories and opinion pieces praising the protest movement. <ref>[http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2011/10/28/postnyt-182000-words-occupy-wall-street-and-counting Post/NYT: 182,000 Words on Occupy Wall Street and Counting, Newsbusters.org, October 27, 2011]</ref>

109 clips, or 87 percent of the coverage by ABC, CBS, & NBC have produced positive protest stories. In addition, they ran 33 stories or segments about "Occupy" within the first 11 days and only 13 stories for the first year of the Tea Party movement. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/10/28/study-big-three-tv-networks-have-devoted-more-than-double-the-coverage-to-occupy-wall-street-than-the-tea-party-87-has-been-positive/ Study: Big Three TV Networks Have Devoted More Than Double The Coverage To Occupy Wall Street, Weasel Zippers, October 27, 2011]</ref>

===Astroturfing===
Reports show that Wall Street protesters are being paid to march. Manufactured, professional designed protest signs indicate [[liberal]] money is influencing the protests.<ref>[http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street”], ''New American'', October 5, 2011.</ref> A re-branded [[ACORN]] is involved with the 'Occupy' protests.<ref name=SorosMoney/>

===Lack of Direction===
[[Conservative]]s mock the movement as Occupy Sesame Street, for its childishness. Conservatives know that it's the government devaluing our currency, weakening our economy and plundering money from the next generation -- Wall Street and the banks aren't to blame. Republicans [[Mitt Romney]] and [[Herman Cain]] have denounced the protests as [[class warfare]]. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/congressional-dems-rally-in-support-of-occupy-wall-street/#ixzz1aIny1Ke7 Congressional Dems rally in support of ‘Occupy Wall Street’], Daily Caller, October 6, 2011.</ref> Congressman [[Peter King]] says the protesters have no direction, calls the protesters losers who live in dirt. <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/11/17/gop-rep-peter-king-wall-street-occupiers-are-losers-that-live-in-dirt/ GOP Rep. Peter King: Wall Street Occupiers Are “Losers” That “Live In Dirt”, Weasel Zippers, November 17, 2011]</ref>

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to sign a petition in support of the protesters. President Obama said that the movement reflected "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works." <ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/186499-poll-finds-more-than-half-of-all-americans-aware-of-occupy-wall-street-protests?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed Poll finds majority of Americans aware of Occupy Wall Street protests], ''The Hill'', October 10, 2011.</ref>

==The 99% Declaration==
As part of Occupy Wall Street, a [[progressive]]-[[socialist]] organization called the 99 Percent Declaration Working Group issued the following "Declaration" on October 7, 2011.<ref>[https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ The99PercentDeclaration]</ref>

{{Cquote|WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

WE, THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in order to form a more perfect Union, by, for and of the PEOPLE, shall elect and convene a NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY beginning on July 4, 2012 in the City Of Philadelphia.

I. Election of Delegates:

The People, consisting of all United States citizens who have reached the age of 18, regardless of party affiliation and voter registration status, shall elect Two Delegates, one male and one female, by direct vote, from each of the existing 435 Congressional Districts to represent the People at the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY in Philadelphia. Said Assembly shall convene on July 4, 2012 in the city of Philadelphia.

The office of Delegate shall be open to all United States citizens who have reached the age of 18. Election Committees, elected by local General Assemblies from all over the United States, shall coordinate with the 99 Percent Declaration Working Group (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the99declaration/) to organize, coordinate and fund this national election by direct democratic voting. The Election Committees shall operate like the original Committees of Correspondence did '''before''' the first American Revolution.

II. Meeting of the National General Assembly and Deliberation:

At the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, the 870 Delegates shall set forth, consider and vote upon a PETITION OF GRIEVANCES to be submitted to all members of Congress, The Supreme Court and President and each of the political candidates running in the nationwide Congressional and Presidential election in November 2012. The Delegates of the National General Assembly shall vote upon and implement their own agenda, propagate their own rules and elect or appoint committee members as the Delegates see fit to accomplish their goal of presenting a PETITION OF GRIEVANCES from the 99% of Americans before the 2012 elections.

III. Proposed Petition for the Redress of Grievances:

The PETITION OF GRIEVANCES shall be non-partisan and address the critical issues now confronting the People of the United States. The Delegates shall deliberate and vote upon proposals for the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES in consultation with the People as the delegates to the first two Continental Congresses did. Below is a suggested list of grievances respectfully submitted by the OWS Working Group on the 99% Declaration. The final version of the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES voted upon by the Delegates of the National General Assembly MAY or MAY NOT include the following suggested issues:

1. Implementing an immediate ban on all private contributions of money and gifts, to all politicians in federal office, from Individuals, Corporations, Political Action Committees, Super Political Action Committees, Lobbyists, Unions and all other private sources of money to be '''replaced by''' the fair and equal '''public financing''' of all federal political campaigns. We categorically REJECT the concept that money is equal to free speech because if that were so, then only the wealthiest would have a voice. These actions must be taken because it has become clear that '''politicians''' in the United States cannot regulate themselves and '''have become the exclusive''' [[Seventeenth Amendment|representatives of corporations, unions]] and the very wealthy who spend vast sums of money on political campaigns to influence the candidates’ decisions and ensure their reelection year after year.

2. The immediate reversal, even if it requires a Constitutional Amendment, of the outrageous and anti-democratic holding in the "Citizens United" case by the Supreme Court, which equates the payment of money by corporations, wealthy individuals and unions to politicians with free speech. We, the People, demand that institutional bribery and corruption not be deemed protected speech.

3. Prohibiting all federal public officials and their immediate family members, whether elected or appointed, from EVER being employed by any corporation they regulate while in office and/or holding any stock or shares in any corporation they regulate while in office until a full 5 years after their term is completed.

