Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-06-15T00:53:07Z

CJHallock: Mirriam websters says 1878 but OED has an older record of it, so that is its origin in english

[[Image:Tax-spend.jpg|thumb|480px|The "tax-and-spend" slogan stuck to Harry Hopkins like a well-fitted suit.]]Each year the English language develops about a thousand new words. Over the course of a century, that amounts to 100,000 new words. The [[King James Version]] of the [[Bible]] contains about 8,000 different words.<ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8013859.stm</ref>

The inevitable triumph of conservatism over liberalism is apparent from comparing the rates of generation of new terms of each type, and the quality of the terms so generated. [[Conservative]] terms are being generated at a faster rate, and with much higher quality, than [[liberal]] terms are. In the 20th century, for example, more conservative terms were developed, and they were developed at a steadier pace. The new liberal terms were clustered in the 1920s and 1960s, were fewer in number, and lacked the same high quality.

Powerful, insightful new conservative terms have grown at a [[geometric progression|geometric rate]], roughly doubling every century. For every insightful new conservative term originating in the 1600s, there are two new terms originating in the 1700s, four new terms in the 1800s, and eight new terms in the 1900s, for a pattern of "1-2-4-8". Nine new conservative terms that originated in the 1600s, for example, are: action-at-a-distance, biased, demagogue, efficiency, Good Samaritan, phonics, productive, self-defense and veracity. Twice as many insightful new conservative terms originated in the following century, and that total doubled again for the 1800s, and doubled yet again for the 1900s. Implications of a geometric increase for new conservative terms include a more conservative future and a correlation between conservatism and truth.

The year 1612 is our starting point: the King James Version of the Bible had just been published in 1611, and [[William Shakespeare]] had written virtually all of his plays. Since then the following terms were created, forming a pattern by century (1600s, 1700s, 1800s, 1900s) of 11-22-44-88.<ref>This was the pattern as of June 13, 2009, but it will continue to grow as more conservative insights are added. Visitors are encouraged to add terms with dates.</ref> Layers of new terms are being discovered and added to this list in the pattern of 1-2-4-8 by century from 1612-2000.

==Conservative words and terms==

{{clear}}
{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[accountability]]
|1794
|
|-
|[[action-at-a-distance]]
|1693
|Newton's acceptance of this concept -- which became fundamental to electrostatics and quantum mechanics and has a basis in Christianity<ref>''See, e.g.'', [[Jesus]]'s cure of the centurion's slave.</ref> -- was central to this development of his theory of gravity.<ref>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/newton-philosophy/#ActDis</ref> Einstein criticized this concept as "spooky".
|-
|alarmism
|1867
|needless warnings
|-
|altruism
|1853
|selfless assistance of others; this also occurs in the animal kingdom also, and is a [[counterexample to evolution]]
|-
|[[American dream]]
|1911<ref>1911 is the date given by the "OED", which refers to the Oxford English Dictionary. The Merriam-Webster dictionary gives a date of 1931.</ref>
|
|-
|[[anti-Christian]]
|1900s
|thirty-three million sites turn up in a Google search, yet the Merriam-Webster dictionary doesn't recognize this important term
|-
|assimilate
|late 1800s
|the desired absorption of immigrant groups into the culture and mores of the resident population
|-
|attention span
|1934
|correlated with intelligence, the attention span is how long someone can concentrate on something. It is rapidly shortening; the Lincoln-Douglas debates 150 years ago lasted for hours, but none do today.<ref>http://www.help4teachers.com/ras.htm</ref> The average length of sentences in speech is another indication of attention span, and it has been shortening significantly.
|-
|bailout
|1951
|wasting taxpayer money to rescue, temporarily, a failing company
|-
|bedrock
|1840-1850
|an American term for unbroken solid rock underneath fragments or soil, which adopted the figurative meaning of strong values: "bedrock principles"<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bedrock</ref>
|-
|biased
|1649
|
|-
|Big Brother
|1949
|government constantly watching its citizens; [[George Orwell]] first coined this term in his classic, ''[[1984]]''
|-
|[[Blue Dog Democrat]]
|1995
|A person who adheres to conservative principles within the Democratic party, once called a Boll Weevil; as of 2009 there are 45-50 Blue Dog Democrats in the [[House of Representatives]], which is enough to form a majority with [[Republicans]]
|-
|bootstrap
|1913
|Unaided effort, personal merit, hard work
|-
|bork
|1988
|coined by William Safire to refer to how Democrats savage a conservative nominee, such as their defeat of Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork.
|-
|born-again
|1961
|it takes an open mind and heart
|-
|brinkmanship
|1956
|the art of displaying a willingness to use military force in order to obtain a just resolution to a conflict between nations
|-
|[[bureaucracy]]
|1818
|
|-
|[[capitalism]]
|1850-1855
|creating jobs and wealth based on a private invention, ownership and investments rather than state-controlled resources
|-
|closed shop
|1904
|a business that requires membership in a union as a condition of working there; 22 conservative states prohibit this
|-
|Coasean
|1980s
|an efficient result or bargain based on market forces without the distortions caused by [[transaction costs]]
|-
|Columbian
|1757
|relating to Christopher Columbus ''or the United States''
|-
|[[comparative advantage]]
|1815<ref>http://www-personal.umich.edu/~alandear/glossary/orig.html</ref>
|developed by the classical economist [[David Ricardo]], this reflects the insight that each country should "do what it does best" in deciding which goods to produce
|-
|competitive
|1829
|
|-
|Con Con
|1980s
|popularized by [[Phyllis Schlafly]] to highlight the deception and risks inherent in proposed national constitutional conventions
|-
|[[conservative]]
|1831
|
|-
|[[constitutional]]
|1682
|
|-
|copyright
|1735
|extending private property to protect expressive works
|-
|constant
|1832
|(noun) something unchanging in value
|-
|counterexample
|1957
|an example that is contrary to the proposition
|-
|[[culture war]]
|1991
|widespread use after the book ''Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America'' by James Davison Hunter
|-
|[[deadweight loss]]
|1930s<ref>Confirmation of the first use is desired.</ref>
|the loss in overall wealth and efficiency imposed by monopolies and taxation, due to the loss in extra value that someone would have received beyond what he would have paid for a good at a free market price
|-
|death tax
|1989
|interestingly, the term was coined by Canadians opposed to the high estate tax on their assets held in the United States; Frank Luntz is credited with later popularizing this term in the United States.<ref>''See'' Dr. Frank Luntz, ''Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear''</ref>
|-
|decrypt
|1935
|military code-breaking, which played an instrumental role in World War II in deciphering enemy codes that many felt were unbreakable; illustrates the "can do" approach of conservatism in a patriotic way
|-
|deflation
|1891
|an increase in the value of savings
|-
|demagogue
|1648
|
|-
|[[deregulation]]
|1963
|Reagan won in 1980 by campaigning on this.
|-
|design by committee
|before 1958
|Pejorative directed against collective production by a group
|-
|despotism
|1727
|a ruler with unlimited powers
|-
|[[deterrence]]
|1861
|
|-
|disinformation
|1950s
|false information spread (and sometimes manufactured) by groups with a strong political agenda
|-
|division of labor
|1776
|increasing productivity through specialization of labor, as in a husband working in manufacturing while his wife cares for children
|-
|domino effect
|1966
|how the fall of one nation to communism can result in its harmful spread to neighboring nations
|-
|doublethink
|1949
|[[George Orwell]] first coined this term in ''[[1984]]''; it means simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs, which is a characteristic of [[status worship]]
|-
|double standard
|1894
|applying harsher criticism against one group, such as churchgoers or conservatives, than against another group, such as atheists or liberals; recognition of a double standard by the [[Prodigal Son]] led him to repent and convert
|-
|dumb down
|1933
|
|-
|editorialize
|1856
|"to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|[[efficiency]]
|1633
|Ultimately from the Latin ''efficientem'', meaning ''"working out, or accomplishing"''<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=efficient Online Etymological Dictionary]</ref>
|-
|[[elementary proof]]
|1865
|a mathematical proof based on the minimum assumptions associated with real analysis; term probably does not predate [[complex analysis]] and its first use may have been the English mathematician James Joseph Sylvester's paper, "On an elementary proof and generalisation of Sir Isaac Newton's hitherto
undenionstrated rule for the discovery of imaginary roots."<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/circular129johnuoft/circular129johnuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|[[elitism]]
|1950
|
|-
|[[entitlement]]
|1944
|
|-
|[[ethnic voting]]
|1900s
|widely recognized and even advocated by some,<ref>http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/5/2/3/4/p152345_index.html</ref> yet the dictionary doesn't yet recognize it
|-
|exculpatory
|1781
|often used in the phrase "exculpatory evidence," it took nearly 50 years to develop this term after origination of the legal term suggesting guilt: "incriminate"
|-
|falsifiability
|1934
|first emphasized by Karl Popper in 1934, this helps define science: if a proposition is false, then it can be shown to be false. If not, then the proposition is not scientific.
|-
|[[family values]]
|1916
|widespread use after a speech by Vice President [[Dan Quayle]], 1992
|-
|father figure
|1934
|someone who fulfills the essential role of a father
|-
|[[fellow traveller]]
|1925
|May have existed earlier, but popularized in 1924 by Trotsky. Describes a sympathizer of a cause but who does not formally belong to the cause, such as a [[communist]] sympathizer who is not part of the communist party.
|-
|[[federalism]]
|1789
|the unique system of dual sovereigns, state and federal (national), established by the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|forward-looking
|1800
|planning for the future rather than dwelling on the past
|-
|[[free enterprise]]
|1820
|
|-
|free market
|1907
|
|-
|free world
|1949
|areas of the world free of communism
|-
|gateway drug
|1982
|abuse of alcohol/marijuana eventually leads to harder drugs cocaine/heroin
|-
|globalism
|1997
|MW states it was first used in 1943<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globalism</ref> and the OED gives a date of 1965 for the exact term 'globalism'<ref>http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50095613/50095613se2?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=globalism&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50095613se2</ref> the term "globalization" was first used in the mid-1980s in a different, complimentary sense.
|-
|go-getter
|1921
|-
|gold standard
|1831
|the highest standard; in currency, when money could be exchanged for a fixed amount of gold
|-
|Good Samaritan
|1640
|how genuine charity is the best approach
|-
|[[grade inflation]]
|1975
|the tendency by Liberal educationalists and public schools to increase marks, irrespective of merit or actual achievement.
|-
|[[grassroots]]
|1901
|
|-
|Great Awakening
|1730-1740
|Christian spiritualism recurs periodically. See [[Essay:The Coming Fifth Great Awakening in America]].
|-
|hardworking
|1774
|
|-
|Hawthorne effect
|1962
|the increase in achievement resulting merely from being observed; this was demonstrated by experiment at the Hawthorne Works of Western Electric in Cicero, Illinois
|-
|heckler's veto
|1965
|Coined by University of Chicago Law Professor Harvey Kalven, Jr., a strong supporter of free speech in politics, this term has been used in [[Supreme Court]] decisions by Justices [[Sam Alito]],<ref>''See'' ''Pleasant Grove City v. Summum'', 129 S. Ct. 1125 (2009); ''see also'' ''Child Evangelism Fellowship of N.J., Inc. v. Stafford Twp. Sch. Dist.'', 386 F.3d 514 (3rd Cir. 2004).</ref> [[Antonin Scalia]], and [[Clarence Thomas]].<ref>''Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch.'', 533 U.S. 98 (2001)</ref>
|-
|Hobson's choice
|1649<ref>This has the entertaining history of originating with an English liveryman who required customers to "choose" the horse closest to the door.</ref>
|an ostensible choice that disguises a lack of freedom, because each alternative is completely unacceptable. This term is invoked to criticize an illusory freedom of choice. This term has been used in 48 cases by Supreme Court Justices, more often by conservatives than by liberals.
|-
|[[homeschool]]
|1980<ref>The OED assigns a date of origin of 1850 to "homeschool".</ref>
|
|-
|human rights
|1766
|rights of all peoples, fighting for those less fortunate- justice for humanity
|-
|[[Essay:Liberal hysteria|hysteria]]
|1801
|From the Latin ''hystericus'', from Greek ''hystera '' meaning ''"womb"''<ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hysteria Meriam Webster Dictionary]</ref> (an old notion that hysteria was caused by the [[womb]]).
|-
|identity politics
|1988
|exploiting politics for racial, ethnic, gender equality.
|-
|incompleteness
|1931
|a system of logic or mathematics that includes propositions that are impossible to prove or disprove; term coined as a result of [[Kurt Godel]]'s work in 1931
|-
|individualism
|1827
|values, rights and duties arise from the individual
|-
|inflationary
|1920
|policies causing inflation of the monetary supply
|-
|informed consent
|1967
|consent to surgery is meaningful only if informed, a requirement that should apply to abortion
|-
|initiative
|1793
|self-starting first step toward improvement
|-
|insightful
|1907
|what conservatism is about: gaining insights into the truth, and bettering individuals and society with them
|-
|interventionism
|1923
|"governmental interference in economic affairs at home or in political affairs of another country"<ref>Merriam-Webster (1994).</ref>
|-
|invisible hand
|1776
|Coined by Adam Smith in the ''Wealth of Nations'' and widely used today, yet Merriam-Webster fails to recognize it!<ref>This term is absent from the 1994 print edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary</ref>
|-
|Iron curtain
|1945
|coined by Winston Churchill in a speech in Missouri just after World War II, to describe the communist's figurative wall against freedom
|-
|judicial activism
|1947
|First coined in an article in ''Fortune'' magazine by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.,<ref>http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/278089</ref> and repeatedly used in U.S. Supreme Court opinions since 1967,<ref>''United States v. Wade'',
388 U.S. 218 (1967).</ref> yet as of 2009 [[Merriam-Webster]] dictionary still fails to recognize this widely used term.
|-
|judicial restraint
|1942
|"Assuming that this court has power to act, it does not necessarily follow that it should act. ... In a number of situations, and in a number of cases, it has been held that courts should voluntarily refrain from using or asserting power. Where the use or assertion of power might be destructive of a well defined purpose of law or of a declared public policy such voluntarily imposed '''judicial restraint''' may be commendable."<ref>Osage Tribe of Indians v. Ickes, 45 F. Supp. 179, 184-85 (D.D.C. 1942) (emphasis added).</ref>
|-
|judicial supremacist
|2004
|One who advocates that the courts should be supreme over the other branches of government for certain legal issues; first coined in a book by [[Phyllis Schlafly]]; first used by the judiciary by the Michigan Supreme Court in ''Paige v. City of Sterling Heights'', 476 Mich. 495 (2006).<ref>A similar yet different concept, "judicial supremacy," was coined by [[conservative]] Supreme Court Justice [[Robert H. Jackson]] as the title of his book,'' The Struggle for Judicial Supremacy: A Study of a Crisis in American Political Power'' (New York: Knopf, 1941).</ref>
|-
|junk science
|1962<ref>http://rated.com/dir/Society/Issues/Environment/Opposing_Views/Junk_Science</ref>
|the corruption of the scientific method to advance other, often political, goals
|-
|jury nullification
|1948
|the power of a jury to overrule the law and acquit an ostensibly guilty defendant; the power was established in the colonies in 1735 in the trial of [[John Peter Zenger]], but this term was first used in state court by Pfeuffer v. Haas, 55 S.W.2d 111 (Tex. Civ. App. 1932) and in federal court by ''Skidmore v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.'', 167 F.2d 54 (2nd Cir. 1948)
|-
|kowtow
|1826
|obsequious, unthinking obedience to someone or something, used especially in the context of dictatorships and liberal belief systems
|-
|Kremlinology
|1958
|the study of the otherwise indecipherable behavior of the government of the [[communist]] [[Soviet Union]]. Refers to the Kremlin, the traditional seat of Russian government (Soviet or not).
|-
|labor camp
|1900
|forced work prison
|-
|laissez-faire
|1825
|opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond what is minimally necessary
|-
|lame duck
|1761
|one falling being in achievement, especially a public official whose power is limited because his term in office is set to expire without possibility of reelection.
|-
|leftism
|1920
|principles and doctrine of leftists
|-
|leverage
|1830
|
|-
|local
|1824<ref>This date refers to its first usage as a ''noun'', which is an estimate of its adoption as a concept.</ref>
|common usage: "all politics is local"
|-
|[[microeconomics]]
|1947
|the study of the economics of the individual person or business
|-
|melting pot
|1912
|requires "social and cultural assimilation" for successful immigration<ref>Merriam-Webster dictionary (1994)</ref>
|-
|[[meritocracy]]
|1958
|
|-
|missile defense
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as part of [[SDI]]
|-
|mobocracy
|1754
|rule by a mob, as at Wikipedia
|-
|monogamy
|1612
|this has the same date of origin as "productive", and that may not be a coincidence!
|-
|motivation
|1873
|can you believe the word did not exist before 1873?!
|-
|Murphy's Law
|1958
|if something can go wrong, then it will go wrong: that was a conservative insight by an engineer Edward Murphy
|-
|myopic
|1752
|originally a term in optometry, 1990's used to describe liberals lack of foresight
|-
|negativism
|1824
|mental attitude that tends that is skeptical about almost everything, except one's own views
|-
|non-locality
|1920s
|[[action at a distance]] at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who believe in [[relativity]] and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster
|-
|newspeak
|1949
|political or media expressions using circumlocution and euphemisms to disguise or distract from the truth; first coined by [[George Orwell]] in ''[[1984]]''
|-
|non-justiciable
|1922<ref>Used by the state attorneys for West Virginia (including Philip Steptoe, founder of Steptoe & Johnson) in ''Pennsylvania v. West Virginia'', 262 U.S. 553 (1923): "It is not the 'subject of judicial cognizance,' Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1, 15; Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S 1, 15; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, or 'susceptible of judicial solution.' Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U.S. 1, 18, 22; Missouri v. Illinois, 180 U.S. 208, 233, 234."</ref>
|a difficult issue that the courts should not attempt to resolve, often because it is too political in nature
|-
|open-minded
|1828
|See [[Essay:Quantifying Openmindedness]]
|-
|[[opportunity cost]]
|1911
|
|-
|originalism
|1985
|taken from original intent, The belief that the United States Constitution should be interpreted in the way the authors originally intended it
|-
|optimism
|1759
|
|-
|Orwellian
|1960s
|terminology or style that advances the power of big government but is hurtful or nonsensical<ref>http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=604</ref>
|-
|parenting
|1958
|Children raising
|-
|Parkinson's Law
|1955
|how bureaucracies expand regardless of the productivity, and how inefficient work expands to fill the time available for its completition
|-
|patriotism
|1726
|
|-
|[[personhood]] <ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/personhood Personhood] Dictionary.com</ref>
|1955
|Inherent rights guaranteed to all human beings from the beginning of their biological development, including the pre-born, partially born. Also, the state or fact of being a person.
|-
|[[phonics]]
|1684
|
|-
|[[politically correct]]
|1983
|This term originated among radicals at the [[University of Wisconsin-Madison]] to enforce radical orthodoxy, but immediately flipped in usage to become a term of mockery of radicals.<ref>For an early different usage of the word, see 1793 J. WILSON in U.S. Rep. (U.S. Supreme Court) 2 (1798) 462 Sentiments and expressions of this inaccurate kind prevail in our..language... ‘The United States’, instead of the ‘People of the United States’, is the toast given. This is not politically correct.</ref> The term may have come from Chairman Mao in 1936.
|-
|potential
|1817<ref>Usage here refers to "promise", not "possibility".</ref>
|
|-
|privatize
|1940
|to return a business or enterprise from state to private control; to de-nationalize.
|-
|productive
|1612
|
|-
|productivity
|1810
|the gap of about 200 years between the creation of "productive" and "productivity" is astounding
|-
|[[pro-life]]
|1960
|
|-
|property right
|1853
|
|-
|quantify
|1840
|
|-
|race card
|1995<ref>This is the date of its widespread familiarity.</ref>
|"Playing the race card" consists of relying on racial emotions or charges of racism in order to overcome the truth and logic in politics, legal proceedings, or otherwise; this term became familiar in the criticism of the defense and acquittal of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife and her friend.
|-
|[[recidivism]]
|1886
|the tendency for people lacking in [[faith]] and determination to revert to prior patterns of harmful behavior, such as repeat criminal offenders
|-
|recuse
|1949
|self-removal by a decision-maker (especially a judge) because of possible bias with respect to the pending issue
|-
|[[relativism]]
|1865
|the view that ethical truths are not absolute, but depend on the person or group that holds them
|-
|[[responsibility]]
|1737
|1787 HAMILTON Federalist No. 63 II. 193 Responsibility in order to be reasonable must be limited to objects within the power of the responsible party.
|-
|reverse discrimination
|1969
|the use of quotas or affirmative action to use race or gender to discriminate against a better qualified person
|-
|richen
|1600's<ref>http://www.linguism.co.uk/language/new-words-or-old</ref>
|Conservatives tend to be more concerned with adding value to what has been established, making everything richer
|-
|salutary neglect
|1775
|coined by the [[conservative]] [[Edmund Burke]] in his 1775 speech to the British [[House of Commons]] entitled "On Moving His Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies"<ref>http://www.archive.org/stream/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft/burkesspeechonco00burkuoft_djvu.txt</ref>
|-
|school choice
|1980
|popularized by Milton Friedman in his book, ''Free to Choose''
|-
|[[self-defense]]
|1651
|
|-
|self-destruct
|1968
|often the tragic result of liberal falsehoods
|-
|[[Discipline|self-discipline]]
|1838
|
|-
|self-reliant
|1848
|
|-
|separation of powers
|1748
|the fundamental insight underlying the [[U.S. Constitution]]
|-
|slippery slope
|1900s
|term has been widely used for decades to expose the fallacy of "it doesn't hurt to try"
|-
|smoking gun
|1974
|a law-and-order term, "smoking gun" was first used as figurative term in a reported judicial decision in ''Rodgers v. United States Steel Corp.'', 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12775 (W.D. Pa. Apr. 20, 1975), and many literal uses of the term in court decisions before that!
|-
|spend-and-tax
|2009<ref>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/02/morning-bell-the-obama-tax-and-spend-economy-is-here/</ref>
|a variation on "tax-and-spend" (see below), "spend-and-tax" consists of spending the money first and then trying to justify raising taxes based on the deficit created by the spending
|-
|straw man
|1896
|an imaginary argument or example set up for the purpose of easily knocking down, while distracting from valid arguments
|-
|straightforward
|1806
|
|-
|supply-side
|1976
|the economic theory that reducing taxes expands economic activity by encouraging greater earnings and investments; proven successful during the Reagan Administration in the 1980s
|-
|takeover
|1917
|as in the takeover of government by the communist revolution in that year
|-
|tax-and-spend
|1937
|Not yet recognized by Merriam-Webster, it is included in dictionary.com and it means the liberal policy of raising taxes and increasing government spending
|-
|taxpayer
|1816
|the word highlights who is really paying for things
|-
|terrorism
|1795
|this was during the French Revolution
|-
|tour de force
|1802
|a feat of skill
|-
|[[term limits]]
|1861
|can you believe this is not in the dictionary yet? Merriam-Webster omits it, but dictionary.com has it<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/term+limit</ref>
|-
|trademark
|1838
|extends the concept of private property to the marks used by business
|-
|[[transaction cost]]
|1961
|Economist [[Ronald Coase]] won a [[Nobel Prize]] for this.
|-
|[[transistor]]
|1948
|named by John R. Pierce and developed at the [[conservative]] [[Bell Labs]], this invention epitomized Yankee ingenuity; Pierce was a critic of claims of [[artificial intelligence]] and was the future developer of [[Telstar]], a precursor to the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]]
|-
|traditionalist
|1856
|"adherence to the doctrines or practices of a tradition...the beliefs of those opposed to modernism, liberalism, or radicalism"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/traditionalist</ref>
|-
|tree huggers
|1970s
|still not recognized by the dictionary, this term criticizes extreme environmentalists, but they proudly use the term also to describe what they literally do
|-
|trust but verify
|1980s
|popularized by President Ronald Reagan as the approach to use towards communist [[deceit]]
|-
|ugly duckling
|1883
|an unpromising appearance but often with great unseen potential
|-
|underemployed
|1908
|having less than full-time or suitable employment
|-
|vandalism
|1798
|malicious destruction of someone else's property
|-
|veracity
|1623
|devotion to truthfulness
|-
|victimization
|1840
|
|-
|wannabee
|1981
|a word that criticizes liberal [[status worship]]
|-
|War on Terror
|2001
|no listing at Merriam-Webster February 2, 2009 Obama ends use of the conservative lexicon. <ref>[http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=17455 Obama administration drops 'war on terror' phrase] Pew Forum, February 2, 2009</ref>
|-
|work ethic
|1951
|a habit of working as a moral good
|-
|worldview
|1858
|a comprehensive way of looking at life and the world; sometimes used to criticize a liberal's irrational belief system
|-
|}
__TOC__ 