4. A complete lifetime ban on accepting all gifts, services, money, directly or indirectly, to any elected or appointed federal officials or their immediate family members, from any person, corporation, union or other entity that the public official was charged to regulate while in office.

5. A complete reformation of the United States Tax Code to require ALL citizens to '''pay''' a fair share of a [[progressive]], graduated [[income tax]] by '''eliminating''' loopholes, unfair '''tax breaks''', exemptions and deductions, subsidies (e.g. oil, gas and farm) and ending all other methods of evading taxes. The current system of taxation favors the wealthiest Americans, many of whom, pay fewer taxes to the United States Treasury than citizens who earn much less and pay a much higher percentage of income in taxes to the United States Treasury. We, like [[Warren Buffett]], find this income tax disparity to be fundamentally unjust.

6. Medicare for all American citizens or another [[socialized medicine|single-payer healthcare system]], adjusted by a means test (i.e. citizens who can afford it may opt-out and pay their own health insurance or opt-in and pay a means tested premium). The Medicaid program, fraught with [[corruption]] and [[fraud]], will be eliminated '''except for the purpose of providing''' emergency room care to [[illegal aliens|indigent non-citizens]] who will not be covered by the '''single-payer program'''.

7. New comprehensive regulations to '''give''' the [[Environmental Protection Agency]] '''expanded powers''' to shut down corporations, businesses or any entities that intentionally or recklessly damage the environment and/or criminally prosecute individuals who intentionally damage the environment. We also demand the immediate adoption of the most recent '''international protocols''', including the "Washington Declaration" to [[Cap and Trade|cap carbon emissions]] and implement new and existing programs to transition away from fossil fuels to reusable or carbon neutral sources of power.

8. Adoption of an immediate plan to reduce the national debt to a sustainable percentage of GDP by 2020. Reduction of the national debt to be achieved by BOTH a cut in spending to corporations engaged in perpetual war for profit, the "healthcare" industry, the pharmaceutical industry and all other sectors that use the federal budget as their income stream AND a truly '''progressive income tax code''' that does not allow the wealthy and corporations to evade taxes through excessive deductions, subsidies and loopholes. We agree that spending cuts are necessary but those cuts must be made to facilitate what is best for the People of the United States of America, not multinational and domestic corporations.

9. '''Passage of''' a comprehensive job and job-training act like the [[Stimulus bill|American Jobs Act]] to employ our citizens in jobs that are available with specialized training and by putting People to work now by repairing America's crumbling infrastructure. We also recommend the '''establishment of an online international job exchange''' to match employers with skilled workers or employers willing to train workers in 21st century skills.

10. Student loan debt relief. Our young People and students are more than $830 billion in debt from education loans alone. Payment and interest on these debts should be deferred for periods of unemployment and the principal on these loans reduced '''using a corporate tax surcharge.'''

11. Immediate passage of the [[Dream Act]] and comprehensive immigration and border security reform including offering visas, lawful permanent resident status and citizenship to the world’s brightest People to stay and work in our industries and schools after they obtain their education and training in the United States.

12. Recalling all military personnel at all non-essential bases and refocusing national defense goals to address threats posed by the geopolitics of the 21st century, including terrorism and limiting the large scale deployment of military forces to instances where Congressional approval has been granted to counter the Military Industrial Complex's goal of perpetual war for profit.

13. '''Mandating new educational goals''' to train the American public to perform jobs in a 21st Century economy, '''particularly''' in the areas of technology and '''green energy''', taking into consideration the redundancy caused by technology and the inexpensive cost of labor in China, India and other countries and paying our teachers a competitive salary commensurate with the salaries of employees in the private sector with similar skills.

14. Subject to the elimination of corporate tax loopholes and exploited exemptions and deductions stated above, offering tax incentives to businesses to remain in the United States and hire its citizens rather than outsource jobs and reconstruct the manufacturing capacity of the United States. In conjunction with a new jobs act, '''reinstitution''' of the Works Progress Administration and Civilian Conservation Corps '''or a similar emergency governmental agency tasked with creating new public works projects''' to provide jobs to the 46 million People living in poverty, the 9.1% unemployed and 10% underemployed.

15. Implementing of immediate legislation to encourage China and our other trading partners to end currency manipulation and reduce the trade deficit.

16. Immediate reenactment of the Glass-Steagall Act and '''increased regulation of Wall Street and the financial industry''' by the SEC, FINRA and the other financial regulators, and the commencement of a Justice Department criminal investigations into the Securities and Banking industries practices that led to the collapse of markets, $700 billion bail-out, and financial firm failures in 2007-2008.

17. Adoption of a plan similar to President Clinton’s proposal to end the mortgage crisis and instead of the Federal Reserve continuing to lower interest rates for loans to banks who are refusing to loan to small businesses and consumers, '''the Federal Reserve shall buy all underwater or foreclosed mortgages and refinance these debts at 1% or less to be managed by the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau''' (and foreclosure task force described below) because 1% or less is the interest rate the Federal Reserve loans to the banks directly who hoard the cash rather than loan it to the People and small businesses.

18. An immediate one year freeze on '''all foreclosures to be reviewed by an independent foreclosure task force appointed by Congress and the Executive Branch''' to (in conjunction with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ) determine, on a case by case basis, whether foreclosure proceedings should continue based on the circumstances of each homeowner and propriety of the financial institution's conduct.

19. Subject to the above ban on all private money and gifts in politics, to enact '''additional campaign finance reform requiring''' free air time and '''public campaign finances''' to all candidates who obtain sufficient petition signatures and/or votes to participate in the primaries and/or electoral process, to shorten the campaign season and to allow voting on weekends and holidays.

20. An immediate withdrawal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and a substantial increase in the amount of funding needed for veteran job placement and the treatment of the physical and emotional injuries sustained by veterans in these wars. Our veterans are committing suicide at an unprecedented rate and we must help now.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that IF the PETITION OF GRIEVANCES approved by the 870 Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY in consultation with the PEOPLE, is not acted upon by Congress, the President, and Supreme Court, to the satisfaction of the Delegates of the NATIONAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, said Delegates shall organize a THIRD, COMPLETELY NON-PARTISAN, INDEPENDENT POLITICAL PARTY to run candidates for every available Congressional seat in the mid-term election of 2014 and again in 2016 until all vestiges of the existing corrupt corporatocracy have been removed by the ballot box.}}

==13 demands==
The content below is listed on the Occupy Wall Street website by an affiliated protester. OWS has made their intentions known that it is an unofficial post and they do not have an official list of demands. Per their website,

{{cquote|Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.}}

===Other Demands===

On September 21, 2011, an unofficial list of 11 demands (each labeled "our one demand") was posted on the Occupy Wall Street website from "the fifth communiqué."<ref>[http://occupywallst.org/article/a-message-from-occupied-wall-street-day-five/ A Message From Occupy Wall Street]</ref> The group claimed the following demands.
{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more wealth than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly eighty percent of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track.

Ending the modern gilded age is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly 15% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing.

Ending political corruption is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of Americans did not have work.

Ending joblessness is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of America lived in poverty.

Ending poverty is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly fifty million Americans were without health insurance.

Ending health-profiteering is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.

Ending war is our one demand.}}

== Occupy Wall Street and anti-semitism ==

Several anti-Semitic incidents have been reported during "Occupy Wall Street" demonstrations in New York as Jews were blamed for the turmoil in America's financial markets. In addition, anti-Israel signs were raised against "Israel's occupation of Gaza". <ref>[http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-has-an-anti-semitism-problem/ Occupy Wall Street Has an Anti-Semitism Problem, Commentary.com, October 11, 2011]</ref> Anti-Semitic sign bearers and speakers who have latched onto the Occupy demonstrations have Jewish leaders in Chicago concerned. <ref>[http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4135361,00.html Anti-Semitism tainting Occupy Wall Street protests, Ynet News, October 16, 2011]</ref>

Occupy Boston protest camp marched to the building that houses the Israeli consulate and held a brief sit-in in the building’s lobby. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/stunner-jew-bashing-obama-endorsed-occupy-boston-loons-hold-sit-in-protest-at-israeli-consulate-video/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gatewaypundit2+%28Gateway+Pundit%29 Stunner… Jew-Bashing Obama-Endorsed Occupy Boston Loons Hold Sit-in Protest at Israeli Consulate, Gateway Pundit, November 5, 2011]</ref>

The Occupy Miami movement is led by Mohammad Malik who has called for the extermination of Jews and is the principal organizer of numerous anti-Israel rallies. <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/11/figures-occupy-miami-protest-leader-led-jews-go-back-to-the-ovens-rally/ Figures… #Occupy Miami Protest Leader Led “Jews Go Back to the Ovens” Rally, The Gateway Pundit, November 25, 2011]</ref>

== Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant ==

''See also:'' [[Occupy Wall Street and bestiality chant]] and [[Liberalism and bestiality]]

[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. A crowd at Occupy Wall Street was led to repeat various chants which included a chant involving bestiality and the incident was videotaped.<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>

Below is an excerpt of the chant:
{{cquote|Everything seems to be possible. [Crowd Parrot Chant] You can travel to the moon. [CPC] You can become immortal [CPC] by biogenetics. You can have sex with animals, or whatever. [CPC].<ref>[http://rightwingnews.com/john-hawkins/the-10-greatest-moments-from-the-occupy-wall-street-protests-so-far/ The 10 Greatest Moments From The Occupy Wall Street Protests So Far]</ref>}}