== Rate of Generation of Conservative Terms ==

The rate of generation of conservative terms is increasing at a remarkable geometric rate of growth, by doubling each century:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Conservative Terms
|-
|1600s
|13
|-
|1700s
|22
|-
|1800s
|44
|-
|1900s
|88
|-
|2000s
|4 (preliminary)
|-
|}

== Conservative Words Not Yet Recognized by the Dictionary ==

A thousand new words are developed in English each year. Here is a growing list of conservative concepts, each of which is not yet defined by a single word or two.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Not Yet Recognized Terms
!Suggestions
!Comments
|-
|9/10 mindset
|pre-9/11 thinking
|terror is jurisdiction of the courts
|-
|anti-family
|tradition opposer, familiopathic
|
|-
|causing harm by spreading falsehoods
|
|e.g., denying or concealing disease and infertility caused by promiscuity
|-
|cradle to grave <ref>[http://www.merriam-webster.com/spanish/from%20cradle%20to%20grave cradle to grave- no entry found] Merriam-Websters</ref>
|sanctity of life, conception to natural death
|pro-life stance, also can mean socialist entitlement programs
|-
|cut and run
|surrender advocates
|when the going gets tough, run away from the problem
|-
|[[deliberate ignorance]]
|
|the term exists; the dictionary does not yet include it
|-
|denial that [[Hell]] exists
|Hell-denier? Antinfernal? (Should be "antihadessic" so as not to mix Hellenate and Latinate roots)
|
|-
|[[abstinence denial|denier of the effectiveness of abstinence]]
|abstinence-denier?
|
|-
|drive-by media
|partisan slander
|liberal mainstream media assault on the GOP or conservative principles, deceitful attacks for opposing viewpoints
|-
|easily amused by [[deceit]]
|dolophile
|from Greek/Latin root ''dolo-'' meaning guile, deceit, deception [http://www.wordinfo.info/words/index/info/view_unit/664]
|-
|Hatred of one's country, refusal to recognize the good elements of it, or unreasonably critical of it
|Misopatria, misopatrist
|From Greek ''misein'', to hate, and Latin ''patria'', nation or homeland
|-
|hellbound
|
|recognized by over 1.3 million sites in a Google search and no substitute term is available, yet dictionaries refuse to recognize it
|-
|[[Illegal Alien|illegal alien]]
|
|widely used in court decisions and political discourse for years, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it is as a term.
|-
|infotainment
|tabloid news, dramacast
|mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline
|-
|merit pay
|performance bonus
|Doing your job better with perks as a reward. The typical liberal union teacher avoids merit pay at all costs, self before students.
|-
|[[militant gays]]
|intimidating homosexual
|
|-
|modern idolatry
|"media idolatry"; "money idolatry"; "celebrity idolatry"
|idolatry conjures images of golden calves, and a modern version is needed
|-
|morally bankrupt
|[[atheism]], self-void
|ethically and spiritually challenged souls
|-
|opposite of [[materialism]]
|spiritualism and idealism have been its philosophical opposites, historically
|[[dualism]] has been suggested, but it is not the ''opposite'' of [[materialism]]; "spiritualism" is not a common term and is the "opposite" of materialism
|-
|[[peer pressure]]
|
|can you believe that isn't recognized by Merriam-Webster?
|-
|proven wrong, a refusal to admit it
|mulism; heel-digger?
|cf. mulish. This refusal is what promoted the [[Parable of the Good Samaritan]].
|-
|religious right
|Christian conservatives
|Religion in America almost exclusively a conservative institution, no religious left term in existence.
|-
|rogue states
|rogue nations
|nations defying international law, only rogue is listed in Merriman-Websters
|-
|runaway jury
|The term has existed for decades, but Merriam-Webster has not recognized it yet.
|
|-
|Rule of Law
|
|
|-
|[[schlockumentary]]
|propaganda film
|documentary films based falsehoods and half-truths
|-
|[[Second generation atheist|second-generation atheist]]
|cradle atheist
|
|-
|strict constructionism
|
|an important term for over 200 years to describe adherence to the text of the Constitution, Merriam-Webster still does not recognize it.
|-
|[[Conservative| Traditional Values]]
| principles of Conservatism
|much the same as family values but incorporating all aspects society; family, religion, self-sufficiency, the truth, hard work. Only listed in Merriam-Websters to describe what Nilihism is against.
|-
|true emergency
|life support
|meaning a high probability of serious injury or death to an individual or property. Emergency has been watered down, e.g. to be locked out of one's car.
|-
|Unaffected by, or impervious to, the media
|mediaproof
|cf. bulletproof. ''Once John became aware of the extent of [[liberal deceit]], he set about mediaproofing his mind''.
|-
|}

== New Liberal Terms ==

New liberal words often have deceptive, or nonsensical, meanings. Here are some new words created by liberals to combat [[conservatism]]:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!New Term
!Origin date
!Comments
|-
|[[Agnosticism|agnostic]]
|1860
|Someone who claims to not know whether [[God]] exists but still lives like an [[atheist]]
|-
|[[Atheism|atheist]]
|1571
|useful and often deceptive alternative name for an anti-Christian
|-
|[[Big Bang theory|big bang]]
|1948
|term invented by the leading [[British]] physicist Sir [[Fred Hoyle]] to ''mock'' this suggestion of how the universe was formed, but later accepted as a serious term rather than mockery;<ref>Compare this migration with that of "politically correct," which started out as a serious term but then adopted a sense of mockery</ref> it's liberal because it trivializes the beauty and the [[faith]] of the moment
|-
|bilingual education
|1972
|a euphemism describing a costly and hurtful program that hinders the learning of English by foreign-born children in American [[public school]]s, which hurts their future opportunities
|-
|[[carbon footprint]]
|1999<ref>http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbon%20footprint</ref>
|term indicates an individual human's effect on the environment by production of carbon dioxide
|-
|chairperson
|1971
|Even Alice Sturgis, the leading parliamentarian of the 20th century, rejected this cumbersome form of political correctness.
|-
|check-off
|1911
|automatic deduction of union dues by the employer from the employee's paycheck, so he has no choice
|-
|[[class warfare]]
|
|first entered the political lexicon primarily as an attack by liberals against conservatives. <ref>[http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030115.html The art of "class warfare"], Ben Fritz, Spinsanity.org, January 15, 2003</ref>
|-
|[[communism]]
|1840
|
|-
|compassion fatigue
|1968
|Liberals, driven by materialistic self-interest, are likely to suffer from this.
|-
|[[condescension]]
|1647
|Treating another person as though they are inferior
|-
|[[creationism]]
|1880
|like most "isms", creationism is a derogatory term coined preferred most by opponents of it.
|-
|[[Dark Ages]]
|1730
|A term coined in the so-called [[enlightenment]] to disparage the period between the fall of the [[Roman Empire]] and c.1000, when the Christian faith, and its learning and culture, spread across Europe.
|-
|[[Dead white males|dead white males]]
|
|a disparaging term used of significant figures from previous generations by those who wish to undermine [[Cultural Literacy|cultural literacy]]
|-
|deconstruction
|1973
|a style of interpretation of texts that looks beyond the plain meaning of the text in order to infer or accuse the writers of social bias
|-
|diva
|1883
|modern use to describe female Hollywood/media personalities
|-
|[[Détente|detente]]
|1970s
|A euphemism referring to pacifist policy re. the Soviet Union
|-
|distributive justice
|
|A term used to redefine socialist abridgment of rights as "just"
|-
|[[enlightenment]]
|1669
|
|-
|[[Environmentalist|environmentalism]]
|1922
|a mixture of [[pseudoscience]] and neo-[[paganism]] used to justify the imposition of [[socialist]]ic controls.
|-
|[[exclusionary rule]]
|1964
|an invented rule that requires censoring and withholding from the jury certain incriminating evidence about a criminal defendant, simply based on how the evidence was obtained.
|-
|freethinker
|1692
|the euphemism "free" hides the hostility towards faith, which is not free
|-
|[[fundamentalism]]
|1922
|"a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching"<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fundamentalism</ref> From a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" which outlined the movement. Perjorative usage started when the liberal [[Harry Emerson Fosdick]] began using the term in a straw man attack against [[Conservative Christianity]].
|-
|[[feminism]]
|1895
|notionally, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes"; in reality, the attempt to destroy traditional family, societal and religious values by erasing or undermining natural gender differences.
|-
|[[gay rights]]
|1969
|The movement for civil rights for homosexuals
|-
|glass ceiling
|1984
|the notion that an invisible barrier prevents women and ethnic minorities from reaching high office; an excuse for [[feminist]]s and others to demand [[affirmative action]]
|-
|[[global warming]]
|1969
|The baseless [[environmentalist]] mantra that the earth's temperature is rising, and that human intervention is the cause.
|-
|[[goth]]
|?
|"A style of rock music, noted especially for somber or ethereal tones and lugubrious lyrics", or someone who performs or listens to this style of music.<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref> Goths often "dress in black with heavy jewelry".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth rock'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth%20rock]</ref> The term is taken from the name of "a Germanic people who invaded the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era".<ref>Dictionary.com, ''goth'' [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/goth]</ref>
|-
|gun control
|1969
|a euphemism for restricting the right to keep and bear arms
|-
|[[homophobia]]
|1969
|used by Liberals to describe a failure to subscribe 100% to the [[homosexual agenda]].
|-
|[[humanism]]
|1808 <ref>http://newhumanist.org.uk/1740</ref>
|
|-
|[[imperialism]]
|1851
|a clever term later used by liberals to interfere with Christian missionaries and stopping anti-Christian tyranny
|-
|[[isolationism]]
|1922
|a pejorative term that is critical of American politicians putting America first in priorities
|-
|Keynesianism
|1946
|advocacy of 'tax and spend' policies as elaborated by the economist [[John Maynard Keynes]]; a [[euphemism]] for back-door [[Socialism]].
|-
|[[Living Constitution]]
|2000
|a continually evolving Constitution (first used by presidential candidate Al Gore, title of a 1936 book by Howard McBain)
|-
|McCarthyism
|1950
|Originally, investigations by Sen. Joe McCarthy of Communists working in sensitive USA government jobs. Later, it more broadly refers to holding radical leftists accountable for their beliefs and loyalties.
|-
|[[metrosexual]]
|1994
|fashion and glamour man
|-
|moderate
|late 1900s
|the original term dates from the French Revolution, but its meaning today is a euphemism for someone who favors abortion and/or supports censorship of Christianity in some ways.
|-
|nationalize
|1800
|a euphemism for the government taking over ownership and control of a large company or entire industry, as in socialism
|-
|natural selection
|1857
|a misleading and euphemistic term for the theory that genetic advantages and conflict dictate survival
|-
|[[Nihilism]]
|1817
|a rejection of the values system, independently anarchist from society norms.
|-
|[[population control]]
|1968
|the issue of population dates back to Confucius. Liberals promoted the term after the book The Population Bomb by Paul R. Ehrlich
|-
|[[pro-choice]]
|1975
|a euphemism for insisting on taxpayer-funded [[abortion]]; people who claim to be pro-choice typically oppose ''informed'' choice, which makes the "choice" meaningless
|-
|[[progressivism]]
|1892
|the progressive movement was not entirely liberal; it was started by a Republican and shared some goals with conservatives, and still does
|-
|[[psychoanalysis]]
|1906
|contributed to de-spiritualization of human beings
|-
|[[quote mining]]
|non-existent
|a term used by [[evolutionists]] to describe taking quotes out of context in order to damage the position of the quoted party.
|-
|Segway
|2001
|Dean Kamen's trademark spelling of "segue" for use of Yankee Ingenuity to improve efficiency.
|-
|[[Sexual Discrimination|sexism]]
|1968
|That which is practiced by those who do not give total support to [[feminism]].
|-
|situation ethics
|1955
|a euphemism for denying fixed ethical standards
|-
|strict liability
|1869
|court-imposed liability even when there is no evidence of any fault by the defendant
|-
|sustainability
|1727
|[[environmentalism|environmentalist]] buzzword
|-
|Swift-Boating
|2004
|Allegations of unfair campaign tactics.
|-
|transnationalist
|2006
|popularized by Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh in a 2006 law review article: "The transnationalists view domestic courts as having a critical role to play in domesticating international law into U.S. law ...."<ref>Penn State Law Review (2006).</ref>
|-
|undocumented immigrant
|2000
|a [[politically correct]] replacement for illegal alien.
|-
|unfair
|1700
|
|-
|union shop
|1904
|
|-
|[[Unitarian]]
|1687
|
|-
|will to power
|1907
|[[Nietzsche]]'s concept of the drive of a superman to perfect himself by exercising creative power; it didn't catch on
|-
|}