==Supporters, sponsors, and sympathizers that endorse Occupy Wall Street==
{|background="none" width="100%" border="1"
|-
!A-F
!G-L
!M-R
!S-Z
|-
|valign="top"|
*[[ACORN]]
*[[AFL-CIO]]<ref>[http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111005-709751.html AFL-CIO Mulling Ways To Support Occupy Wall Street Protest: Official - The Wall Street Journal]</ref>
*[[Al Gore]]<ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-gore-says-hes-cheering-on-the-occupy-wall-street-movement/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews Al Gore Says He's Cheering On The Occupy Wall Street Movement], ''The Blaze'', October 2011.</ref>
*[[Alec Baldwin]]<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31749_162-20122574-10391698.html Alec Baldwin visits Occupy Wall Street - CBS]</ref>
*[[American Nazi Party]] <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements, Gateway Pundit, October 15, 2011]</ref>
*[[Arianna Huffington]]
*Ayatollah [[Ali Khamenei]], Supreme Leader of [[Iran]]<ref>[http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/14/khamenei-cheers-on-occupy-wall-street/ Khamenei Cheers On Occupy Wall Street - FrontPage Magazine]</ref>
*[[Barack Obama]]<ref>[http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-11/politics/30265829_1_wall-street-middle-class-republicans It's Official: Obama Has Embraced Occupy Wall Street], bussinessinsider.com, October 10, 2011.</ref>
*[[Barbara Lee]]<ref>[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/67079.html Barbara Lee: Obama 'really understands' Occupy - Politico]</ref>
*[[Barney Frank]]<ref>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/66412.html</ref>
*[[Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream]]<ref>[http://www.benjerry.com/activism/occupy-movement/ To those who Occupy: We stand with you] - A statement from the company's website</ref>
*[[Bernie Sanders]]<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/18/bernie_sanders_we_need_to_address_the_issue_of_the_rich_getting_richer.html Bernie Sanders: "We Need To Address Issue Of The Rich Getting Richer" - Real Clear Politics]</ref>
*[[Bill Ayers]]
*[[Bill Clinton]]<ref>[http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2011/10/late-night-bill-clinton-occupy-wall-street-is-a-positive-thing.html Late Night: Bill Clinton: Occupy Wall Street is 'a positive thing' - LA Times]</ref>
* Former [[Louisiana]] Governor [[Buddy Roemer]]<ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20118163-503544.html GOP candidate Buddy Roemer backs "Occupy Wall Street" - CBS]</ref>
*[[Charlie Rangel]]<ref>http://www.theroot.com/blogs/charles-rangel/charles-rangel-supporting-occupy-wall-street Charles Rangel on Supporting Occupy Wall Street </ref>
*[[Christiane Amanpour]]
*[[Cindy Sheehan]]<ref>[http://www.kcra.com/news/29494989/detail.html 'Occupy Wall Street' Going Global - KCRA]</ref>
*[[CNN]]
*[[Communist Party USA]]<ref>http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the-next-big-step-occupy-chicago-gives-rousing-welcome-to-communist-party-u-s-a/</ref>
*[[Cornel West]]<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/post/cornel-west-keeps-the-faith-for-occupy-wall-street/2011/11/10/gIQAZxhk8M_blog.html Cornel West keeps the faith for Occupy Wall Street</ref>
*[[Daily Kos]]
*[[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/11/debbie_wasserman_schultz_fully_embraces_occupy_movement.html Debbie Wasserman Schultz Fully Embraces "Occupy" Movement - Real Clear Politics]</ref>
*[[DCCC]] <ref>[http://weaselzippers.us/2011/11/22/love-it-pelosi-pens-dccc-letter-reaffirming-support-for-occupy-wall-street-movement/ Love It: Pelosi Pens DCCC Letter Reaffirming Support For Occupy Wall Street Movement, Weasel Zippers, November 22, 2011]</ref>
*[[Dennis Kucinich]]<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/human-rights-in-national/dennis-kucinich-others-occupy-congress-keep-occupying-wall-street Dennis Kucinich, others Occupy Congress: 'Keep Occupying Wall Street' - examiner.com]</ref>
*[[Fred Karger]]<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/18/karger-praises-occupy-wall-street-proposes-jobs-plan/ Karger praises Occupy Wall Street, proposes jobs plan - Daily Caller]</ref>

|valign="top"|
*[[George Soros]]
*[[Hugo Chavez]]<ref>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/08/us-venezuela-usa-idUSTRE79726120111008 Chavez slams "horrible repression" of U.S. protests</ref>
*[[Janeane Garofalo]]<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/29/garofalo-gop-using-herman-cain-to-keep-the-racism-very-covert/ Garofalo: GOP using Herman Cain ‘to keep the racism very covert’ - The Daily Caller]</ref>
*[[Jesse Jackson]]<ref>[http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/jesse_jackson_literally_links.html Jesse Jackson Literally Links Arms With Occupy Wall Street Protesters to Protect Medical Tent - New York Magazine]</ref>
*[[John Larson]]<ref name="topdems" />
*[[John Lewis]]<ref>http://abcnews.go.com/US/occupy-wall-street-protests-spread-country-clear-unified/story?id=14696466#.TsvwNVbxG3I Occupy Wall Street Protests Spread Across the Country With No Unified Message</ref>
*[[Kanye West]]<ref name="Kanye">[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/10/idUS277321529320111010 Kanye West Crashes Occupy Wall Street With Russell Simmons - Reuters]</ref>
*[[Keith Ellison]]<ref name="topdems">[http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65229.html Top Democrats endorse Occupy Wall Street protests - Politico]</ref>
*[[Lincoln Chafee]]<ref>[http://www.630wpro.com/Article.asp?id=2323467&spid=38785 Chafee: "Occupy" protestors on the right track - WPRO]</ref>
*[[Louis Farrakhan]]<ref>[http://www.examiner.com/generation-y-politics-in-national/occupy-wall-street-protestors-nazis Occupy Wall Street protestors Nazis, maybe socialists? - The Examiner]</ref>
*[[Louise Slaughter]]<ref>[http://www.louise.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2561:slaughter-supports-occupy-wall-street-movement&catid=95:2011-press-releases&Itemid=55 Slaughter Supports “Occupy Wall Street” Movement]</ref>

|valign="top"|
*[[Mark Ruffalo]]<ref name="Celebs" />
*[[Meghan McCain]]<ref>[http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/my-day-at-occupy-wall-street-1705384.story - The Daily Beast]</ref>
*[[Michael Moore]]<ref name="Celebs" />
*[[MoveOn.org]]
*[[Mumia Abu-Jamal]]<ref>[http://www.therightscoop.com/occupy-wall-street-snags-coveted-mumia-abu-jamal-endorsement/ Occupy Wall Street snags coveted Mumia Abu-Jamal endorsement - The Right Scoop]</ref>
*[[MSNBC]]
*[[Nancy Pelosi]]<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi-supports-occupy-wall-street-movement/story?id=14696893#.Trf44HL4JJE Pelosi Supports Occupy Wall Street Movement - ABC News]</ref>
*National Nurses United<ref>[http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/nurses-join-students-occupy-movement-other-labor-unions-to-demand-wall-stre/ Nurses Joining Students, Occupy Movement, other Labor Unions, to Demand Wall Street Tax 11/17 - National Nurses United's website]</ref>
*[[New Black Panthers]]<ref>[http://conservativeblogscentral.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-black-panther-party-at-occupy.html New Black Panther Party at Occupy Cleveland: "We need to take back the Street!" - Conservaitve Blog Central]</ref>
*[[New York Times]]
*[[Noam Chomsky]]
*[[Patrick Leahy]]<ref>[http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/92394/ Leahy Hopes Occupy Movement Plays Role In 2012 Elections - Vermont Public Radio]</ref>
*[[Penn Badgley]]<ref name="Celebs" />
*[[Peter DeFazio]]
*[[Pete Seeger]]<ref>[http://gawker.com/5852365/pete-seeger-joins-occupy-wall-street-with-this-little-light Pete Seeger Joins Occupy Wall Street With ‘This Little Light’ - Gawker]</ref>
*[[Ralph Nader]]<ref>[http://news.yahoo.com/consumer-advocate-ralph-nader-encourages-occupy-wall-street-222413233.html Consumer Advocate Ralph Nader Encourages "Occupy Wall Street" Protesters to Challenge Wall Street Abuses - PR Newswire]</ref>
*[[Raúl Grijalva]]<ref name="topdems" />
*[[Rosanne Barr]]<ref>['Bring back the guillotine and behead those who won't give up wealth': Roseanne Barr's solution to the banking crisis http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044747/Roseanne-Barrs-solution-banking-crisis-Bring-guillotine.html - The Daily Mail]</ref>
*[[Russ Feingold]]<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/russ-feingold-endorses-occupy-wall-street-this-will-make-the-tea-party-look-like--a-tea-party/2011/03/03/gIQANucZNL_blog.html Russ Feingold endorses Occupy Wall Street: “This will make the Tea Party look like ... a tea party.” - Washington Post]</ref>
*[[Russell Simmons]]<ref name="Kanye" />
*[[Russell Brand]]<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/russell_brand_visits_occupy_wall_fYwPoVGnWfUiHWjEtfPWMN Russell Brand visits Occupy Wall Street - New York Post]</ref>

|valign="top"|
*[[SEIU]]
*[[Susan Sarandon]]<ref>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042317/Occupy-Wall-Street-Susan-Sarandon-Michael-Moore-join-protesters-New-York.html</ref>
*[[Tim Robbins]]<ref name="Celebs">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/celebritology/post/occupy-wall-street-penn-badgley-tim-robbins-latest-celebs-to-join-protests/2011/10/06/gIQASLjPQL_blog.html Occupy Wall Street: Penn Badgley, Tim Robbins latest celebs to join protests - The Washington Post]</ref>
*[[Rage Against The Machine]]'s guitarist Tom Morello<ref>[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/occupy-wall-street-rage-against-the-machine-tom-morello-perform-248195 Occupy Wall Street: Rage Against the Machine's Tom Morello to Perform - The Hollywood Reporter]</ref>
*[[Van Jones]]<ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/14/van-jones-stand-in-solidarity-with-occupy-wall-street/ Van Jones: ‘Stand in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street’ - The Daily Caller]</ref>
*[[Washington Post]]
*[[Yoko Ono]]<ref name="Celebs" />

|}

==See also==
* [[Arab Spring]]
* [[One Nation]]
* [[Restore Sanity rally]]
* [[Save the American Dream rally]]
* [[Tea Party Movement]]

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

{{liberalism}}

==External links==

* [http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/04/the-disturbing-agenda-of-occupy-wall-str The Disturbing Agenda of Occupy Wall Street] - Reason magazine
* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-incoherent-agenda-of-occupy-wall-street/ The Incoherent Agenda Of Occupy Wall Street]
*[http://kleinonline.wnd.com/category/expose-occupy/ Expose Occupy WallStreet]
* [http://occupywallst.org/ OccupyWallSt.org]
* [http://twitter.com/#!/OccupyArrests Occupy arrests tracker on Twitter]
* [http://www.breitbart.tv/sick-of-media-comparing-occupy-wall-street-to-tea-party-watch-this/ What is Occupy Wall Street? Fox News]
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049137/Occupy-Wall-Street-Violence-erupts-police-clash-protesters.html Occupy Wall Street Violence Erupts]
* [http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/09/us-day-of-rage-occupy-wall-street-acorn-seiu-robin-hood-tax-new-constitution/ Us Day of Rage, Occupy Wall Street: ACORN, SEIU, Robin Hood Tax, New Constitution]
* [http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40397 “Day of Rage” Obama re-election team in disguise?]
* [http://www.theblaze.com/stories/seius-stephen-lerner-invokes-bill-ayers-days-of-rage-to-take-down-wall-street-this-september/ SEIU's Stephen Lerner Invokes Bill Ayers 'Days of Rage' To Take Down Wall Street This September]
* [http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/04/giuliani-obama-owns-occupy-wall-street Giuliani: "Obama Owns Occupy Wall Street"]
* [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/17/guy_who_shot_at_white_house_lived_in_occupy_dc_camp Guy Who Shot at White House Lived in Occupy DC Camp]
* [http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/17/moment_of_silence_at_occupy_san_diego_for_white_house_shooter Moment of Silence at Occupy San Diego for White House Shooter]

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]
[[Category:Anarchists]]

Anders Behring Breivik

2011-07-25T13:56:31Z

AngusT: Created page with "'''Anders Behring Breivik''' is a Norwegian, widely blamed for the deaths of at least 93 people in Norway on July 22, 2011. Michael Savage and others have pointed out that it..."