== Rate of Generation of Liberal Terms ==

The rate of generation of liberal terms is increasing, but not with the enduring value of the conservative terms and not with their geometric rate of increase. A remarkably high percentage of new liberal terms originated in the 1960s, suggesting that new liberal terms arise in a sporadic manner heavily influenced by culture:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Century
!# New Liberal Terms
|-
|1600s
|4
|-
|1700s
|2
|-
|1800s
|10
|-
|1900s
|27 (8 in the 1960s)
|-
|2000s
|4
|-
|}

== Terms Difficult to Classify ==

These new terms are difficult to classify:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|[[Affirmative Action|affirmative action]]
|1961
|first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 and subsequently promoted by [[LBJ]].
|-
|Americanism
|1781
|Originally, a phrase unique to American English, later, loyalty to America and its principles
|-
|bipartisan
|1909
|emphasized by liberals when they are in the minority in power, but ignored by liberals when they are the majority in power
|-
|Cold War
|1947
|open hostilities and ideological driven differences between nations
|-
|evangelism
|1620-30
|"isms" are usually pejorative, though this acquired a positive meaning over time, and perhaps from the outset
|-
|missionary
|1635-1645
|conservative?
|-
|Multitasking
|1966
|multiple task all at once
|-
|republican
|1685
|
|-
|scrooge
|1843
|the main character in Charles Dickens' ''A Christmas Carol''; the story is based on materialism and is often used as a substitute for the Biblical account, but charity is a conservative value
|-
|smoke and mirrors
|1982
|describes the use of deceit, particularly in politics; probably a conservative term, but will await more etymology about it
|-
|states' rights
|1790
|liberals often invoke this too; Democrats were its biggest champions in the 1800s (in connection with slavery), and even today on issues like legalizing drugs and same-sex marriage
|-
|telecommute
|1974<ref>This first use was in the British magazine ''The Economist''.</ref>
|a combination of a Greek root ("tele", which means "far off") and a Latin root ("commutare", which means "to exchange")
|-
|traditionalism
|1856
|"beliefs of those opposed to [[modernism]], [[liberalism]], or [[radicalism]]"
|-
|[[twilight zone]]
|1949
|the realm of imagination that seems impossible but is difficult to disprove, and which challenges ordinary views of reality; also the terminator between night and day on a planetary body
|-
|underdog
|1887
|conservative or liberal?
|-
|}

== Downgraded Conservative Terms ==

These conservative terms are less significant:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
|byzantine
|1794<ref>The usage here -- in sense of complex governmental rules -- probably developed later.</ref>
|
|-
|[[entropy]]
|1868
|
|-
|[[filibuster]]
|1851
|
|-
|incandescent
|1794
|bright and radiant, conquering darkness, precursor to the invention of the incandescent lamp (light bulb)
|-
|Luddite
|1811
|one who opposes and even destroys technological advances
|-
|media
|1923
|
|-
|[[milquetoast]]
|1933
|timid and unassertive; easily persuaded or exploited
|-
|normalcy
|1920
|related to the election of [[Warren G. Harding]] by the largest margin yet in history
|-
|ne'er-do-well
|1736
|"an idle worthless person" - Merriam-Webster
|-
|reticent
|1834
|restrained in expression, presentation, or appearance
|-
|self-indulgence
|1753
|
|-
|}

== Sources ==

*[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ Merriam-Webster dictionary]

== See also ==

*[[Essay:Conservapedia's Law]]
*[[Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms]]
*[[Linguistic Analysis of Candidates]]

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

[[Category:Essays]]

Loaves and fishes

2009-06-14T20:35:37Z

CJHallock: Created page with 'Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15 all report Jesus blessing and breaking 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish and feeding the multitudes of people (more than...'

Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17 and John 6:5-15 all report Jesus blessing and breaking 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish and feeding the multitudes of people (more than 5000) gathered to listen to him preach.

Vole

2009-06-14T19:48:57Z

CJHallock: wikify

{{Taxonomy|image = Microtus agrestis.jpg|kingdom = Animalia|phylum = Chordata|subphylum = Vertebrata|class = Mammalia|order = Rodentia|family = Cricetidae|subfamily = Arvicolinae|genus = }}
The name '''vole''' is short for the archaic word volemouse, which may come from Norwegian ''vollmus'', from the Old Norse ''völlr'', field and Old Norse ''mūs'', mouse.

Voles are rodents, in the same family (''Crecetidae'') as [[lemming]]s, and like lemmings they sometimes have population explosions. The field vole, ''Arvicola agrestis'', was so plentiful in [[Scotland]], causing so much damage in 1890-1 that the Government appointed a Committee to examine the question. The committee wondered whether the destruction of predators by gamekeepers was responsible, but in true [[Darwin]]ian fashion, the Scottish outbreak was dealt with by a rapid natural increase in the population of [[birds of prey]]. <ref>http://www.electricscotland.com/books/wildlife6.htm </ref> A more recent vole explosion permitted [[snowy owl]]s to colonise and breed in the [[Shetland]] Islands for a number of years.

Voles range in color from gray to brown and in size from three to nine inches long. They have rounded bodies and blunt snouts, small ears and short tails without much hair. Their main food is grasses, but they also eat bark, leaves and insects. There are about 70 species, 40 of which (found in [[North America]], [[Eurasia]] and [[North Africa]]) are in the genus ''Microtus'', which usually make shallow burrows or runways under vegetation. Confusingly, these are called [[field mice]] in North America (in the rest of the world, field mice are a completely different animal). The five species in the genus ''Clethrionomys'' nest in shrubs, and those in the North American genus ''Phenacomys'' nest in trees and are called tree mice. The ''Lagarus'' species found in the western US is called the sagebrush vole, while that found in [[Russia]] and [[Mongolia]] is misleadingly called the steppe lemming. Voles also are known to strip the bark in a circle around fruit tree trunks, which often kills the tree. They tend not to like human houses, though they sometimes infest barns. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/268.shtm</ref> <ref>http://www.terminix.com </ref> <ref>http://www.the-aps.org/press/conference/steamboat/1.htm</ref>

In Europe and Western Asia, the water vole ''Arvicola amphibus'', lives near ditches, streams and rivers. It is the largest British vole, and often mistaken for a rat – in fact Ratty in Kenneth Grahame’s book ''[[The Wind in the Willows]]'' was actually a water vole, making his nest by burrowing into the river bank. Water voles are not quite as well adapted for life on the water as animals like otters and beavers, so his habit of ‘messing about in boats’ was probably a good one. When alarmed, they make a characteristic ‘plop’ as they drop into the water. <ref> http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/289feature3.shtml</ref>

Female water voles give birth to around six young after a gestation period of 20-23 days. The young leave their mother after about 22 days, when she has her next litter. They produce up to five litters from April to September. Despite all this reproductive activity, water vole numbers in the UK have dropped up to 90% in recent years despite their legally-protected status, because of predation from American [[mink]] that have escaped from fur farms, and changes in farming and flood control – a much bigger threat to Ratty than the [[Weasel]]s were. On the principle of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’, the water vole’s new best friend is the [[otter]]. Because of pesticide use, the otter population began to decline 50 years ago. However, the recent revival in the otter population is helping the voles because otters have been keeping mink under control. <ref> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5331740.stm</ref>

Water voles like to use a latrine for excretion, and their droppings - cylindrical with blunt ends – are often piled up together near their burrows, which often have grazed areas around the entrance. <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/268.shtml</ref>

Other plans to help water voles by controlling mink include ‘rafts’ made out of wood, polystyrene, oasis and clay, designed to get the mink to climb aboard and leave footprints, alerting watchers to set traps for them. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/6211208.stm</ref> Protective measures include building culverts to allow them to cross underneath roads safely – Durham Wildlife Trust has a ‘Coals to Voles’ project that aims to protect vole habitat in former coalfield areas. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/5178284.stm</ref> In Nottinghamshire, Severn Trent water company bred baby water voles and released them into protected pools at the Kirkby in Ashfield sewage treatment site, microchipping them first in order to monitor their weight and health. <ref>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/3799063.stm</ref>

Vole research is indicating that fidelity may be genetic. It seems that less than 5% of mammals are naturally [[monogamous]]. This number includes the prairie voles, ''Microtus ochrogaster'', which guard their mate and help rear their young. Meadow voles, ''Microtus pennsylvanicus'', skip blithely from mate to mate and mainly ignore their offspring. Researchers found that meadow voles had fewer [[vasopressin]] receptors in their forebrains than prairie voles. To test the theory that the receptor and the behaviour were connected, they gave meadow voles extra vasopressin receptors. The former Don Juans reformed and stayed true to just one mate, even when other females tempted them. Scientists believe that the release of vasopressin during mating acts as a reward, picked up by the extra receptors, making the voles associate those feelings with that mate and encouraging fidelity. <ref>http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/004394.html</ref>

Similar hormones and pathways may be involved in human behaviour, as vasopressin is also released when humans have sex, although in voles the sense of smell is far more important than it is in humans. However, researchers are focusing on implications for autism, where social interaction is abnormal and vasopressin may be involved. Mountain voles – another promiscuous species like meadow voles – have the highest rate of sex of any mammal in the animal world. <ref>http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/004394.html</ref>

Voles use their hind feet and a somersault action to dig their tunnels. Voles’ sense of touch must make up for their poor hearing and vision. Their tails and whiskers are very sensitive to touch and help voles to burrow. Vole teeth, like those of many other rodents, grow constantly, so they need to gnaw to keep their teeth ground to a short enough length. They are not known to hibernate. Voles can carry rabies and also plague-bearing fleas. <ref>http://www.unitedwildlife.com/AnimalsVoles.html</ref>

The [[vole clock]] has been used to reinterpret the sequence of events in the Pleistocene in both Britain and other European sites. <ref>http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba86/feat1.shtml#sect5a</ref> <ref>http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/T/timeteam/archive/2000elveden_vole.html</ref>

==Voles in popular culture==

‘Vole’ is an increasingly-used nickname originally given to Microsoft by an IT newsletter called ‘The Inquirer’, possibly because a vole’s teeth grow continuously and they have to wear them down or die. The analogy is that Microsoft’s survival depends on stifling the competition.<ref>http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39079</ref>

==References==

<references/>

[[Category:Rodents]]

Talk:Essay:Surprising Dates of Origin for Terms

2009-06-14T19:34:18Z

CJHallock: /* Theism */

I hope you don't mind my adding to the essay, but I don't think it can be emphasized enough that even when it was used, "separation of church and state" did NOT imply a limit on religious freedoms of any kind. --[[User:BenP|BenP]] 12:56, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

"What did flags hang on for centuries before that?" Flagstaffs. [[User:LarsJ|LarsJ]] 13:59, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

: Excellent! "Flagstaff" it must have been.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==Theism==

Maybe the reason the term "atheism" was only popularized after theism is because atheism literally means "without theism"? This shouldn't be construed to mean that atheists didn't exist before the 1800s-- after all, there were even atheists in Ancient Greece, like Epicurus, famous for his "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" observation. [[User:STam|STam]] 13:59, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

I think Epicurus was more of a deist or agnostic than an atheist. He did admit that gods might exist but they had no influence on the world. However, I would guess there were atheists before the 1800s if the word first appeared in 1587. --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:13, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:It's a myth that were atheists in ancient times. There may not even be true atheists today. More typically an "atheist" is simply an anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

::Well if Atheist means antichristian then there were atheists long ago, like Saul --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 15:34, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==English words==

This article appears to give the dates when these words first appeared in English. Isn't it possible that words for these concepts already existed in other languages before that? --[[User:OscarJ|OscarJ]] 14:16, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

:Maybe, maybe not. Regardless the surprising dates of origin in English are still ... surprising.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

==English Words==

Fission doesn't just mean nuclear; when a cell splits in two, that's Binary Fission; the word comes from the Latin root meaning 'to split,' the same etymological origin as "fissure". A change should probably be made.

:Thanks for your insight, but I don't see any reason to change the entry. You're simply reinforcing what the entry says: "fission" is not a new concept.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:29, 14 June 2009 (EDT)

Oxytocin

2009-06-14T19:33:13Z

CJHallock: Redadded information with a source

'''Oxytocin''' is a naturally secreted [[hormone]] that is important in milk letdown and the contraction of the smooth uterine muscles during the birthing process in [[mammal]]s, including [[cow]]s and [[human]]s. Oxytocin is sometimes called the cuddle hormone and is important for mother child bonding. <ref>http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/oxytocin.html</ref>
[[category:dairy]]

Sexual continence

2009-06-14T18:03:02Z

CJHallock: Fair use is not "I get to usei it when I want"

[[Image:Bride and groom.jpg|right|thumb|250px|The Word of God approves only one sexual relationship:
that between a husband and wife within marriage.]]
'''Sexual continence''' is abstaining from sexual actions until married, and remaining strictly faithful within marriage.
<blockquote>What's right is always smart, and always for your good. Sex is not just something you do—sex is someone you are. It is linked to the welfare of your whole person. <ref> [http://www.epm.org/articles/sexpur.html Guidelines for Sexual Purity] by Randy Alcorn. </ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>
''"We are getting married anyway." - Great!! Then surely you must want to build your marriage on a foundation of obedience to the Lord and respect for one another. If you are a Christian and you love your spouse-to-be, you must want the best for him or her and following God's commands is always the best. A healthy Christian marriage consists of two people who are committed to obedience to Christ above all. God cannot bless sin so if you choose to build your marriage on sin rather than on obedience to Christ, you will reap the consequences of that sin rather than enjoy the blessings of God.'' <ref>[http://www.zyworld.com/PURENHART2/purity.htm Sexual purity]</ref>

</blockquote>

''In 1917, The American Medical Association passes a resolution declaring that "sexual continence is compatible with health and is the best prevention of venereal infections," and one of the methods for controlling syphilis is by controlling alcohol. Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels prohibits the practice of distributing contraceptives to sailors bound on shore leave, and Congress passes laws setting up "dry and decent zones" around military camps. "Many barkeepers are fined for selling liquor to men in uniform. Only at Coney Island could soldiers and sailors change into the grateful anonymity of bathing suits and drink without molestation from patriotic passers-by."'' <ref>[http://www.sodaknorml.org/history.htm A History of Drug Use and Prohibition]</ref>

== See also ==
*[[Abstinence]]
*[[Sexual healing]]

== External links ==
*[http://www.probe.org/content/view/891/72/ Medical Reasons for Sexual Purity] Written by Dr. Ray Bohlin.
*[http://www.premaritalsex.info/ Sexual purity]
*[http://www.epm.org/articles/sexpur.html Guidelines for sexual purity]
*[http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~tomshoemaker/StudentPapers/JewishSexuality.html Sexuality in Judaism]
*[http://www.marriagefriendlycommunities.org/ Marriage Friendly Communities]
*[http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=25922 Study reveals flaws in sex education]
*[http://www.teen-aid.org/Abstinence_Education/psychological_argument_for_abstinence_and_commitment.htm#_Love_Or_Lust? Implications For Sex Education And Counseling] Brock Alan Salzman.
*[http://www.bible.com/bibleanswers_result.php?id=252 WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT...]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:Sexuality]]
[[Category:Health]]

Goth (subculture)

2009-06-14T17:40:41Z

CJHallock: Undo revision 674578 by BjoernM (Talk) you are soft pedaling anti Christian attitudes

'''Goth''' in modern usage is a term often given to a style of music, a type of dress, and/or a subculture; all of which were originally derived from bands such as Siouxsie & The Banshees, Bahaus, and the Cure. Goth fashion typically consists of a conspicuous affection for black clothing, black/red hair dye, painted nails and eyeliner on both genders, pale skin or powder makeup, and striking application of cosmetics.

Most of those are young women, many of whom dress bizzarely. Very often they have black hair, black leather clothes with references to 18th century clothing, black boots and make up making them like look demons. Goth women normally make up their face very white, attempting to look like vampires. While for many this is only a style, some do it because they worship vampires/other demons and death. Satanic clothing is also rebellion against Christianity.

== Criticism from the Christian point of view ==

It is often labeled as [[Satan]]ic or anti-[[Christian]] in nature, although a large Christian Goth community exists, and Goths are not necessarily anti-Christian.

Though some goths are Christian, some of them are atheists, [[Anti-Christianity|anti-Christians]] and even [[Satanist]]s. Often these non-Christian goths walk beside normal youngsters.

Goth culture has its roots in music. It comes from gothic/death/punk rock and from gothic metal, which are very doomish styles of music, without hope and fun. This kind of music makes it listener melancholic. Also, many goths like to play [[role-playing games]] and especially [[LARP]]s. They play vampires and so on in these games. When they come to home, they can not stop 'playing' demons, because since they started the game, they are under [[possession]]. At least some subsets of Goth culture can be clearly seen as a [[cult]]s such as the EMO (see external link).

==External links==
*[http://christiangoth.com/ Christian Goth .com]
*[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-400953/EMO-cult-warning-parents.html "EMO cult warning for parents"]

[[Category:Culture]]

Mental illness

2009-06-14T17:14:40Z

CJHallock: The bible has mental illness recorded in it 1 Samuel 21:13

'''Mental illness''' is a broad concept covering all sorts of diseases, disorders, and disturbances in the human mind (see [[psychology]] and [[psychiatry]]).

From the dawn of recorded history, people have been frightened or dismayed by the "crazy" behavior or speech of others. The idea of locking up mentally disordered people or placing them in [[asylum]]s goes back hundreds of years and has often been mentioned in literature. In Shakespeare's play, [[Hamlet]] appeared to be mentally ill; [[Ophelia]] became mentally ill and killed herself.

Various theories have been put forth to account for mental disorders. <ref>"The English-speaking world has not always used medical language to describe the behavior we now label as symptomatic of mental illness or mental disorder. Descriptions were sometimes framed in quite different terms, such as possession. What we now call mental illness was not always treated as a medical problem." [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mental-illness/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], Christian Perring</ref>
Religious ideas about mental illness have included [[demon]]ic possession, to be cured by [[exorcism]]. Psychological ideas run a wide gamut. [more needed here]

Mental illness is generally considered to have dimensions of severity and impact, as well as legal implications. Some people are considered [[insane]] in some countries, and are excluded from society or given special consideration. A defendant may be judged not guilty by reason of [[temporary insanity]]. A severely mentally unwell individual may be [[psychotic]] or [[schizophrenic]], while milder forms of mental illness are classified as a [[neurosis]] or [[syndrome]] (see [[Eating disorder]] or [[bulimia]] or [[anorexia]]).

==Forms of Mental Disorder==
Psychosis 
Depression 
Anxiety 
Obsessional Compulsive Disorder 
Personality Disorder 

==Types of mental health professionals==

Professionals involved in the care and treatment of people suffering from mental disorder include [[Mental Health Nurse|mental health nurses]], [[social workers]], [[psychiatrists]] and [[occupational therapists]].

==Mental illness and the law==
The mental health community does not recognize or utilise the term "insane" or 'insanity", yet is called upon to give expert opinion as such in capital criminal cases where the life of a defendant is at stake. This is because the terms "insane" and "insanity", whilst written into the law in ''some'' countries, are not defined ''in'' or ''by'' the law. It is for mental health professionals to determine whether an individual is mentally unwell or not; the courts' role is to take the opinions of those professionals into account when deciding on an appropriate disposal for the defendant, which can include prison or detention in hospital under local mental health legislation.

In the UK, a defendant can be placed in a mental health hospital (under the Mental Health Act 2007) if the opinions of mental health professionals agree that the person requires such care and treatment. The most dangerous of defendants who are mentally unwell can be made subject to Part IV of the MHA 2007, which includes provision for detention in hospital without limit of time.

Many courts apply the M'Naghten Rules as to whether the defendant was, at the time of the index offence, capable of knowing that what they were doing was wrong.

[[Liberal]] Senator [[Paul Wellstone]] was long in favor of spending money on mental illness coverage. A bill passed by the [[House of Representatives]] in March 2008, the Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act, would force insurers to cover mental illness at the same coverage level as physical ailments. The bill was sponsored in the House by Republican [[Jim Ramstad]], a recovering [[alcoholism|alcoholic]], and Ted Kennedy's son [[Patrick Kennedy]] of [[Rhode Island]]. A similar bill in the [[United States Senate]] was sponsored [[liberal]] Democrat [[Ted Kennedy]], who has been addicted to painkillers; Pete Domenici of New Mexico; and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. <ref>[http://www.startribune.com/politics/16318346.html House approval is historic moment for Wellstone's addiction and treatment crusade]</ref> The [[Family Research Council]] has expressed its concern that this bill would force businesses to provide health care for mental "conditions" like necrophilia, pedophilia, cross-dressing, and gender identity confusion.<ref>[http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=WU08C03 Family Research Council: March 6, 2008 Update]</ref>

==Mental illness and the brain==

Scientists who adhere to a purely physical model of mental health regard many aspects of mental illness as disorders of the brain. <ref>"Mental health disorders ... such as [[depression]], [[bipolar disorder]], [[schizophrenia]] and even [[borderline personality disorder]] are medical disorders of the brain." [http://www.mental-health-today.com/index.htm Mental Health Today] </ref>

==Notes==
<references/>

==See also==

*[[psychotherapy]]

*[[List of psychologists]]
**[[Alice Miller]]
**[[M. Scott Peck]], author of ''The Road Less Traveled''
**[[Eric Berne]]
**[[Sigmund Freud]]

[[Category:Psychiatry]]
[[Category:Psychology]]
[[Category:Mental health]]

Korean War

2009-06-12T19:01:40Z

CJHallock: spelling

[[Image:Lopez scaling seawall.jpg|right|thumb|300px|United States marines landing at [[Inchon]], 15 September 1950.]]
The '''Korean War''' was a major conflict on the Korean peninsula lasting from 1950 to 1953, between the communist forces of [[North Korea]], supported by the [[Soviet Union]] and [[China]], and the democratic forces of [[South Korea]], supported by a multinational [[United Nations]] force in which the US was largely represented. Because not [[Declaration of war]] was ever ratified by congress the conflict was officially referred to as a police action.

=== Prelude ===
A [[Japan]]ese colony until the end of [[World War II]], Korea was then divided by the [[Yalta agreement]] into two administrative zones in 1945, along the 38th parallel, occupied by the Soviet Union and the [[United States]]. In both zones competing government organizations were created to rule a unified Korea, and military forces raised.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Comintern]] propagandist [[Owen Lattimore]] writing in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref>''New York Compass'', Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

=== Outbreak ===

In the summer of 1950, North Korean forces under [[Kim Il Sung]], 135,000 strong and supported by 200 aircraft, thrust southwards. The 95,000 strong South Korean army, created under US control, was unmotivated, inefficient and had been deliberately denied heavy weapons; within hours most formations had fled south, often abandoning their equipment. After a week, almost half of the South Korean army had disappeared.

A United Nations resolution, passed in the absence of the USSR, which was boycotting the UN at the time, condemned the attack and demanded the withdrawal of the North Korean forces. The United States was the most enthusiastic in pursuing these demands. A second resolution invited member nations to provide forces to repel the invasion, which the United States had already started doing.

The [[United States Air Force]] was the first (non-Korean) force to respond to the invasion. Initial action, however, was limited to making sure American citizens were evacuated safely. Once the first UN resolution was passed, attention turned to stopping the North Korean advance. USAF planes flew from bases in [[Japan]] and [[Okinawa]], and two [[aircraft carrier]]s were in the area, the USS ''Valley Forge'' and the British HMS ''Triumph''. In addition, US [[cruisers]] and [[destroyer]]s off the coast lent fire support to the retreating South Korean forces.<ref>''Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy'', by Craig L. Symonds, the Naval Institute, 1995</ref>

The North Koreans had the latest piston-engined fighters from the Soviet Union, but they were outclassed by the first-generation jet fighters flown by the USAF and the [[United States Navy|US Navy]]. UN aircraft made several strikes on North Korean air bases, and by July 5, the NKAF had lost over a hundred aircraft and the UN had complete air superiority.<ref name="MyFirstRef">''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall, Dell Publishing, 1997</ref>

No modern conventional war has been won without air superiority, but air power alone has never won a war, and the first months of the Korean War were a case in point. Air strikes by bombers and fighter-bombers slowed the North Korean advance, but the communist troops were just too numerous to stop, especially with the South Korean resistance crumbling. UN troops, mostly American, were sent in to help hold the line, but they were outnumbered, and forced back. In August, the lines finally stabilized along the Naktong River, establishing the Pusan perimeter.

=== Pusan perimeter ===

Pusan is a large port on the southern tip of Korea, through which came thousands of UN troops and hundred of tanks and other heavy equipment. By August, enough troops had come through that they could successfully hold the line against the North Koreans. Knowing that time was not on their side, [[Kim Il-Sung]] ordered his soldiers to breach the line by any means necessary. The North Korean army attacked repeatedly, but every attempt failed.<ref>''Battle'', by R.G. Grant, DK Publishing, 2005</ref>

Air power played a huge role in the defense of the perimeter. With the skies firmly in UN control, American and British fighters and bombers had free reign. [[B-29 Superfortress]]es, based on [[Okinawa]], hit North Korean supply lines and rear areas. [[P-51 Mustang|F-82 Twin Mustangs]], F-80 Shooting Stars (America’s first combat jets), and propeller-driven medium bombers flew from Japan constantly, usually targeting North Korean troops. [[P-51 Mustang|F-51 Mustangs]] operated from rough airfields inside the perimeter itself, some only a few minutes flying time from the enemy lines. In addition, the carrier USS ''Philippine Sea'' had arrived, and joined the ''Valley Forge'' and ''Triumph'' in strikes on the North Koreans. By the second week of September, UN planes were averaging around 700 sorties per day in support of the troops holding the line.<ref name="MyFirstRef"/>

In early September, enough UN troops had entered Pusan that the perimeter was secure, and attention could be turned to a counter-attack. Time, for the North Koreans, had run out.

=== Inchon landings ===

With the situation in the south finally stabilized, in September, 70,000 UN troops under [[Douglas MacArthur|General MacArthur]], with massive support, landed at [[Inchon]], near [[Seoul]], surprising the exhausted North Koreans. The landings were an extremely risky operation; if any significant resistance had been encountered, the landing craft would probably have been stranded by the extreme [[tide]]s of the landing zone, leaving the forces landed vulnerable to complete annihilation. However, they were lucky and only two days after the capture of Seoul from the 20,000 North Korean defenders was announced, it was actually achieved.

=== China joins the war ===

MacArthur struck north immediately, intent upon destroying the North Korean forces, and captured the North Korean capital [[Pyongyang]] in mid-October. China, feeling threatened by these developments, sent hundreds of thousands of well-motivated, veteran troops south from Manchuria, supported by Russian built [[MiG-15]] fighters that were superior to any UN aircraft then in-country. By November the UN offensive had been halted, and by December it was mostly in ignominious retreat. In January the Chinese forces recaptured Seoul.

=== Stalemate ===

In March 1951, a UN operation recaptured Seoul. In April, General MacArthur, disagreeing with [[Harry S. Truman|President Truman]]'s concept of limited war, suggested publicly a massive nuclear bombardment of the whole of northern China and was sacked by President Truman. The subsequent Chinese spring offensive was halted, but only after the Battle of the Imjin River, where the British 29th Brigade, whose situation had been misunderstood by the American sector commander, was surrounded and partially overrun, suffering many unnecessary casualties - eventually making the total death toll for the US military comparable to that of [[WWII]]. (The situation had been reported as being "a bit sticky", which is British Army terminology for "extremely dangerous")

=== Aftermath ===
[[Image:K-TRUCE53.JPG|thumb|450px|Ike ended the war by threatening to use nuclear weapons against China]]

By June the communist forces had had enough and called for a ceasefire, although it took until 1953 before an armistice was signed. As several participants have never formally made peace, the conflict remains technically active today, even though there has been no major combat since 1953; the ceasefire line (Demilitarized Zone) remains heavily fortified and militarized to the present day.

==Air War==
The Korean War was the first conflict in which jet aircraft fought each other. (Both the [[Luftwaffe]] and the [[RAF]] had operational jets in WWII, but they never came into direct conflict.) Most jet battles took place near the Yalu River, in the airspace over north-western North Korea known as "MiG alley." The UN forces generally retained air superiority throughout most of the war, and air power helped compensate for the Communists' superior numbers on the ground.

The general lack of permanent runways in Korea hindered the use of jet aircraft and bombers, forcing the Allies to use piston aircraft. The [[P-51 Mustang|F-51 Mustang]] was the most numerous Allied aircraft in the early months of the war. In November of 1950, the first of the [[MiG-15]] aircraft appeared, and was able to outperform all Allied fighters until the introduction of the [[F-86 Sabre]]. The Sabre was arguably slightly inferior to the MiG-15, but the veteran American pilots eventually produced a kill ratio of approximately 12:1 in their favour. Many of these aerial dogfights took place in the northwestern corner of Korea, a place given the name 'Mig Alley' by Allied pilots.

Another noteworthy point during the Korean Conflict was the first significant use of [[helicopters]], for transport, reconnaissance and rescue missions.

Overall, Korea was not a good place to deploy advanced aircraft. The climate provided extremes of temperature and much abrasive sand. The marsh-like rice fields and mountainous terrain were poor areas for runways, which tended to be rudimentary at best. The helicopter, however, proved itself in Korea, as it could perform the reconaissance missions of planes without airstrips and the transport tasks of ground vehicles without the need to cross the rugged terrain.

==Participants==
===UN Multinational Forces===
*[[South Korea]]
*[[Australia]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Canada]]
*[[Colombia]]
*[[Ethiopia]]
*[[France]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[The Netherlands]]
*[[Philippines]]
*[[South Africa]]
*[[Thailand]]
*[[Turkey]]
*[[United Kingdom]]
*[[United States]]

===Communist Forces===
*[[North Korea]]
*[[Soviet Union]]
*[[China]]

==See also==
*[[United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Korea]]

Korean War

2009-06-12T19:00:48Z

CJHallock: My father died in Korea

[[Image:Lopez scaling seawall.jpg|right|thumb|300px|United States marines landing at [[Inchon]], 15 September 1950.]]
The '''Korean War''' was a major conflict on the Korean peninsula lasting from 1950 to 1953, between the communist forces of [[North Korea]], supported by the [[Soviet Union]] and [[China]], and the democratic forces of [[South Korea]], supported by a multinational [[United Nations]] force in which the US was largely represented. Because not [[Declairation of war]] was ever ratified by congress the conflict was officially referred to as a police action.

=== Prelude ===
A [[Japan]]ese colony until the end of [[World War II]], Korea was then divided by the [[Yalta agreement]] into two administrative zones in 1945, along the 38th parallel, occupied by the Soviet Union and the [[United States]]. In both zones competing government organizations were created to rule a unified Korea, and military forces raised.

August 31, 1946, Harold J. Noble wrote an article in the ''Saturday Evening Post'' entitled, "Our Most Dangerous Boundary." The author pointed out that the Soviet Union had garrisoned [[North Korea]] with a larger force than the Americans possessed in [[Japan]] and [[Manchuria]]. The Communists were disposed to invade at a moment's notice. Where the U.S. had a squad near the border commanded by a corporal, the Soviet Union had a battalion, commanded by an officer, equipped with motor transport, ninety per cent of which came from America. The Soviet Union had established a police state in North Korea and suppressed every political organization except the Communist Party.

In 1947, General Albert Wedemeyer made his report on China and Korea. The Korean part was suppressed. Wedemeyer said:
:"American and Soviet forces . . . are approximately equal, less than 50,000 troops each, [but] the Soviet-equipped and trained North Korean People's (Communist) Army of approximately 125,000 is vastly superior to the United States-organized constabulary of 16,000 Koreans equipped with Japanese small arms. The North Korean People's Army constitutes a potential military threat to [[South Korea]], since there is strong possibility that the Soviets will withdraw their occupation forces and thus induce our own withdrawal."<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

Wedemeyer warned that this would take place as soon as "they can be sure that the North Korean [[puppet government]] and its armed forces . . . are strong enough . . . to be relied upon to carry out Soviet objectives without the actual presence of Soviet troops." General Lyman L. Lemnitzer said that before June 1950, when the attack occurred, no aid had been sent but a few hundred dollars worth of bailing wire.<ref>Hearings before the Senate Committee on Armed Services and Committee on Foreign Relations, June 6, 1951.</ref>

[[Comintern]] propagandist [[Owen Lattimore]] writing in the [[leftist]] ''New York Compass'' said that the U.S. should give Korea a "parting grant" of $150,000,000 and "let [[South Korea]] fall but not to let it look as though we pushed it."<ref>''New York Compass'', Jan. 17, 1949.</ref>

Conditions inviting the North Korean attack were created by the [[United Nations]] which issued a resolution for withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops. Troops began withdrawing September 15, 1948, leaving only about 7500 Americans lightly armed. This left in South Korea 16,000 Koreans and 7500 Americans, both groups lightly armed, against 150,000 fully armed North Korean Communists. General Roberts, head of the U. S. Military Mission said the South Koreans were not permitted to arm adequately.

=== Outbreak ===

In the summer of 1950, North Korean forces under [[Kim Il Sung]], 135,000 strong and supported by 200 aircraft, thrust southwards. The 95,000 strong South Korean army, created under US control, was unmotivated, inefficient and had been deliberately denied heavy weapons; within hours most formations had fled south, often abandoning their equipment. After a week, almost half of the South Korean army had disappeared.

A United Nations resolution, passed in the absence of the USSR, which was boycotting the UN at the time, condemned the attack and demanded the withdrawal of the North Korean forces. The United States was the most enthusiastic in pursuing these demands. A second resolution invited member nations to provide forces to repel the invasion, which the United States had already started doing.

The [[United States Air Force]] was the first (non-Korean) force to respond to the invasion. Initial action, however, was limited to making sure American citizens were evacuated safely. Once the first UN resolution was passed, attention turned to stopping the North Korean advance. USAF planes flew from bases in [[Japan]] and [[Okinawa]], and two [[aircraft carrier]]s were in the area, the USS ''Valley Forge'' and the British HMS ''Triumph''. In addition, US [[cruisers]] and [[destroyer]]s off the coast lent fire support to the retreating South Korean forces.<ref>''Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy'', by Craig L. Symonds, the Naval Institute, 1995</ref>

The North Koreans had the latest piston-engined fighters from the Soviet Union, but they were outclassed by the first-generation jet fighters flown by the USAF and the [[United States Navy|US Navy]]. UN aircraft made several strikes on North Korean air bases, and by July 5, the NKAF had lost over a hundred aircraft and the UN had complete air superiority.<ref name="MyFirstRef">''Rolling Thunder: Jet Combat from World War II to the Gulf War'', by Ivan Rendall, Dell Publishing, 1997</ref>

No modern conventional war has been won without air superiority, but air power alone has never won a war, and the first months of the Korean War were a case in point. Air strikes by bombers and fighter-bombers slowed the North Korean advance, but the communist troops were just too numerous to stop, especially with the South Korean resistance crumbling. UN troops, mostly American, were sent in to help hold the line, but they were outnumbered, and forced back. In August, the lines finally stabilized along the Naktong River, establishing the Pusan perimeter.

=== Pusan perimeter ===

Pusan is a large port on the southern tip of Korea, through which came thousands of UN troops and hundred of tanks and other heavy equipment. By August, enough troops had come through that they could successfully hold the line against the North Koreans. Knowing that time was not on their side, [[Kim Il-Sung]] ordered his soldiers to breach the line by any means necessary. The North Korean army attacked repeatedly, but every attempt failed.<ref>''Battle'', by R.G. Grant, DK Publishing, 2005</ref>

Air power played a huge role in the defense of the perimeter. With the skies firmly in UN control, American and British fighters and bombers had free reign. [[B-29 Superfortress]]es, based on [[Okinawa]], hit North Korean supply lines and rear areas. [[P-51 Mustang|F-82 Twin Mustangs]], F-80 Shooting Stars (America’s first combat jets), and propeller-driven medium bombers flew from Japan constantly, usually targeting North Korean troops. [[P-51 Mustang|F-51 Mustangs]] operated from rough airfields inside the perimeter itself, some only a few minutes flying time from the enemy lines. In addition, the carrier USS ''Philippine Sea'' had arrived, and joined the ''Valley Forge'' and ''Triumph'' in strikes on the North Koreans. By the second week of September, UN planes were averaging around 700 sorties per day in support of the troops holding the line.<ref name="MyFirstRef"/>

In early September, enough UN troops had entered Pusan that the perimeter was secure, and attention could be turned to a counter-attack. Time, for the North Koreans, had run out.

=== Inchon landings ===

With the situation in the south finally stabilized, in September, 70,000 UN troops under [[Douglas MacArthur|General MacArthur]], with massive support, landed at [[Inchon]], near [[Seoul]], surprising the exhausted North Koreans. The landings were an extremely risky operation; if any significant resistance had been encountered, the landing craft would probably have been stranded by the extreme [[tide]]s of the landing zone, leaving the forces landed vulnerable to complete annihilation. However, they were lucky and only two days after the capture of Seoul from the 20,000 North Korean defenders was announced, it was actually achieved.

=== China joins the war ===

MacArthur struck north immediately, intent upon destroying the North Korean forces, and captured the North Korean capital [[Pyongyang]] in mid-October. China, feeling threatened by these developments, sent hundreds of thousands of well-motivated, veteran troops south from Manchuria, supported by Russian built [[MiG-15]] fighters that were superior to any UN aircraft then in-country. By November the UN offensive had been halted, and by December it was mostly in ignominious retreat. In January the Chinese forces recaptured Seoul.