'''Anders Behring Breivik''' is a Norwegian, widely blamed for the deaths of at least 93 people in Norway on July 22, 2011. [[Michael Savage]] and others have pointed out that it is very unlikely that this is the case, however, as the official story from the [[Socialistic]] government doesn't add up, convincing many that this is a [[false flag]] operation and actually the work of [[Muslim]] [[terrorists]]. Evidence for this includes a Muslim terrorist organization claiming credit, the unlikelihood of two separate attacks in two distant areas being carried out by one person on the same day, the fact that this attack has all the hallmarks of Muslim terrorists, and the fact that [[Christian]] [[conservatives]] never do this sort of thing. Many see this as a set up, possibly to be used as an excuse to crack down on Christianity and conservatism in one of the world's most [[liberal]] countries. More mysterious is why they would work so hard to defend the Muslims who are probably responsible for these atrocities. It is likely that, in the leftist style of [[Neville Chamberlain]], they are trying to appease terrorists by exonerating them from blame, in the vain hope they will not repeat such unspeakable acts.

African Americans

2011-03-25T18:57:15Z

AngusT:

[[Image:Paterson.jpg|thumb|[[David A. Paterson]], first black governor of New York (2008-2011)]]

'''African American''' is a [[politically correct]] term some use to describe the ethnic background of Americans with [[Africa]]n ancestry. The great majority of African Americans are descended from Africans brought to North America as [[slavery|slaves]] beginning four centuries ago. Others (like [[Colin Powell]]) were twentieth century immigrants from the [[West Indies]] or Africa. Many American [[conservative]]s believe that the use of terms such as "African-American" or "Mexican-American," collectively referred to as "[[hyphenated American|hyphenated Americanism]]," make the mistake of "putting America second" and emphasize racial differences over common national identity <ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/on_becoming_an_unhyphenated_am.html</ref>

==Terms==
The preferred terminology changes. Currently "black" and "African American" are in favor, and "Afro-American" and "Negro" are out of favor. The situation before 1960 was just the reverse. "Colored" was popular until the 1950s, but now is generally out of favor except among some [[leftist]] groups.

==History==
see [[Black history]]

Blacks were originally brought to America to serve as slaves in southeastern states on large-scale plantations. During the [[Civil War]], all slaves were freed by [[Abraham Lincoln]] though the [[Emancipation Proclamation]], the [[Thirteenth Amendment]], and some state actions. During [[Reconstruction]] the Freedmen (freed slaves) gained citizenship and civil and political rights, including the right to marry, move about, and keep their wages.

The system of [[Sharecropper|sharecropping]] instituted after the end of the war left most Freedmen poor, while the [[Jim Crow]] policies of racial [[segregation]] that were implemented after the end of [[Reconstruction]] limited their civic and political rights.

Blacks left the rural south in two waves, the first around 1915-20, the second coming after [[World War II]] when machinery ended the need for large numbers of people to pick cotton by hand. The migrants headed to the large cities of the North and West, and also in the South, moving from very poorly paid farm work to wage labor.

==Politics==
Blacks tended to support the [[Republican Party]] from the 1860s to the 1960s, but few who lived in the South voted. The [[New Deal]] provided large-scale relief for blacks during the [[Great Depression]]. Some black Republican organizations, as in Chicago, switched overnight to the [[Democrat]]s. The [[Voting Rights Act]] of 1965 allowed blacks to vote in the South, and has been vigorously enforced. Since 1964 blacks have voted 85% to 95% for Democratic presidential candidates, with an occasional black Republican elected to state office.

==Religion==
[[Image:President Barack Obama.jpg|thumb|150px|Barack Obama, the first President with black ancestry (2009- )]]

Amoong African-Americans, religiosity is very high, and the standard practice since [[Reconstruction]] is for black ministers to be community spokespersons, and political power brokers; they often run for office. The great majority of African Americans are [[Protestant]]s, with their own [[Baptist]], [[Pentecostal]], and [[Methodist]] churches. A few are [[Muslim]]s.<ref>The Pluralism Project at Harvard University[http://www.pluralism.org/resources/statistics/tradition.php#Islam] Twenty-four percent of American Muslims are black, according to American Muslim Council's Zogby poll of August 2000.</ref>. .

==References==
<references/>
* [http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html National Survey of Religious Identification (NSRI)]

==See also==
* [[Black History]]
* [[Civil Rights]]
* [[Jim Crow]]
* [[Race]]
* [[Black Republican]]

[[category:Ethnicities]]
[[category:The South]]
[[category:Civil Rights]]
[[category:Black History]]

User talk:AngusT

2011-03-25T18:45:22Z

AngusT: Undo revision 858945 by RATIONxALWIKIxISxACE (talk)

Talk:African Americans

2011-03-25T18:44:45Z

AngusT: Undo revision 858959 by RATIONxALWIKIxISxACE (talk)

On the [[Main Page]] is says "You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise, clean answers free of "political correctness".

Surely "African American" is an example of "political correctness". Oughtn't this article be called Negroes?
[[User:JC|JC]] 08:54, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Sure if you want to use a loaded term. Negroes is a term many associate with racism and apartheid. Careful that the conservatism doesn't turn into outright bigotry.
:-Gasmonkey

::So some "political correctness" is OK then? Fair enough, after all, we should love all [[God]]'s children. Even those from the other side of town.
::[[User:JC|JC]] 09:01, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

heh wow. Just love that Christian brotherhood, snide remarks about the other side of town and all. Don't worry, Jesus still loves you.