=== Stalemate ===

In March 1951, a UN operation recaptured Seoul. In April, General MacArthur, disagreeing with [[Harry S. Truman|President Truman]]'s concept of limited war, suggested publicly a massive nuclear bombardment of the whole of northern China and was sacked by President Truman. The subsequent Chinese spring offensive was halted, but only after the Battle of the Imjin River, where the British 29th Brigade, whose situation had been misunderstood by the American sector commander, was surrounded and partially overrun, suffering many unnecessary casualties - eventually making the total death toll for the US military comparable to that of [[WWII]]. (The situation had been reported as being "a bit sticky", which is British Army terminology for "extremely dangerous")

=== Aftermath ===
[[Image:K-TRUCE53.JPG|thumb|450px|Ike ended the war by threatening to use nuclear weapons against China]]

By June the communist forces had had enough and called for a ceasefire, although it took until 1953 before an armistice was signed. As several participants have never formally made peace, the conflict remains technically active today, even though there has been no major combat since 1953; the ceasefire line (Demilitarized Zone) remains heavily fortified and militarized to the present day.

==Air War==
The Korean War was the first conflict in which jet aircraft fought each other. (Both the [[Luftwaffe]] and the [[RAF]] had operational jets in WWII, but they never came into direct conflict.) Most jet battles took place near the Yalu River, in the airspace over north-western North Korea known as "MiG alley." The UN forces generally retained air superiority throughout most of the war, and air power helped compensate for the Communists' superior numbers on the ground.

The general lack of permanent runways in Korea hindered the use of jet aircraft and bombers, forcing the Allies to use piston aircraft. The [[P-51 Mustang|F-51 Mustang]] was the most numerous Allied aircraft in the early months of the war. In November of 1950, the first of the [[MiG-15]] aircraft appeared, and was able to outperform all Allied fighters until the introduction of the [[F-86 Sabre]]. The Sabre was arguably slightly inferior to the MiG-15, but the veteran American pilots eventually produced a kill ratio of approximately 12:1 in their favour. Many of these aerial dogfights took place in the northwestern corner of Korea, a place given the name 'Mig Alley' by Allied pilots.

Another noteworthy point during the Korean Conflict was the first significant use of [[helicopters]], for transport, reconnaissance and rescue missions.

Overall, Korea was not a good place to deploy advanced aircraft. The climate provided extremes of temperature and much abrasive sand. The marsh-like rice fields and mountainous terrain were poor areas for runways, which tended to be rudimentary at best. The helicopter, however, proved itself in Korea, as it could perform the reconaissance missions of planes without airstrips and the transport tasks of ground vehicles without the need to cross the rugged terrain.

==Participants==
===UN Multinational Forces===
*[[South Korea]]
*[[Australia]]
*[[Belgium]]
*[[Canada]]
*[[Colombia]]
*[[Ethiopia]]
*[[France]]
*[[Greece]]
*[[Luxembourg]]
*[[The Netherlands]]
*[[Philippines]]
*[[South Africa]]
*[[Thailand]]
*[[Turkey]]
*[[United Kingdom]]
*[[United States]]

===Communist Forces===
*[[North Korea]]
*[[Soviet Union]]
*[[China]]

==See also==
*[[United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Wars]]
[[Category:Korea]]

Portsmouth F.C.

2009-06-10T16:55:12Z

CJHallock: F.C. stants for football club, not soccer team

'''Portsmouth F.C.'''is a [[British]] [[soccer|football]] club currently playing in the [[English Premier League]]. The team is based in Portsmouth, on the southern coast of England. Known colloquially as 'Pompey', the club is owned by Alexandre Guydamak and managed by Paul Hart. Their uniform consists of either blue, black, or white shirts, with blue, black or white shorts. They are sponsored by OKI.

==Roster==
===Goalkeepers===
*1 David James
*21 Jamie Ashdown
*31 Asmir Begovic

===Defenders===
*2 Linvoy Primus
*3 Younes Kaboul
*4 [[Lauren]]
*5 Glen Johnson
*7 Hermann Hreidarsson
*15 Sylvain Distin
*16 Noe Pamarot
*20 Martin Cranie
*23 [[Sol Campbell]]
*30 Armand Traore
*32 Djimi Traore
*35 Marc Wilson
*39 Nadir Belhadj

===Midfielders===
*6 Hayden Mullins
*8 Papa Bouba Diop
*11 Jerome Thomas
*14 Jermaine Pennant
*18 Arnold Mvuemba
*19 Niko Kranjcar
*22 Richard Hughes
*25 Glen Little
*26 Vitor Pele
*28 Sean Davis
*33 Angelos Basinas

===Strikers===
*9 Peter Crouch
*10 David Nugent
*17 John Utaka
*27 [[Nwankwo Kanu]]
*29 Theofanis Gekas

==Notable Former Players==
*DF [[Noel Blake]]

{{Nb_sl_english_premier}}
[[Category:UK soccer]]
[[Category:Premier League Teams]]

Portsmouth F.C.

2009-06-10T16:54:15Z

CJHallock:

'''Portsmouth F.C.'''is a [[British]] [[soccer|football]] team currently playing in the [[English Premier League]]. The team is based in Portsmouth, on the southern coast of England. Known colloquially as 'Pompey', the club is owned by Alexandre Guydamak and managed by Paul Hart. Their uniform consists of either blue, black, or white shirts, with blue, black or white shorts. They are sponsored by OKI.

==Roster==
===Goalkeepers===
*1 David James
*21 Jamie Ashdown
*31 Asmir Begovic

===Defenders===
*2 Linvoy Primus
*3 Younes Kaboul
*4 [[Lauren]]
*5 Glen Johnson
*7 Hermann Hreidarsson
*15 Sylvain Distin
*16 Noe Pamarot
*20 Martin Cranie
*23 [[Sol Campbell]]
*30 Armand Traore
*32 Djimi Traore
*35 Marc Wilson
*39 Nadir Belhadj

===Midfielders===
*6 Hayden Mullins
*8 Papa Bouba Diop
*11 Jerome Thomas
*14 Jermaine Pennant
*18 Arnold Mvuemba
*19 Niko Kranjcar
*22 Richard Hughes
*25 Glen Little
*26 Vitor Pele
*28 Sean Davis
*33 Angelos Basinas

===Strikers===
*9 Peter Crouch
*10 David Nugent
*17 John Utaka
*27 [[Nwankwo Kanu]]
*29 Theofanis Gekas

==Notable Former Players==
*DF [[Noel Blake]]

{{Nb_sl_english_premier}}
[[Category:UK soccer]]
[[Category:Premier League Teams]]

Talk:Homosexuality in animals myth

2009-06-10T02:50:59Z

CJHallock: /* this seems like an essay rather than an entry */ new section

This is substantially the same as the section in [[Homosexuality]]. Let's not maintain two versions of the same info.

Either delete this article, or use it as a template for the big article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:37, 13 October 2007 (EDT)

== this seems like an essay rather than an entry ==

It takes a position and argues for it, rather than simply laying out facts, that is essay territory isn't it? --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 22:50, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Conservapedia's Law

2009-06-10T02:37:52Z

CJHallock: /* Did I do something wrong? */ new section

While this an interesting entry, I think it needs some clarification. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is and I think if it included some sources to back up its claims, it would be a strong essay. Furthermore, the one assertion that societies will inevitably adopt conservative ideologies needs to be backed up with sources and examples. Looking historically, we can see liberal ideologies and policies becoming much more prominent in many societies, such as environmental movements, same-sex marriage rights, gun control and so on. So if things are to continue in this way, wouldn't that point to societies becoming more liberal in the future? I think these issues could be cleared up with more clarification and more support. - Cjohnston.

== Did I do something wrong? ==

Why was my expansion on moores law reverted? --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 22:37, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Moore's Law

2009-06-10T00:40:37Z

CJHallock: More precise moores law

'''Moore's Law''' is the term commonly used to describe the 1965 prediction by Intel Corporation co-founder [[Gordon Moore]] that holds that the number of transistors that can economically be incorporated in an integrated circuit roughly doubles every two years. <ref>[http://www.intel.com/technology/mooreslaw/index.htm] Intel page on Moore's Law</ref>

==Background==

When Moore in 1965 observed that the number of components on integrated circuits seemed to double regularly, this fact was known to many people working in the area. Indeed, it took over a decade, during which Moore had become the co-founder of Intel and its President and CEO, before this observation was called Moore's Law. <ref>http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/</ref>

==Examples Using Intel Processors==

The following table shows the progression of the number of transistors embedded in a single Intel Chip over time<ref>http://www.intel.com/technology/timeline.pdf</ref>:

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Intel Chip Model
! # of Transistors
|-
| 1971
| ''4004''
| 2,300
|-
| 1974
| ''8080''
| 4,500
|-
| 1978
| ''8086''
| 29,000
|-
| 1982
| ''i286''
| 134,000
|-
| 1985
| ''i386''
| 275,000
|-
| 1989
| ''i486''
| 1,200,000
|-
| 1993
| ''Pentium''
| 3,100,000
|-
| 1995
| ''Pentium Pro''
| 5,500,000
|-
| 1997
| ''Pentium II''
| 7,500,000
|-
| 1999
| ''Pentium III''
| 9,500,000
|-
| 2001
| ''Pentium 4 / Xeon''
| 42,000,000
|-
| 2002
| ''Pentium M''
| 55,000,000
|-
| 2002
| ''Itanium 2''
| 220,500,000
|-
| 2005
| ''Pentium D''
| 291,000,000
|-
| 2007
| ''Xeon''
| 582,000,000
|-
| 2007
| ''Xeon (Penryn)''
| 820,000,000
|}

==Additional Reading==

[http://www.intel.com/technology/timeline.pdf Sixty Years of the Transistor - Intel] 
[http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_11/tuomi/ The Lives and Death of Moore's Law]

[[category:Computer Science]]

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

2009-06-10T00:38:14Z

CJHallock: spelling

'''Sudden Jihad Syndrome''' is a term coined by [[Daniel Pipes]] to describe [[Muslims]] that suddenly or unexpectedly turn against civilized, Western society and engage in acts of terror. <ref>http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=29080</ref>. Pipes has argued that due to this phenomenon all Muslims must be considered potential terrorists. <ref>http://www.city-journal.org/html/11_4_fighting_militant.html</ref>

Examples include:
* [[John Allen Muhammad]] and [[Lee Malvo]], the so-called Washington snipers. John Allen Muhammad was a Muslim convert, but some people allege that his motivations may not have been religious. <ref>http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/10/24/muhammad.profile/index.html</ref> <ref>http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/01/sprj.dcsp.malvo.trial/index.html</ref>
* [[Ali Hassan Abu Kamal]], a [[Palestinian]] school teacher who engaged in a shooting rampage on top of the [[Empire State Building]]. He killed one and wounded six before taking his own life.<ref>http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/daily/02-97/02-25-97/a05wn036.htm</ref>
*[[Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar]], an American Muslim born in Tehran who ran over students at the [[University of North Carolina]] to punish the United States. Taheri-azar was the first terrorist to be explicitly called an example of Sudden Jihad Syndrome by Daniel Pipes.<ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID={730A921C-1FED-4DCD-9949-D28A3390317D}</ref>
* [[Mujtaba Rabbani Jabbar]] who shot up a movie theater in [[Baltimore]].<ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/17/AR2006061700725.html</ref>, * [[Rashid Baz]], a Lebanese can driver living in [[New York City]] who shot at a van full of [[Orthodox Jew|Orthodox Jews]]. <ref name=Meforum>http://www.meforum.org/article/77 </ref>. In a burst of [[political correctness]], the [[FBI]] initially refused to label this act a terrorist act.<ref name=Meforum/>
* [[Sulejman Talovic]], a [[Bosnian]] Muslim, opened fire in a [[Salte Lake City]] mall, killing five poeple before being shot dead by police.<ref> http://www.thecourier.com/opinion/editoral/ar_ED_021607.asp</ref>

In another [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia|Example of Bias in Wikipedia]], [[Wikipedia]] has refused to allow any article on this topic<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref><ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sudden_jihad_syndrome</ref> and even refused to let an editor work on a draft for a rewrite of the article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:CltFn/Sudden_Jihad_Syndrome</ref>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Islam]]

Essay:Conservapedia's Law

2009-06-10T00:32:47Z

CJHallock: Revised moores law

'''Conservapedia's Law''' is the observation that [[conservative]] insights increase over time at a geometric rate, as in 1-2-4-8-16-etc.

For example, there is an approximate doubling in effective [[Essay:Best New Conservative Words|new conservative terms]] per century.

'''Conservapedia's Law''' is analogous to [[Moore's Law]], which holds that the number of transistors that can economically be incorporated in an integrated circuit roughly doubles every two years.

== Implications ==

The implications of '''Conservapedia's Law''' are striking. Over the long term, politics and culture cannot withstand the more powerful forces of logic and language. Conservapedia's Law ensures that a free society will, over time, inevitably become more conservative regardless of the best efforts of [[liberals]]. Of course [[liberal deceit]] can cause much suffering during that process.

Another implication is that [[Wikipedia]], in order to survive, will inevitably feel compelled to adopt principles similar to [[Conservapedia]]'s. The [[liberal]] practices and rules underlying Wikipedia will either be abandoned or lead it to inevitable ruin.

== See also ==
*[[Essay:Best New Conservative Words]]

[[Category:Essays]]

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-06-09T16:07:41Z

CJHallock: /* Non-locality? */ new section

[[/archive1 | Archive 1 ]]

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::::I propose as a working definition that a "conservative word" is one that succinctly expresses a conservative insight that is or was denied, downplayed or otherwise not recognized before its articulation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Good. I think some of the words in the primary list might be better in the downgraded list though. They seem to define "conservative insight" too broadly. For example, "insightful." How exactly is that "conservative"?

:::::::Also, in deciding a conservative word should we consider who coined it? Example, Lenin coined "fellow traveler", but nowadays it can be used in a conservative sense, though it was coined by a communist. What do you think there? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 16:56, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::::: Good points, but I think these particular terms are defensible. "Insightful" is a word about getting at the truth, something that conservatives actively seek while many liberals prefer [[deceit]] or self-worship instead.

:::::::: As to "fellow traveler," this is one of a few terms coined by one side but which become more useful and popular to the other side. Other examples include "Big Bang" and "politically correct." So while it is enlightening to know who and why a term was coined, there are limits to relying entirely on that source for its usage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:04, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Question 2 words ==

I doubt that "intercontinental" and "silver spoon" are conservative words. "Silver spoon" is [[materialistic]] and seems more useful for class warfare. Intercontinental seems straightforward with little more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:07, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:Well then we should remove them. Some people have just added words without discussing it, and list is rather long anyway. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:11, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

::I think those two could be profitably removed (with the count decreased accordingly). But on a wiki it's usually fine to make edits without prior discussion. It's just as easy to discuss afterward and correct as it is to discuss beforehand.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:24, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Should they be fully removed or put in "downgraded" terms? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:22, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

:::: Your call. Honestly, I don't see an argument that either one is conservative, so it's fine with me if they are simply removed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:50, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

== Non-locality? ==

The description is as follows "1920s action at a distance at the atomic level; even though proven, it is still opposed by those who belief<nowiki>[sic]</nowiki> in relativity and still not recognized by Merriam-Webster" If its not recognized why is it not in the non-recognized list? We also have both productive and productivity, and sustainable and sustainability are split between the liberal and conservative lists. I think we should trim the fat, but didn't want to act before speaking because of how many admin reverts there are in the history. unfortunately I do not have any words to replace tem with, sorry. --[[User:CJHallock|CJHallock]] 12:07, 9 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive2

2009-06-08T18:57:47Z

CJHallock: Archive

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2009-06-08T18:56:44Z

CJHallock: Archive

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1|Archive 1]]|[[/archive2|Archive 2]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

Talk:Liberal

2009-06-08T18:53:22Z

CJHallock:

Talk:Liberal/arch5

2009-06-08T18:52:47Z

CJHallock: Created page with '== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin == Problems with this page in order and how to fix them: '''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person...'

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009

Talk:Liberal

2009-06-08T18:52:32Z

CJHallock: Archive

Talk:John McCain/archive1

2009-06-08T18:49:55Z

CJHallock: Created page with 'This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are...'

This article seems to have many unsourced claims and needless speculation. Statements such as "The Bush administration was rumored to have..." or "The media could damage..." are clearly not rooted in provable fact, but merely in likelihoods and possibilities (in the case of the Bush rumor, libelous ones). I suggest the author(s) provide news reports or other reliable publications to directly support the claims and speculation in the article. --[[User:Daniel B. Douglas|Daniel B. Douglas]] 21:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Why remove the "this article needs citations" thingy? This article is *clearly* in need of citations, and, quite frankly, serious editing to remove the gossip. A "citations needed" flag gives readers an extra "heads up" to be extra-critical in their reading - important if the site is to be used by high school students. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 01:19, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Fixed minor spelling mistakes on the page. I also agree that this page is disgraceful to Conservapedia. It has no references cited. It breaks both commandments #2 and #6 as it currently stands, and quite possibly #1. The authors/contributors to the information in this article need to add their citations and make certain they are also not adding their own opinions. Serious revision must be undertaken quickly. --[[User:Dikaiosune|Dikaiosune]] 00:23, 12 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with all of the above. The article also participates in speculation (what the media and Democrats will bring up regarding his health) and it is factually inaccurate (Reagan was 70 when he assumed office, not 72, and so most Republicans would not use that as a defense). [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:Ok... so no one cared enough to remove the uncited opinion from the article so I went ahead and did it. I left the uncited fact because that is less egregious. I have no idea how to make references look nice. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:17, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

:: Myk, it's lookin' good to me. You're building an article of facts with citations, rather than gossip, opinions, and speculation - much improved, IMHO. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:25, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

== What is this page going to be? ==

Aschafly, all of the things you just listed under electability may be true and verifiable but are they encyclopedic? What encyclopedia has items on how electable someone is? Is this going to be a biography of the man or a list of reasons why not to vote.

His age at primary time is easily discernible by subtracting the year of his birth from the year of his election. His cancer is something easily added to his personal life section (or create a personal life section as I didn't add one thinking it would be gossipy). His conduct during the Keating Five incidient could be cited and sourced and put in his political career section. And, as he is a public figure, the Dobson quote can be placed in a "criticism" section. There is a way to make this at least look like an encyclopedia article rather than a "reason why Aschlafly doesn't want him nominated" page. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 15:06, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

*Perhaps, Andy, you would entertain the idea of changing the title block from "Electability" to something else? Or, in fairness, we should add the same, highly subjective information to each of the potential candidates? Personally I think that would be pissing on our own shoes. If you agree, I can create a "Quick Facts" area for your information, incorporate other pertinent information, and present it as I did in the Margaret Thatcher page. Let me know your thoughts. --[[User:TK|TK]] 17:53, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

We could add Electability as one of the Conservapedia debates, such as "Which of the Republican candidates is most electable?" At the very least, it's something I would be interested in discussing. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:27, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, looks as if Geo beat you to it, dude, lol --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:24, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Sources ==

This is a featured article. The unsourced comment should either be removed or given a citation. It is a clear violation of the Second Commandment. There are only seven commandments, we should follow them. Especially on featured articles. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Gee, I wonder who made it the featured article? If he doesn't care, or doesn't think its that big of deal, and it's his place, why do you? What comment are you talking about? Maybe it was removed before I read this? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:23, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

::Political Record 1-10. And if he doesn't feel it's a problem, great, but I never want to see any other "facts" removed because they didn't have a source. Conservapedia would lend an awfully bad name for conservatives if the leader of the site could just flaunt the rules like that.

::Also, there's no mention that his cancer is in remission, no source for cancer hurting Paul Tsongas, and no where in the article cited does it mention anything about poor fundraising being a sign of weakness. That's commentary.[[User:Myk|Myk]] 11:30, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

== Need for personal/family section ==

The article should mention that McCain has seven children, of whom two are today in the U. S. military. [[Duncan Hunter]] is the only other candidate who can claim even one. [[User talk:Amyz|Amyz]] 18:17, June 8, 2007 (EDT)

Article says he is Baptist. Does that mean he is a member of a Baptist church? If so, which one. And which denomination was he a member of before. This is only important if Obama's UCC affilation is deemed important.

== RE: Political Record ==

I'm not doubting that there are sources for the information in this section, however considering much of it is in opposition to what his election platform is, I think it might be a good idea to show sources. In fact, it would lend a lot of credibility to this site, and raise usefulness. Any intelligent person would have to realize that McCain's position is inconsistent with his track-record. This is what killed Kerry for a lot of people, including me. Who knows what he's going to do when gets to be president, nothing is truthful. At the very least his platform could be considered deceitful being that it would be in conflict with his actual behavior. I would say, it would be out right lying! --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 18:37, 3 December 2007 (EST)

== Fundraising ==

The "Fundraising" section is really irrelevant at this point. Delete it? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 12:34, 5 March 2008 (EST)

== Living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces ==

{{cquote|McCain is a living symbol of the honor and sacrifice of America's armed forces, and has the greatest claim of any of the candidates to be Commander-in-Chief.}}
This... doesn't look encyclopedic, I'm sorry. Why don't we say "He is the second-greatest American who ever lived (just after Ronald Reagan)" while we're at it?

I normally would have reworded it (or tried to find a source so we can say "X said that he can be considered..."), but I see that some other bloke just got a 1-week block for edit warring in this sentence, and I don't really want to join him. So I'll just file my protest here and hope that somebody will pick it up. --[[User:DHayes|DHayes]] 18:07, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

==Another Image==
Not that it's a big deal, but I was wondering if a Sysop can add one or two small images for McCain. Like McCain with Reagan, or McCain campaigning for President.[[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

:I agree, Chip...I will find some, and ask someone to upload them, unless you have something in mind. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:45, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

==Hate speech laws==
McCain supports hate speech laws. Is this really the guy today's conservatives want? [[User:CaptainRoemer|CaptainRoemer]] 11:00, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

On a related note, is the vocal opposition to McCain by some conservative political commentators significant enough to merit mention in the article? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:43, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

: Don't know if any are criticizing him now. We keep current here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 12 May 2008 (EDT)

::Ann Coulter's still pretty critical of him. Her most recent column, after mentioning that it's the end of the road for Hillary, follows with "Now we just have to get rid of the other two" and describes the remaining choice as being between "a young liberal who is friendly with terrorists or an old liberal who is friendly with Teddy Kennedy." Again, not sure if it's significant enough to merit inclusion, but she's a fairly influential media personality.

::--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:58, 12 May 2008 (EDT)
:::Yes, but Ann Coulter is a joke of a media personality. Every time she opens her mouth people wince. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 11:49, 28 May 2008 (EDT)

::::This is not the Ann Coulter article. And whatever he supports he's what we have so we gotta stick by him.

== Technically ==

He hasn't clinched. Regardless of the difference in numbers, as you said yourself ASchlafly---the media can't appoint the nominee. He isn't the nominee until the convention or until he has no further opponents. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:35, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

:He is technically the 'presumptive nominee', the same status as Obama. Can we change the wording so that it is accurate? I would do it myself, but I've seen too many people get banned for changing articles like this. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]''' 18:40, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

==Abortion==

This section is not flattering, maybe the reality of his position. However, I just read the article on Life News that is credible. As it currently stands, no reference points are made and a different subject, embryonic stem cell is inserted. Please advise for I am to completely change this section unless told not to.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 09:53, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:Because it's not flattering, but true, you want to remove it? Keep the quote, and I'll find a reference for it now. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:58, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::Jareddr, you still need a reference "McCain is also against government funding of birth control and sex education." This section does not reflect his true record on abortion. I will add to but will not replace current article. I can clearly tell you have nothing but discontent for McCain.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:48, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::About the same as your discontent with Barack Obama. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:51, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: touché--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 14:54, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jared from Subway, like the changes?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Actually, since they were complete copy and pastes and none of it was your own original work, no, I don't like the changes. First clue that it was a copy and paste---your first edit after pasting it was going through and changing all the "anti-choice" phrases to "anti-abortion". Why, I asked myself, would you write an entire section using one phrase and then change it? Quick google search took me to the NARAL source of the material. If you would like to do a complete rewrite to bring within the guidelines, that would be acceptable. But as it was, it was a violation of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Guidelines#Copying_from_other_sources CP Commandment #1]. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Sorry, you are wrong and I'll fight to change it back.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:19, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You are claiming you wrote the entire section you added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=472712&oldid=472465 here] on your own? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:23, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You can't take from the article the sentences with umbiguous meaning and claim copy. e.g. 'McCain cast 11 votes on abortion and other reproductive-rights issues'. Do I have to change to 'McCain voted 11 times on abortion and other child-in-womb measures'. ? No Way. Next you'll be claiming I have turn 11 into eleven because of plagarism.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 23:50, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: You seem to be backing up to a position of unambiguous statements. Are you admitting the greater point that the passage was taken whole from another publication in violation of CP Commandment #1? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: Sorry, it is a cite reference needed issue and not a delete.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== 2nd paragraph, first sentence ==

"John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues" this is a common democrat strategy to link Bush and McCain. I had changed it to John McCain and the Republican party... Reverted back to original. --[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:32, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

: Actually, the citation showed that the change I made was properly referenced. And speaking of common strategies---it's Democratic, not democrat, when using as an adjective. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 23:41, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Proof a democrat has edited this section to show the connection between Bush and McCain. When in fact, McCain has had more than two decades of relationship with Republicans in congress and only 7.5 years with Bush. Change required without warring please.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:42, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Happy to have both statements in there. You provide your citation about the voting relationship of McCain and his party, (and of course, remove any "Maverick" references, if there are any), and I'll provide my citation about the Bush relationship---which is important information since he is the incumbent president. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:54, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Well John McCain has voted alongside George W. Bush 90% of the time. That's pretty close. That's not a liberal bias, that's just how it is.

==2007 Fundraising==
This paragraph is complete liberal bias and should be removed--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:55, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

JP, I have made a few edits, albeit minor ones, to some existing pages so as to honor the 90/10 policy. My apologies for not taking note earlier. I'm in the process of making more edits. As for this paragraph, I'm a little wary of removing something like this (granted, it's not here anymore so I can't see what it said) because there was a lot of controversy surrounding McCain's fundraising protocol that was addressed by both liberal and credible sources. Do we really want to sweep something under the rug because it doesn't look pretty? That's stooping to liberal level...Even Wikipedia addresses the apparently negative aspects surrounding Democratic figureheads, thus if we don't do the same, my concern is that we are going to be seen as less than Wikipedia. [[User:Acwellman|Acwellman]] 14:47, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

==Re: Reversion==
"I'm not sure we should create a new category; the article extols his honors" I didn't. The category was already there. That's also not the purpose of categories. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 18:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:The only other person in the category was a Russian astronaut who never fought in a war. If it was in wide use, I would understand. It's not meant to say anything negative about your choice to put it in, only that it doesn't seem appropriate in the wider picture. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:08, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

==Immigration==
Jareddr seems to think Huffington post citations are exceptable for CP. We don't simply repeat self-serving liberal claims here and I am not talking Minute-men. Find another citation or I delete again.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:13, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Re-read the section. I've added AP report, USA Today, and ABC News. They all repeated the same remarks by the woman in question. I'm going to be adding further remarks the she made in an interview with ABC News. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Fine with me--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 11:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Conflicting Facts==
Which of the following is true? John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues -or- After George W. Bush was elected President in 2000, McCain began to disagree with the President on many issues. Both of these on the same page are conflicting. Anyone beside jareddr want to comment?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Polygamist==

Whoa. He was married to his first wife at the same time that he recieved a marriage certificate? Does this mean that, legally speaking, he was married to two people at the same time? Or, at the very least, does it mean he was in(volved with) Cindy before he had divorced his wife? I'm not trying to stir up controversy here, I swear on that, but I was just curious because if so, I think it speaks a lot about his commitment to her and creates a better picture of his character. Thanks. [[User:LinusWilson|LinusWilson]] 20:30, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

The technical term is bigamy, since he was only married to two women at the same time. And yes, he was married to both of them at the same time. [[User:Knullmaskin|Knullmaskin]] 12:36, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

== NOT A BIGAMIST! ==

This article seems to have borrowed some lines from the Bush smear campaign. John McCain divorced his first wife Carol (April 2, 1980) and married Cindy (May 17, 1980) about six weeks apart. There is, and never has been, any controversy about his marriage except for those who say that he did not work hard to resolve issues with his first wife, and that he had little care for her.

Those statements are all lies. McCain came back from Vietnam a changed man. He was eager to rebuild his life and wanted to begin a strong, bold career change. Politics came as second nature to him, and as some have stated,<ref>Alexander, Paul. ''John McCain: Man of the People'' 2003. pg. 93</ref> McCain was resolute on having more children and on improving his condition. His wife, who was struggling with the effects of a life-changing car accident, was unable to meet many of the stressful challenges that faced McCain after the war, and their marriage was said to have fell apart mutually.
<references/>
--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 18:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain quote ==

'''When questioned during the 2000 presidential campaign about his experience in captivity, he replied, "I hate the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Later, when asked about whether he meant an ethnic slur, he replied, "I was referring to my prison guards, and I will continue to refer to them in language that might offend some people because of the beating and torture of my friends."<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/02/18/MN32194.DTL</ref>'''

I removed this quote from the 2000 election section. It is unimportant trivia, and in many ways, it only represents a journalist's spin on an ambiguous statement. More importantly, it reveals little to nothing about the political issues or beliefs that McCain had at the time. Nonetheless, I am sure there are those who will disagree and who want this quote re-instated, so post feedback below:

:It seems a pretty unambiguous statement. Where's the ambiguity and how exactly would you spin it? I think anyone who uses such racial slurs reveals something about themselves. What section of his entry would you like to put this in instead? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:06, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::The statement was spun against him by Bush and many liberal pundits then and now. What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate; you are suggesting that what he said was a slur directed at race, while he explicitly stated that it was not. Also, it is put forward without context or resolution, especially because he apologized and it is written in a PR format. Rather, it may help to identify the basis that it holds in the context of the 2000 election, ex: California was considered a swing state in the primaries, for instance.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think the use of a slur, however you want to deem it was directed, is important, and I attempted to put it within the time line you insist upon. As far as my views on those who use slurs, how do you feel about them? Do you condone the use of a slur word, even when the user has to go on to spin/explain that it wasn't directed at a race? He even acknowledges that it's offensive, "in language that may offend some people." If he's not afraid to use the term, then I think people should be aware of that fact. Perhaps our ideas of what a dictionary is are different. I believe it should be a fact-filled resource, and you'd prefer to put those aside and use laudatory statements instead. Maybe we can compromise and just find a good section for the remarks, perhaps a Quotes section? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:34, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

::::First and foremost, this is not a personal matter between us. We are working together on an encyclopedia, and your attempts to call me racist or culturally insensitive are unwarranted, uncivil, and downright disgusting. Slandering others is not and should not be your reason for being here. That being said, I would like to remind you that McCain was a longstanding supporter of Vietnam-American relations, and cultivated a very favorable opinion among Vietnamese Americans. The statement in question was not a matter or racism, but rather, or political correctness. Apparently, you haven't made the distinction, as you said "If he's not afraid to use the term, I think that's a problem" whereas the more factual approach would be "he still has hatred towards his prison guards, and expresses it in ways that are reckless". Furthermore, given the coverage of the 2000 election, I would find it hard to justify placing the quote inside that section; there simply isn't any context explaining the significance or historical background. Perhaps if the campaign was explained in better terms, and I mean far more extensively, this statement could be put in the section within appropriate context.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 09:31, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::You were actually the one who first made this a personal matter when you stated, "What you think about people who use racial slurs is misleading and inappropriate;" I wasn't even making a judgment about the quote in the entry. I was including the information so that other people could come to their own conclusions. If you don't want it in the 2000 election section, perhaps we should put it amongst his Vietnam service section. I think immediately concluding his POW section would be a good spot, as it directly relates to his captivity and prison guards. Would you like to place it there or shall I? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:40, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::Oh, and can you please point to the spot where I called you a racist or culturally insensitive? I don't recall using either of those words, so I'd be interested in you locating that quote. If, on the other hand, you can't find the spot where I called you either of those, then I do expect an apology, as it was an unwarranted, uncivil, and completely false accusation on your part. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 09:42, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

== Czechoslovakia ==

Since the article mentions McCain's positions on Iraq and Iran, how about mentioning his views on [[Czechoslovakia]]? He's mentioned twice in speeches in the last week concerns about events going on right now in Czechoslovakia.... (Czechoslovakia has not existed at all since 1993).

== Ctrooprers edits ==

Although I reverted the edits, I tend to agree with them as the sections he removed are not really appropriate for an encyclopedia. Certainly they would be appropriate in a very lengthy essay about the presidential compaign but I don't think it's necessary here. I suggest we try to get a consensus over the next 48 hours and so if no-one objects I'll delete the comments.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 17:45, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:Some of them are valid in the context that McCain has been getting more press lately regarding his gaffes, not because they are simple mistakes, but because of concerns about his age and fitness to serve for the next 4-8 years. The Iran/Al-Qaeda gaffe was noteworthy because Senator Lieberman had to interrupt him and correct him in front of reporters. In the past week he also talked about tensions on "the Iraq/Afghanistan border". McCain has made comments I can research (read them on Huffington) denying his prior positions and quotes, which are either complete reversals of position or lapses in memory. Are these actual signs of unfitness? I'm not sure about that, but including them in the McCain article under the heading "Concerns about age" would be entirely appropriate since it has been discussed in the press ans Sunday talk shows as well. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 17:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

:: I disagree that these should be filed under "Concerns about age", because I don't think they're necessarily age-related. Rather, Shia v. Sunni is particularly important, and for him to make the mistake twice brings questions to his knowledge and criticisms of Obama over foreign policy. But to put them under "concerns about age" trivializes them and makes it seem petty, IMO. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

: I absolutely object. I think two of the quotes are very appropriate for the article. The first is relevant in that Obama was being criticized here for the use of the word "bomb" as opposed to "bomb'''s'''", and saying "57 states" instead of "47 states". Also, McCain's criticism of Obama and foreign policy, when McCain has repeatedly confused Sunni and Shia, and who makes up the majority of the Iranian population and Al Qaeda. If you want to delete the second one, I won't be terribly opposed to it. And the third is important in that much of McCain's campaign centers around his military service. When Wes Clark made his remarks recently about military service as a qualification for president, there was an uproar. I think it is, therefore, very relevant when McCain talks about military service---especially when he's said something that flies in the face of what he now claims. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:01, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

::Re the Obama Criticism. Remember that that was in the main page, which is basically just a trivia/blog section, whereas this article is part of the encyclopedia proper, and thus must be accurate and trustworthy like all the other pages are. Therefore I don't think its fair to compare the Obama gaffe with that here. I suggest that the first should be left in as being relevant to his ability to perform the presidency, but the second and third should be removed as trivia.

:::The second example, misstating "57 states" instead of "47 states" was not part of the trivia/blog section, but is in the article. And it wasn't a misstatement, but he stated it on two consecutive days, so you know his campaign corrected him after the first instance.--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 18:29, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

While I commend everyone for your work and interest, we should remember this generic article is about John McCain. Saying who he is, how he got there, and what he believes is fine, but individual elements and speeches during his Presidential run should probably be handled under the Presidential campaign articles. It could certainly be grouped there in ways that could flow more easily. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:37, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

==Mention of NY Times Op-Ed rejection under Iraq Heading==

I'm not sure the rejection of a single Op-Ed piece merits a mention in an encyclopedia article on McCain - It's already covered in CP under [[Liberal Bias]] anyway, and seems trivial in this context. If its inclusion here can be justified, then it should be moved to a different heading like "McCain and the Media" instead of "Iraq", since the nature of the Op-Ed piece the Times was looking for spanned more than Iraq. It should also be revised, because in it's current form it's misleading as to why the original piece was rejected. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:42, 23 July 2008 (EDT)
:I agree, its trivial fluff and it's prejudicial content is greater than its probative value.--[[User:DamianJohn|DamianJohn]] 09:49, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::I have removed the section. The story itself is irrelevant to McCain's political beliefs, and in consideration of the longstanding cooperation that the New York Times has provided to the Senator, I feel that there is no wrongdoing or substantial political swipe connected to this. I appreciate the well-cited, researched information, but placing the day-to-day events of what is included or excluded in a newspaper does not connect well with the article. It would be more appropriate for the Presidential campaign, but even in that context, it is rather weak and inconsequential.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 11:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

== McCain vs. Obama ==

Based on the obvious bias towards McCain shown in the difference between the two articles, why not just SAY that Conservapedia endorses McCain? Both men have flaws; if you lead with the flaws in the Obama article, and suppress McCain's flaws due to bias, how is this an encyclopedia and how is it "trustworthy?" Yes, I am a liberal, but I may vote for McCain based on experience, but until the election, it would be nice to see unbiased versions of the articles. [[User:Yesaliberal|Yesaliberal]] 10:16, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:We are keeping the McCain article as unbiased as possible as a stand-alone piece. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:25, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::And the Obama article? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:26, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::Should be discussed on the Obama page. We do the best we can with the John McCain article on this, the John McCain page. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:34, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the original question pertained to both the McCain and Obama article. You only answered about the McCain article, and quite clearly stated about keeping it as unbiased as possible. You have the ability to give an answer to me about the Obama article here, but specifically chose not to relate it to the question, but instead said take it elsewhere. Since the original question pertained to both, I hope that you will answer both---or let me know and I'll post it on the Obama talk page and you can answer it there instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:38, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:::::This is the McCain article. I answer questions on John McCain and how to make this article the best it can be. Feel free to post the question on Obama's talk page since, ostensibly, that is the article where you have the most concerns. As I no longer frequent that article, you will not receive a reply from me. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 12:58, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