:::The term ''African-American'' is described as an example of [[Political correctness]] in that very article.
:::"And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" (Genesis 15:13)
:::[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 07:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: 'African American' is less popular in the 2010s, more and more wish to be called simply 'AMERICAN' by the country of their birth. Most African-Americans, per se, don't come from, nor have parents or grandparents from the continent Africa. What about non-African races in the continent, such as [[Boers]] and [[Afrikaan]]ers of white European (Dutch/French or German) descent in [[South Africa]]? We should get over the need to hyphenate or view ourselves as "races" or "colors" of people, esp. in the time we're living when the USA elected a man of half-Kenyan/half-white American heritage. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:49, 14 December 2009 (EST)

== some political correctnes is important ==

There has to be some political correctness.
Imagine if others would just start to tell about conservapedians "Idiots".
Or what do you think about calling creationistst "Ignorants"?
That would not be political correct, I think. But would it be wronger as you would be when calling african americans "Negroes"?
So better you think about, what you are saying before others call you racists, fundamentalists,.... --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 07:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

To many blacks, the term 'negro' is at best archaic and condescending, and at worst, a derivative of 'nigger'. We can argue semantics all day, but lets not insult people in an effort not to be politically correct. And 'the other side of town'? Not where I live. [[User:Czolgolz|Miguel_Cervantes]] 15:18, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:The reference to [[political correctness]] on the [[Main Page]] seems to have been removed. Perhaps political correctness is acceptable here after all. Though it doesn't yet seem to extend as far as [[homosexuality]].
::"He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light." (Job 33:28)
:[[User:BillyBoy|BillyBoy]] 06:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::It was removed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:AboutC&diff=48204&oldid=48150 here] on 19th March 2007
:::"He shall not search whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it: and if he change it at all, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed." (Leviticus 27:33)
::[[User:JC|JC]] 10:46, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::: In proper society, in public or in the workplace (make sure this isn't in the range of NSFW) there are rules, social cues or [[taboo]]s to go by, and one of them is the improper/offensive/deragatory words to describe groups of people based on race, ethnicity, religion (i.e. negative use of "Jew" or "Jewish"), gender, sexuality (i.e. to say "gay" as a putdown or to declare something bad) and disability (i.e. for middle school kids to call others "retard" or stated something is.) The common knowledge on 'negro', 'colored' and 'black' in some social circles as unacceptable, obscene or hurtful is present and mass consciousness by the American people of all races to abandon those archaic or unrequested words by the African-American community. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:55, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Give me a break==

There's a difference between being politically incorrect and being uncouth. Calling them Negroes is just uncouth. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 15:20, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

: Only a few elderly whites still use (in private) or blacks may call themselves the term, while the younger generations born or raised since the 1960's don't at all. Ironically, ''Negro'' means "black" in Latin and how the Germanic languages such as English developed an alteration of ''Negro'' into ''Nig-ger'' with strong negative meanings to dehumanize Africans and African-Americans alike. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:52, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Proof==

My addition to this article ("Black people originated as descendants of Cain, along with Asians, Arabs, American Indians, Polynesians and other non-white races") has been proved by Creation Science. Creation Geneticists have found the gene EVL6 in all the races I listed, and EVL6 is traceable back to Cain.

:Uh huh, right. I'd love to see how they managed to trace it back to Cain, assuming you're not just making this all up yourself. Your source would be what?--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:08, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, he's just making it up. And if he doesn't watch his step, he'll be blocked. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Whom did Cain marry?[[User:Oldoligarch|Oldoligarch]] 18:00, 20 June 2007 (EDT)
:Awan. Probably. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:09, 20 June 2007 (EDT)

== This Article Phails.... What to add first? ==

A far more extensive history...
List of awesome contributors...
Modern history, culture, issues...
Statistics...

Man... This article seriously phails. >_<
(Decides to add at random)

And by the way, saying that a contemporary ethnic name is PC is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. I say, what gives one the right to name another ethnicy anyway? (Negros, Orientals, Indians, Eskimos...) Perhaps it would be better (4 ONCE in history) to not push one's opinion on matters that don't concern one, hmm? Let ethnicies name themselves, thank you.
 
[[User:ProserpinaFC|ProserpinaFC]] 13:45, 1 February 2008 (EST)

==Picture==
I know pictures are nice to have in Encyclopedia articles (especially Wiki type) but does anyone really need a picture to know what an African American looks like? and why is that picture David Patterson by the way? [[User:JamalG|Jamal Greene]] 15:10, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:I am in agreement. I find this picture to be a not very flattering picture of David Patterson, and therefore a not very flattering picture of what appears on this page to represent an entire race of people. I am inclined to agree that the picture is unnecessary and if it must remain, find a less rude, more relevant picture.

:: 1940s-era actress/singer [[Lena Horne]] is African-American with some Caucasian, American Indian and probably Latino/Latin American ancestry, but she's known in the black community as a black person. Horne was involved in civil rights causes in the 1950's for "persons of color" like her, and her skin color was referred to as "caramel" by the press of her time might well de-emphasize her racial background. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 11:59, 14 December 2009 (EST)

==Lock==
Why is this page locked? I have a reference I'd like to add. -[[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 15:29, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to fix some of the writing, too. Who wrote "This people group"? In fact, the whole article needs rewriting. -[[User:JakeW|JakeW]]

Do any of you have any actual African American culture to add to this article? Maybe a little bit about their natural physique, or imperialism, or tribes. anything about martin Luther K.? And can someone fix the emancipation proclamation thing? I specifically learned that it only freed slaves who were specifically in the north, it wasn't until after the war that the fourteenth amendment was passed, given blacks full rights as Americans. - signed by anon IP

: Agree. I should find a file photo of Martin Luther King Jr. (from his own article, of course) and place it in the African-American article. His career as a civil rights leader has a humongous impact on life of minorities in America and other countries worldwide. Notice the majority of "conservatives" today, compared to let's say 40 yrs. ago when it was a "liberal" activist cause of celebre, admire MLK jr. since the terminology of what's politically or socially "conservative" or "liberal" from the 1960's compared to 2009 changes over time. + [[User:Getitstraight|Getitstraight]] 12:02, 14 December 2009 (EST)
::I unlocked it. edit away! [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 16:23, 14 December 2009 (EST)
==Some problems==
This article has some problems. It applies the distracting label of "first black" to Patterson and Obama. The article is apparently still locked. Thanks. [[User:JeffT|JeffT]] 15:51, 25 January 2010 (EST)

User talk:Jpatt

2011-03-25T18:26:51Z

AngusT: Undo revision 858947 by RATIONxALWIKIxISxACE (talk)

== Archive 2008 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/Subway_Troll Here]

== Archive 2009 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2009]

== Archive 2010 ==
[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Jpatt/2010]

== Your block policy ==

I was just wondering; why are you blocking people with the reason that they don't give their name?