==Divorce==

My edit to the Personal Life section of the article should not be reverted, as it is a valid contribution to the page. It is part of his personal life, and it is note-worthy. In the interest of keeping the article unbiased, both the positive and negative should be included. --[[User:AlrightThen|AlrightThen]] 20:48, 8 August 2008 (CDT)

:Hmm, so men don't cheat on their wives anymore. They "have difficulties with" them. Glad you guys are working so hard to defend the institution of marriage. [[User:Fishal|Fishal]] 19:55, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

:: Both of the above comments are incomplete, and it's impossible to glean what your points are. Try to be clearer. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:58, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

This issue has come up in the past. Please see my talk page under McCain Edit and the reasons why your edit is inappropriate. Then please move on to constructive edits. Thank you [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 20:13, 9 August 2008 (EDT)

== Bridget McCain ==

There seems to be conflicting information regarding Bridget McCain's birth year (1991 or 1993). According to the other reference Jpratt uses, "rightpundits.com", the site states, "Cindy McCain was touring 3rd world countries with Mother Teresa in 1991 to provide medical attention to needy children. During this tour, Cindy and Mother Teresa toured an orphanage in Bangladesh where Cindy picked up a baby that was only a few months old." Also, under the Bio section, "Bridget McCain was born in 1991 in Bangladesh." [http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1636 Bridget McCain is John McCain's Daughter]. Any suggestions for a way to resolve the differing information? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

: The India link wasn't enough for ya? Google search 1-70k for 1993, 1-58k for 1991-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:37, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

:: The India link, which was confusing and not very clear, I would match with the rightpundits site I provided. So two sites with differing information. And if the Google results were 70k to 12, then I would consider that evidence. But 70k v. 58k isn't a strong case for one or the other. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:51, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, and if you google "Bridget McCain" 1991, you get 779 results. Doing the same with 1993 yields 546 results. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:52, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

::: Oh, if your Google search is limited to english only sites, you get 58k Bridget McCain 1991 and you get 71k Bridget McCain 1993-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Suggestion for an administrator==
This article has become so long, I think it would look nicer if there were more pictures. I was hoping one of you could upload these into the article. http://blog.reidreport.com/uploaded_images/rice-mccain-741881.jpg under "foreign policy" and this under "2008 Presidential campaign." http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg If not that's fine, but I would appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

: You need to check out who owns those pictures first and whether it's OK with them for others to copy them. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:31, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

I just got them from a blog while searching Google images. Hard for me to find out who "owns" them. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 20 August 2008

O.K., I emailed Top News.com, which is where I got this image, http://www.topnews.in/usa/files/John_mccain_returns_to_NH.jpg. They said I could use it because it's under "creative commons license." [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 21 August 2008

== education ==

On the main page, much was made of Obama's lack of educational achievements. [http://www.nysun.com/new-york/obamas-years-at-columbia-are-a-mystery/85015/] That article mentions that McCain actually graduated in the bottom 1% of his class at the Naval Academy. I think that this information that should go into the McCain article. --[[User:DrHubertJNugz|DrHubertJNugz]] 15:38, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:[[Obama]] article: [...]He graduated magna cum laude with his J.D. in 1991[...]
:So yes, ASchlafly is censoring the truth, even though his edit summary claims that Obama didn't release his college performance. ''Magna cum laude'' is a really good performance. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 10:08, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::You will have to take it up with Andy. Based on the idea that Obama has not opened up his college record for review, a decision was made to remove that information on McCain. It it were permissible, I would want to see the wording, "near the bottom of his class". It seems less sensational that way. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:41, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::You mean [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia%3ADesk%2FAbuse&diff=513169&oldid=510916 this Andy]? Yeah, right, the only result I can think of is hitting my head against a brick wall. Since when does Obama's college record have anything to do with disclosing McCain's? Obama says "57 states", it's jumped all over. Obama says "my Muslim faith", its jumped all over. McCain doesn't remember how many houses he owns, but its vehemently denied into his article. Pretty simple to see what's going on, but I shouldn't be the one (powerless) who stands up to it. [[User:SamuelHTD|SamuelHTD]] 14:50, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
::::That is just b.s. SamuelHTD. Obama need not disclose but since McCains has, it is fair game? This is a site with conservative POV but that doesn't mean liberals have not included 'not-in-the-best-light' statements on McCain's page. Do we need to include every liberal attack against McCain? Hell no. BTW, I am not expecting your return comment since you're gone. ta ta-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::I'm baaaack, your [[parthian shot]] failed. If you don't include the information because the other candidate didn't disclose yadda yadda, what's with the hubbub over Obama's "alleged" birth, with birth certificate provided, compared to McCain's ''lack of'' birth certificate, and doesn't even show on the [http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j186/DonaldDouglas/Americaneocon/PH2008050201443.jpg record of births]? Going by your logic, we should either a) post that McCain can't prove his birth record, or b) remove all the gossip and ideology regarding Obama's birth? [[User:SamuelHTD|Sam]] 10:36, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::::::For what it's worth, the [[Joe Biden]] article mentions quite a bit about his academic record, including the current cost of the high school he attended over 40 years ago, and the fact that he graduated ''"from the Syracuse University College of Law in 1968 near the bottom of his class"''.--[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 11:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

=="Allard's amendment"==

In the Same-sex marriage section, it includes a quote where McCain refers to "Senator Allard's amendment", but the section makes no reference before this to what Senator Allard's amendment is. Perhaps the section could be cleaned up a bit, and a short description included. I know many people can derive a general sense of the bill's content through context, but younger readers might find this a bit confusing, and I didn't want to perform major "article surgery" without an idea of what the "operation" should be! [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:22, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
:Many of those sections near the ends need some work. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:34, 4 October 2008 (EDT)
::Agreed. I'll try to clean them up today.

===Prisoner-of-War===

:::Also, does this need to be written this way "Prisoner-of-War"? I'm not used to seeing it written this way, with hyphens and capitalization. It's fine to keep War capitalized in the title, but it's written as "prisoner of war" in the article too, and it seems to me that it's not a proper noun. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prisoner+of+war] [[User:Mcliff|Mcliff]] 14:42, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

== Biased introduction paragraph ==

Whether or not you support John McCain should not bias your summary of John McCain. Using phrases like "prominent maverick" or "influential leader" should be cited if there is actual solid proof of their validity. If not they should be removed since they have been presented as facts. I am not saying they are not true I am only saying they are misleading without proper citation. Any claim one makes should be cited if one is presenting it to be fact.

:Hopefully there is information in the article itself that would help one to see the validity of the statements. It would be hard to 'cite' the entire article. That John McCain was considered to be the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate on the 2004 ticket should tell you that he's a maverick. As far as being a leader, any of the numerous bills that he has put forth and pushed for already show that. When you tackle an issue like campaign finance reform, that would annoy both parties, and you actually get it to take a position of prominence under your leadership, then we are allowed to acknowledge that as leadership. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:06, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

== Confederate flag ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=John_McCain&diff=539642&oldid=539635 What is the reason for this revert?] [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:19, 20 October 2008 (EDT)
:It was somewhat negative.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 18:23, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

::I was surprised by your response until I looked at your edit history. I am trying to have a serious discussion here and help build an encyclopedia. I doubt anyone is interested in helping you be snarky. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:28, 20 October 2008 (EDT)

== McCain & Evolution ==
JakobL says McCain is clearly against evolution. I think he understands it but feels not appropriate for Science class. What says you? --'''Jpatt'''[[User:Jpatt| ]] 13:44, 4 November 2008 (EST)

This link:
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_teaching_evolut.html
indicates that McCain is something of a theistic evolutionist. - [[User:Martib|Martib]] 14:25, 4 November 2008 (EST)

John McCain's view of evolution is not "nuanced." He is a darwinist who rejects God's influence in our world. We criticize Obama for being muslim- but John McCain is hardly a conservative and denies the very nature of a Christian God. Let's call a spade a spade. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 10:41, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==
As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 19:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Maverick image ==

I have removed several comments that are not relevant to his Maverick image or to his Senatorial career under the time frame 1986-2000

''' ( 1 ) Voteview.com rated McCain as the second most conservative Senator in the 109th Congress (Jan. 2005 - Jan. 2007).'''

''This is a statement that is out of the time frame, and does not support the rest of the section. It would be better in another portion that represents his Senate career under those years.''

''' ( 2 ) John McCain and the Bush administration agree on most issues. He voted with the Bush administration 95% of the time in 2007, according to Congressional Quarterly's "Presidential Support Scores". Issues include making the Bush tax cuts permanent (even though he originally opposed and voted against them), energy independence, winning the war in Iraq, reforming Social Security, and continuing and expanding Bush's supply-side economic policies.'''

''Again, the subject is McCain's conservative credentials, but they are written in a lazy style that neglects the years of mention, lacks specific details and reasons, and disregards the biographical focus of the article. It reads like a political brochure, and not a very convincing one at that.''

''' ( 3 ) In 2008, McCain asked for $0 in earmarks. The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste has given him a rating of 100% in 2007 (88% lifetime). A score of 100% represents voting against all pork, and 0% represents voting ''for'' all pork. Democrats averaged 5% in 2007, whereas Republicans averaged 60%.'''

''This is his signature issue, earmarks. However, it puts emphasis on the campaign years, and takes away from his actual work in the Senate. It could be better said in a paragraph on earmarks.''

The temptation for these political comments reduces the readability and factual content of the article. Keep in mind the fact that McCain has been viewed as a maverick and did consider switching sides. It is dishonest and inaccurate to up-play his conservative credentials simply because of an election.--[[User:CTrooper|CTrooper]] 22:55, 28 March 2009 (EDT)

Talk:John McCain

2009-06-08T18:49:33Z

CJHallock: archive

[[/archive1|archive1]]

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama/archive7

2009-06-08T18:47:04Z

CJHallock: Created page with '== Trip to Canada == Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada. Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has h...'

== Trip to Canada ==

Obama's first foreign trip as President of the United States occured yesterday, to Canada.

Most telling, he declared "I love this country [Canada]" - has he ever even uttered such words about America?

: *sigh* [http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/obama-loves-america-no-really/ yes, yes he has] --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 17:40, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Demanding Major Change ==

I'm not well educated on Obama enough to write an article on him, and even if I did I would not know where to start, but come on! Someone step up to the plate and correct this article. We atleast need a rewrite that presents a case for him being a christian. It can include all the Rev. Wright stuff you want, but if Conservapedia wants to become "The trustworthy encyclopedia" it has to convey both sides.

As a conservapedian, I don't like where this site is going. When writing articles, we can have conservative viewpoints, just not conservative crusades.

: It's remarkable how people who spell Christian with a small "c" want to insist that Obama is somehow a Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:37, 5 January 2009 (EST)
:: Mr. Schlafly, how that makes someone less christian then somebody else is beyond me. Petty remarks like that does not help conservapedia's image at all[[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:52, 18 February 2009 (EST)
:::Reminiscent of those who assert the title of catholic with a small c, which in fact means something wholly other than a Catholic (i.e., a Roman Catholic) with a large C. (All Christians are in fact catholic with a small c if I understand it's fairly broad meaning.) --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 23:42, 5 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't think you can "demand" anything here. This is not a place where you can get what you want with the well-worn liberal tactic of stamping your feet and throwing a tantrum.
: If you have proof that Obama is a Christian, then let us see it. As far as I can tell, he is completely uninterested in Christian fellowship of any kind, which to me is very telling.
: It is easy to talk the talk. As the Lord himself said:
: '''Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'''' (Matthew 7:22-23)
: When and if Barack Hussein Obama shows some evidence of having been washed clean in the blood of Christ, then we can talk. I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 08:34, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::DeanS, you have proof, it's been shown to you multiple times. All the people seem to be interested here is raising a conspiracy theory. They are so set in their ways that arguing against them will yield no results. That's the whole thing about conspiracy theorists: it doesn't matter what proof you show or how complete it is, they will find some hole, real or imagined, and fill it in with whatever belief they hold to actually add strength to their theories. A quick review of the page reveals 3 telling conspiracy theories that are held in belief by the people who hold power on this website: 1) That Obama is a Muslim (he isn't) 2) That Obama wasn't born in Hawaii (He was), and 3) That the majority of Obama's campaign contributions came from anonymous donors (they didn't). That's why this page has been locked from editing, because it has become a war zone and is unlikely to change if it was unlocked. The only solution at this point is to try and gleam what facts you can from this article, and do your own independent research for more facts concerning Obama. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 09:14, 6 January 2009 (EST)
::: First of all, I'm David, not Dean. Secondly, Obama certainly doesn't ''act'' like any sort of Christian I care to know: he supports [[abortion]], he is a radical [[socialist]] (possibly a [[Communist]]), and he tells falsehoods. I don't know if he is a Muslim or not, but it seems quite likely, and the page has a lot of evidence showing that he is. --[[User:DavidS|DavidS]] 11:44, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::First, my apologies on the name. Secondly, I'm not claiming that Obama is a good Christian, just that he most certainly is not Muslim. The evidence on this page, many of which are blatant falsehoods, are hardly conclusive proof of anything. I have no doubt that if I held any user here under the same scrutiny that Obama has, I could gather enough "evidence" to make a case that they are any religion I choose them to be. Thirdly, just because he may not be the type of christian you want to know doesn't make him not christian. There are many Christians that I [[Ku Klux Klan|don't care to know]]. Does that make them not Christian?--[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 12:13, 6 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Islam is a religion trained to not be noticed, it encourages Muslims to remain hidden, any evidence that Obama isn't Muslim is denied by the one fact that Islam is a religion designed to remain hidden until the moment is right to strike. Recent "negotiations" with the Middle East prove this! --[[User:Deadpool]] (EST)

:::::: Even if he is a muslim ,(which i am sure he is not), how does that change anything. Are you suggesting that everyone who is muslim is an amoral terrorist with an agenda to kill all christians and destroy our family values? Are you suggesting that every single muslim follows the tenets unfailingly? Even the most devoted christians i have met follow all of the tenets. A person is a person, religion may play a part in their every day life, but the amount of people willing to die or kill for it is very few. I met the now-president myself once. He was a good man who loved his family and his country, more so than many people I have met, liberals AND conservatives. Even though I voted for McCain, he seemed like a good candidate for president. [[User:Skwisgaar|Skwisgaar]] 11:51, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Atheism ==

I know it is a popular view on this site that Obama is a Muslim, but has anyone considered the possibility that his apparent lack of religious devotion indicates instead that he is an atheist? In an article about Obama on mensvogue.com, it is noted that "Though Obama had long been skeptical of organized religion, he gradually came to embrace it "as a choice, not an epiphany."<ref>http://www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2006/09/11/barack_obama</ref> It is frequently observed on Conservapedia that his claims of religious activity may be self-serving; could they not be an attempt to hide his atheism instead of his Islamic beliefs? After all, Ron Reagan, Jr. once remarked that nobody ever elects atheists.

In addition, Conservapedia has also pointed out on numerous occasions that atheists are strongly inclined to dislike America. Is it also not possible that Obama's pro-Islamic behavior is not a series of Freudian slips, but rather a manifestation of his liberal dislike for America?

Just some interesting points to consider. Perhaps we could open this up for discussion. --[[User:Economist|Economist]] 18:30, 6 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama Arab-American ==

This article should, at some point, actually say that Obama is African-American, making him the first black president. If you really want to leave room for speculation about Warren G. Harding's ancestry, you could write "first openly black president" or something. But Obama's blackness is clearly a large part of his personal and political identity, and is probably going to be remembered as one of the most historically significant aspects of this election. An article on Barack Obama should contain a direct statement of this information, period.

The editors should also consider putting that information in the first paragraph. I understand that there is no established rule about the ordering of information in a Conservapedia article. However, an uneducated reader looking at this article would learn how long his campaign was before learning that he is the first black president, which doesn't make much sense to me. [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 16:20, 9 January 2009 (EST)

There is much distortion in the media about Obama being African-American. '''Obama is actually Arab-American''', and I agree that this page should reflect his race.

Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya, his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). --[[User:Cwcopela|Cwcopela]] 14:11, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Does it really matter? It's not the technicalities that define what race Americans perceive Obama as - He looks more black, than white and arabic and that's how people will perceive him - They won't perceive him as another rich religious white guy or as an arab because of technicalities like that. --[[User:Atheuz|Atheuz]]

:*So, perceptions matter above facts? That is typical of [[liberal]] thinking, you know. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:06, 19 January 2009 (EST)

:Wait, by your own admission Obama is half-Caucasian. Shouldn't we say "first president with significantly ethnic roots" or something (not as politically correct, of course)? [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Small comments ==

Hello. Would it be appropriate to create a "family" section in this biography, it seems rather lacking on this point? For the rest it seems very informative, but rather cluttered. Would it be more logical to use a chronological build-up for this biography, such as placing the parts relating to his presidency more to the end of the biography, and his earlier endeavors to the front? Perhaps it would help if the contents table was moved up, at least to end up higher than the first muslim president bit? Let's hope I'm not asking any all-too-stupid questions! ;-) Regards, [[User:AVanbeek|AVanbeek]] 22:51, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: I don't see any of your suggestions as an improvement. Obama's presidential ambition predates the other items you mention, and his personal beliefs are the most significant. Encylopedias, like newspapers, prioritize presentation based on significance.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: Shall I go ahead then, and erase "Family" Sections on George W. Bush and McCain's articles? Their great accomplishments surely predate those insignificant sections. [[User:AMurdoc|AMurdoc]] 13:29, 15 January 2009 (EST)
:::Why not go ahead and make some positive contributions to this encyclopaedia by creating wanted articles, rather than attempting to be satirical? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 14:18, 15 January 2009 (EST)

I'd also note that Michelle is refered to by her maiden name in the info box. Checking the previous Presidents, their wives are referenced in First Last or First Maiden Last (Laura Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton). Any reason not to have Michelle Obama or Michelle Robinson Obama? Is there some dispute about her legal name? As her name has changed in the popular view and the law, this information would appear to be just wrong.

== Lincoln's Bible? ==

Fox News is reporting that Obama will use the Lincoln Bible to be sworn in <ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/23/obama-sworn-using-lincoln-bible/</ref>. I think it's fairly safe to say that it will not be a koran. I also think it is safe to say that this is exactly the kind of trickery a manchurian muslim would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely muslim" section?

[[User:CWood|CWood]] 11:01, 15 January 2009 (EST)

: I agree, it is safe to say it will not be a Koran. I think i'ts also safe to say this is exactly the kind of "trickery" a Christian would use. Is it worth a mention in the "likely Christian" section? oh wait... [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 11:59, 15 January 2009 (EST)
: So Obama is damned if he does use a Bible, and damned if he doesn't. Seems a bit unreasonable. None of those other candidates were ever accused of being "Manchurian Muslims" just because they DID use a Bible to get sworn in. Then again, none of those other candidates had brown skin and a funny name, right? [[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 12:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::Typical [[liberal]] [[race baiting]]... How about you come up with evidence rather than allegations? [[User:CWood|CWood]] 16:47, 18 January 2009 (EST)
::None of the other candidates hid from questions about their past, it's Obama's own fault. Nobody ever said his name was funny except Obama. The brown skin comment is over the top racist ploy. You know very well that there are more respected, patriotic, qualified 'brown skin' people that are deserving of presidency, Obama isn't one of them. FYI- slanderous allegations are deserving of a permanent block here. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:03, 16 January 2009 (EST)
:::How about slanderous allegations that a man is lying to the country about his religion? Do those count?