People can simply say whatever name they wanted and you wouldn't know if it is true or not.
More importantly the account creation page states that submitting your name is '''optional'''
Can please explain the reasoning behind your block policy?

ps: I'd appreciate you not blocking me merely for asking this question. I just ask out of curiosity ;)

Thanks.

[[User:Philny|Philny]] 18:20, 4 January 2011 (EST)
:Just as it is optional for first name last initial, the block policy is of the administrators discretion. It helps eliminate sock accounts used by [troll]]s and if the user is truly interested in contributing in good faith, they will recreate their username as commanded. Do users/trolls use fake names? absolutely. Are you really Phil? I chose not to recreate your account but I could be wrong about you. Time will tell. Hope this is a sufficient answer. Have a great day! --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:28, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Jpatt. In all honesty I don't see how your practice would help eliminate sock accounts. People can simply lie about who they are. Socks are best controlled through an IP range block if you asked me.
::Lastly I would think that good faith would be assumed for new people until they explicitly become trolls/vandals. but hey that's just me.
::I'm still trying to get rid of those liberal Wikipepdia ways. [[User:Philny|Philny]] 19:54, 4 January 2011 (EST)

:::Is it foolproof? No. They are not blocked from contributing just blocked from using that name. So it is of good faith on our part to allow them to recreate a username. I did not create the policy and I was subject to the same policy when I first joined. We'll banish someone when needed and we will ferret out those fake accounts over time. To obey an administrators request is the first step toward recognizing a good faith contributor.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:18, 4 January 2011 (EST)

== Re:Welcome! ==

Thanks for the welcome! I'll be sure to read the Editor's Guide ;) --[[User:AznBurger|AznBurger]] 21:36, 19 January 2011 (EST)

== Conservative 3737, "everything you say is conservative" ==

...but really not [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Chris_Matthews&curid=10356&diff=846659&oldid=846644 family-friendly.] Thanks for heading him off! [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:32, 5 February 2011 (EST)

:The IP is a school and he didn't actually cuss which would cross the line. I am willing to give a second chance if the rules are followed. BTW, I hope no hard feelings for targeting you in the past. Your edits were excellent.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:38, 5 February 2011 (EST)
::Life is too short for hard feelings. Good call on the "second chance" thing. [[User:Martyp|Martyp]] 16:39, 5 February 2011 (EST)

== Hello, there is a reason I don't use my real name ==

I'll write you an email about it if you like, I would have before but you locked the email so I could not. Account creation was also turned off, which makes recreating my account difficult. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy2|AlaskanEconomy2]] 20:43, 8 February 2011 (EST)
:I now feel pretty foolish not having checked this account before creating that one. Thanks/sorry. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:52, 8 February 2011 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thanks for uploading that image yesterday. With regards to my username, I created it before there was any specific username policy on Conservapedia's Guidelines or Commandments page (even though I've only been contributing recently). If it is important that I have username that contains only my name/initials, I will change it. --[[User:Toadaron|Toadaron]] 17:40, 18 February 2011 (EST)

== New conservative pages for 2011 ==

I noticed you were laying down plans for pages to create. I think you might consider making a page on the pence amendment, the recent 240-185 house vote to amend Title X to remove the family planning grants from organizations that perform abortions (like planned parenthood). While I support the decision the issue is outside of my area of specialization and I am afraid of getting some important facts wrong. --[[User:AlaskanEconomy|AlaskanEconomy]] 20:43, 22 February 2011 (EST)
:Maybe at some future point. It's too early to determine the outcome. You're welcome to start it.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:45, 22 February 2011 (EST)

== uploading images ==

How can I upload non-political, non-controversial images that I made myself to Conservapedia? I suppose you or the Conservapedia administration would like to preview images before uploading them? How do I show them for you to preview? [[User:HPadleckas|HPadleckas]] 21:34, 28 February 2011 (EST)

:Send to conservapedia@zoho.com--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:39, 28 February 2011 (EST)

==Celebrity crime==

Hi, Jpatt. I'm wondering how and when we should report (gloat over?) celebrity crime, like a female pop star arrested for being drunk in public, getting a speeding ticket, etc. Are we trying to prove that Hollywood produces (or encourages) self-indulgent behavior, or what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:53, 2 March 2011 (EST)

:Personally, I don't have a litmus test for inclusion. I simply take celebrities, be it Democrat or Republican, and post their crimes. As role models, they need to be exposed as to why they make headlines. Their behavior is an example of who "not to follow". If you have suggestions, of course I would work with you. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:04, 2 March 2011 (EST)

::I had nothing in mind, just trying to stimulate thought here. Carry on, my good man! :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 01:21, 5 March 2011 (EST)

User talk:AngusT

2011-03-25T18:24:36Z

AngusT: Undo revision 858940 by RATIONxALWIKIxISxACE (talk)

User talk:Jpatt

2011-03-25T18:24:11Z

AngusT: Undo revision 858932 by RATIONxALWIKIxISxACE (talk)