:::I'm not accusing anyone of racism per se. I'm just pointing out that no other presidential candidate has ever had to prove to the country that he is not a Muslim. And let's be honest - that's because all the other presidential candidates have been white guys named George or Bill or Ron or Jimmy, and this one is a black guy named Barack. If people WANT to believe he's a Muslim (the authors of this article clearly do) it's easier to do so. If you can't see the connection between his race/name and the popularity of the belief that he is a Muslim, you're not looking hard enough.

:::Anyway, this is all a moot point. He's not a Muslim. As time goes by after Obama takes office, this page will look increasingly loony. I guess if Obama really turns out to be an Al-Qaeda sleeper agent poised to sabotage the United States in a plot straight out of a Tom Clancy novel, I will be the one looking loony. But I think I'll take that chance.[[User:Cb201|Cb201]] 17:55, 16 January 2009 (EST)

== References ==

Barack Hussein Obama (born in Honolulu,[1][2][3] August 4, 1961) served as a first-term Democratic Senator from Illinois (2004-2008) and then, along with his running mate Senator Joseph Biden, won the presidential election[4] after twenty-three months of campaigning, raising an unprecedented $750 million and spending over $700 million of it,[5]. Post-election, Obama indicated that he would make an unprecedented speech within his first 100 days from a Muslim capital.[6] (7][8]

Obama has espoused the idea of "spreading the wealth,"[10]
in other words raising the tax rates on business and the wealthy in order to redistribute their income to low income individuals, many of whom don't currently pay income taxes.[11] His health care plan requires employers to purchase health care or pay a fine and will require many into a single payer system.[12] To announce his trip to Berlin in July 2008, Obama used posters which show a marked similarity to posters of others.[13] During Obama's youth in Hawaii, he developed a strong, almost Father/Son relationship with Frank Marshall Davis.14]
{{unsigned|Lucyjordan}} 11:00, 17 January 2009

The claim that Fareed Zakaria's book ''The Post-American World'' "is written from a Muslim point-of-view" is not supported by the reference, [35]. [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 15:41, 19 February 2009 (EST)

: Ah yes, Fareed Zakaria is actually a Jewish name, written from a Juda perspective. Let's get serious ok? --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 15:53, 19 February 2009 (EST)

:: The ''Village Voice'' article that was referenced describes Zakaria as a secular Muslim, but it doesn't mention the book at all. Do you not think it's possible for someone to write a book on a secular topic without injecting his religious point of view? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 16:20, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Cleary Obama has a Muslim background but is not a Muslim. Some reference to Muslim allegations, rumors and conspiracy theories might be appropriate but Obama is not a Muslim. You people are making yourself look silly beyond belief.
{{unsigned|garyn}}
: So smarty pants, prove he is no longer Muslim. Also, what does the word 'likely' mean to you?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:44, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

==Picture==
[[Image:AC776AB92D53D08B124F57F6B9B6C2.jpg‎]] Here's a picture of our plotting leader. Too sinister? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 09:41, 19 January 2009 (EST)

: Interesting, Steven. But where did you get it from? The uploads should reflect the source and claim of ability to use it, unless before 1923 (in which everything is public domain).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)

::Oh yes. sorry, i got it from the msn.com do i need promission to take photos from there? --[[User:StevenM|Ṣ₮ёVeN]] 14:03, 19 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama/Muslim Support ==

In the May be a Muslim section, it says that he had an increased support of Muslim voters. How does this prove he is Muslim? While this should be kept, It should be moved to another section.

:Nation of Islam's annual convention in a Chicago suburb, a white T-shirt with an image of Obama between Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. sold for $10.

:The Muslim community supports their Muslims. MLK just thrown into the mix for his iconic black image. [http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGXLhxPilGxuVttW5L588O-y4uAAD96LKH200]

== I know we lost a week... ==
But we can't stay in some alternate universe where G.W.Bush is still president forever, especially if this article is going to link to the front page. We need to update this article to show that Obama is now president. I would do so, but its locked. As it has been. For quite some time. --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 23:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

== Low Res Pic ==

Why is the leading picture of Obama such a low resolution version? It looks crappy when stretched [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:20, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: That's the only picture we could get from the White House Web site. It certainly surprises me, because I would have thought that they would have a very high-resolution picture of..."Him." We might try the White House site again to see whether "He" has corrected this—er—oversight.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 08:26, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::Wikipedia found one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:29, 28 January 2009 (EST)

::(I could have sworn i edited this already, did we loose some more from the database?) The orginal high resolution image can be obtained from the change.gov site; http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg . Updating to this version should fix all the scaling artefacts --[[User:SCarter|SCarter]] 22:10, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Second swearing in ceremony? ==

I'm surprised that this isn't even mentioned in the article, but when Obama retook the Oath he DIDN'T USE A BIBLE. In fact, there was no video recording of the session and the picture taken only showed him from the chest up. This is profound evidence of being Unchristian at the very least. Since we can't see his left hand during the ceremony, it could be on anything ... dare I say, the Koran?? (source http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-takes-oath-office/) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 08:40, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: I consider swearing on the Bible to be un-Christian, because of Matthew 5:34-37, where swearing on anything is expressly forbidden by Jesus.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:48, 28 January 2009 (EST)

Additionally, the second swearing-in ceremony was hardly "private." There were a number of reporters present. Even if it were private, the first ceremony is the one that is constitutionally binding. In any case, the allegation in the main article needs a citation. There are plenty out there, so get to it!

== Rejects ID, Pushes Evolution (Over Christianity!?) ==

This really needs to be a section in the mainspace. Someone unlock or please add a section mentioning the following:

''Rejects ID''
From the responses to a Q&A sent out by Nature: Do you believe that evolution by means of natural selection is a sufficient explanation for the variety and complexity of life on Earth? Should intelligent design, or some derivative thereof, be taught in science class in public schools?

Obama: I believe in evolution, and I support the strong consensus of the scientific community that evolution is scientifically validated. I do not believe it is helpful to our students to cloud discussions of science with non-scientific theories like intelligent design that are not subject to experimental scrutiny. <ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/in-obamas-own-words/</ref>

''Pushes Evolution Over Christianity''
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels." <ref>http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp</ref>

Wow. [[User:CherylE|CherylE]] 10:17, 28 January 2009 (EST)

== Allegedly born in Honolulu ==

Why does it still say he was allegedly born in Honolulu? Later on in the page it says the it was proven his birth certificate is genuine. [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:We merely state that FactCheck.org believed the photo of the birth certificate was genuine.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 10:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
Maybe it should be rewritten then since now it reads more like it states a fact that the birth certificate is indeed genuine. I'm guessing 99% of people never even check the reference.[[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Additionally, he's already been sworn in as president, so arguing over where he was born is a moot point. --[[User:FrankincenseMonster|FrankincenseMonster]] 23:57, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Why no family section? ==

The Obama article has no family section. Neither does Clinton's or Carter's. However, Reagan's, Bush the elder's and W.Bush's articles have them. Why none on the democratic presidents'? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 11:42, 28 January 2009 (EST)

There's a simple answer: Obama, Clinton, and Carter are Democrats. They belong to an anti-family party, therefore their family is irrelevant to their political existence. Family is central to Republican policy, and so it is impossible to understand President Bush without mentioning his family.
[[User:LatinScholar]] 1:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:He has a family though, doesn't he? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 13:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Yes, but a Democrat family, which is something entirely different. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 2:22, 30 January 2009 (EST)

: How about adding a family section now mentioning his half brother in Kenya who was arrested for drug possession? Shouldn't there be something about him on the page? [[User:JohnKite|JohnKite]] 08:02, 1 February 2009 (EST)

::This argument doesn't make sense. If he's "anti-family," '''he wouldn't have a family'''. I suppose by "anti-family," you mean pro-abortion. That has nothing do to with whether to include his own family. A good encyclopedia doesn't leave out information for reasons like this. It's relevant and it should be here.[[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:09, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::: Hey Latin, what if I attempted to create an "Obama's family" section on my page for your perusal. Do you think you might give some consideration on putting it in the article? [[Hespherius]]

== Some Changes ==

Why is this locked?
Obama has not been succeded by "incumbent" nor will he be.
Obamas term in office might not go to 2013, it might go further, it might not go that far, unless you are psychic this should be changed. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:58, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:"Incumbent" means he is the current holder of the office. It's simply a term to indicate that he is the most recent. And while it is true that Obama could be elected to a second term and thus serve until 2017, he hasn't. His first term expires on 2013 regardless of what happens between now and then (barring impeachment or death, of course) so it's factual to list that date. Listing a second term when he's only a week and a half in his first one is speculative and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Ampersand|Ampersand]] 14:49, 28 January 2009 (EST)
It's the exact same thing we did with [[George W. Bush]] - <s>there's nothing factually wrong about saying whoever replaces obama will be an incumbent.</s> - saying incumbent merely confirms that he is the current president - no one has succeeded him yet.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

==Is he or isn't he President?==
This article has a lot of wildly inaccurate and unsourced information in it. It also can't seem to decide whether BO is President or not - the picture on the right says he is, the text varies from claiming he's won the election, to him being Senator. I'd love to help clean this up, but can't seem to edit the page? Ready to help. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 15:15, 28 January 2009 (EST)
:Yes, it's pretty weird isn't it. One would have thought that if it was important enough to protect then it would be important enough to update. But the failure to update tells the casual reader what to expect in respect of the general accuracy of the article - so it's probably not a bad thing.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:12, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::I notice the article has been updated to make it somewhat more reality-based. Good. However, I would expect - almost to the case of 'demand' - that the article on the current POTUS begin with the short and simple line "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Instead, the first sentence about this, arguably the world's most important person, is overlong, appallingly punctuated, begins immediately with unfounded gossip and wanders off into some other random irrelevant facts and utterly lacks focus. It says a lot about what the reader can expect from the entire article to follow. I wish I could help rewrite this article so as it would be more based on fact and reality - and particularly, better written - but as it's locked, that's impossible. So all we, the casual readers, can do is suggest things which need to be done to improve the article. I would begin by recommending the deletion of the entire monster and a total rewrite from scratch. There's nothing here of substance and nothing that will engender any respect for this supposed 'encyclopedia'. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 13:33, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::It's a shame we can't all be as learned and insightful as you, FNNoonan. However, I dare say all the hard-working editors here will jump up to obey your lofty commands. If you want a 'better' article, why not write one on your userpage/in a sandbox and submit it to the criticism of your peers? Or is this a case of 'those who can't, criticise'? [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 14:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::: You must not have read my comment, in which I made a suggestion to improve the article's first sentence. What's yours? You might try contributing something to the debate rather than trying to shoot the messenger. The message is - the article's a disaster. Now, what are you doing about that? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 16:24, 29 January 2009 (EST)
:::::I don't think it a disaster, but a multi-layered and well-argued piece. Looking at the revision history and talk pages, I see that some of the best minds on Consercvapedia think so, too. Therefore I have no need to do anything. You, on the other hand, see faults, but do nothing except indulge yourself in corrosive criticism. [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:10, 29 January 2009 (EST)
::::::I would also point out that the article even fails to mention which country he's President of. I would again recommend the inclusion of my suggested opening sentence - "Barack Hussein Obama is the 44th and current President of the United States of America". Thank you for helping to improve this terrible article. [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

The article should begin with "Barack Hussein Obama is currently the 44th President of the United States of America." Someone please make this change. [[User:Gadzodilo|Gadzodilo]] 23:22, 1 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks for improving the article's first few words - we now know what his job is and of what country he's President. But I would ask that someone PLEASE look at the grammar in that first sentence - it's absolutely atrocious. Again, since I cannot edit the page, I cannot help but instead can only point out the problems here. First, if you want to make the point about his birthplace, the correct place would be later - and then with an explanation of why this might be a problem (the Constitution states that President's must be born in the USA - there's no mention of this anywhere in the article). If you want to make the point where it is, despite that being a nonsequitor, simply add a period after 'States' and remove the word 'although'. Also please note that the word 'although' is a conditional - and what follows the word 'although' has nothing to do with the opening part of the sentence. You might as well write "He is the President of the USA, although he apparently doesn't like cheese". The two items have no connection. Subject-Object. Next, the entire first sentence is utterly malformed, with a punctuation that woulod shame a four year old, including a period in the middle of the sentence. There is what is presumably a birthdate just floating in the middle of the sentence, undescribed. This is followed by a close-parentheses, where there was no open-parentheses. The sentence then runs on with some gibberish about electoral donations. It also appears as if Joe Biden was his running mate while he was a Senator from Illinois. The first paragraph continues in what can barely be described as comprehensible English with a stream of random, unintroduced facts. Finally, it ends with a nonsensical reference to the absolutely normal practice of politicians referring to the practices of their nation, and addressing their nation as a collective body. I would love to help tidy up this amateur article, but the childish English throughout, combined with the fact that the article is locked, leave me to believe it is not possible, and this encyclopedia is anything but 'trustworthy'. Would you trust your children with this article? [[User:FNNoonan|FNNoonan]] 14:16, 4 February 2009 (EST)

== Real Bible NOT Koran ==

Below is the kind of post I’ve been looking forward to:

“Look, I wrote here and in the article that Obama would swear on the Koran, and now I’ve just got to eat [[humble pie]]. See, I was wwoo….wrooggga…woolooo..wopppaaa. wrong. There, I managed to say it, and I feel better for it.”

Yeah, I been waiting for that one, but I’m not holding my breath. But since Obama DID in fact swear on Lincoln’s Bible that means (check this one in archives) you clowns owe me $100. Each. (American notes thank you.) [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 18:31, 28 January 2009 (EST)

: You're clueless, Myles. Obama's real oath was not on the Bible. I don't know if it was on the Koran. Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:01, 28 January 2009 (EST)

OP Myles back. Right, let me see if I can sum up the state of play. Obama tries to take the Oath on the Lincoln Bible, which presumably has special powers not available to the usual Gideon’s Hotel edition. Anyways, Chief Justice Roberts manages to bellyflop his role in history. It’s like the guy who needs play only one note on a triangle during the symphony and manages to foul that up. Along with 90% of the world, I thought that Obama was completely blameless for this glitch, and actually quite gracious. His face and bearing said “Hey, you stuffed up, but I forgive you. Let’s try it again.” This was not what the foaming at the mouth crowd saw, and talk here was of how Obama was not properly inaugurated, and that somehow it was all his fault. Then, to satisfy the New Philistines, he takes the oath, again. This time, no one of the Born Again crowd who frequent these occasions thinks to bring a Bible, but it is Obama’s fault once more, because apparently he should have one in his back pocket at all times. He takes the oath again. Hey, that’s good enough for me, but apparently I’m clueless, according to Andy, who, in one of his regular 2 line missives from above believes there’s more to this than meets the eye.

Well, let me see. I suppose Obama could have paid Roberts off in the first instance to screw up the wording, so he would not have to put his hand on the Bible. (Because then he would wince with pain as the Word of God burnt his skin, or something.) This set up the SECOND inauguration at which everyone was paid to make sure no Bible was there, so Obama gets to be Prez while cunningly evading the Bible. You see, it all makes perfect sense, don’t it? Yeah, and I’M the one who’s clueless! Truly, what a man believes, he sees. Look, I’ve got an idea. Instead of hurling everything you got including the kitchen sink at Obama on a second by second basis, every time he so much as scratches his nose, let’s take the fair-minded, objective, dare I say American approach. It’s the customary 100 day honeymoon. Why don’t we all give him those 100 days, and THEN have a look at the plus and minus sheet? Sound like a sensible notion? Of course, that would mean putting your knee in some other crotch for that time, which is asking a hell of a lot I know. But then you would have some REAL grievances at the end instead of the kind of sort of all this relentless muck-raking on the basis of trivia. And just think of the size of the bonfire you could build then.

You know, where I come from conservatives are known as people with a sense of honour, with ethical standards, polite and cultivated, aware of etiquette, educated, and with a keen sense for fair play. You might be using a different dictionary. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

*Myles, please read the box at the top of this page, and adhere to it. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:Myles, one can tell you're a liberal just by observing how many words it takes you to say nothing. Your non-American spelling of "honor" is also a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Somebody decides to spell 'honour' the way that it is spelt correctly in '''English''' (the mother-tongue of '''England''') and you decide to try and be insulting about it. Classy.--[[User:Ieuan|Ieuan]] 12:47, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Despite Myles' tone, his post does have some merit: It's time to let go of this "swearing in on the Koran" business because it is purely insulting speculation.
::And I have to ask... why is using non-American spelling a liberal trait? Our Prime Minister up here in Canada is as conservative as they come... [[User:SJames|SJames]] 13:37, 30 January 2009 (EST)
::: It doesn't show you're non-conservative. It shows you are not American, or an un-American person. [[User:T2master|T2master]] 19:30, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Incumbent ==

In the box to the right of the page it says that Obama will be succeeded by [[incumbent]]? Doesn't this imply that he will have two terms? I'm a bit confused. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 11:19, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:I can understand the confusion, but all it implies is that he is the current President. It would probably be better if the whole line was removed until we actually know who he would be succeeded by. [[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 13:09, 29 January 2009 (EST)

::Well, I tried to fix it up, I really did. But it was hard what with the lock down. I tried dabbing liquid paper on my monitor but that didn’t work very well either. Normally, “Not known” or “To be announced” or “To be determined” are the accepted forms, but hey, what about "Sarah Palin"? Let’s be positive and proactive about this. That lady is gonna wipe the floor with this Obama ring in. I’m marching in her parade right now. “Palin ain’t for failin’ “
::Whoo hooo!!” [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 21:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)

:::I fixed all this....what's the problem now, Myles? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:46, 29 January 2009 (EST)

== Stylistic matter ==
Technically, it is proper to simply list the day of Obama's inauguration followed by a dash, as, God forbid, he might be reelected in 2012. So we can't say until the election when his last day in office will be... --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 09:36, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*I believe you are not correct. ''Technically'' he was elected to a four year term. The text for the info box says term of office, no? That would be four years from his inauguration, 20 January, 2009. One doesn't typically take into account the possibility of death, resignation or re-election. Perhaps you are saying what is "typical" for Wikipedia? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:52, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::This[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=George_W._Bush&oldid=598707] seems like a reasonable template "typical" for Conservapedia. The Bush entry was changed from "present" to January 20, 2009 less than three weeks before the date that he was definitively leaving office.[[User:Mikek|Mikek]] 14:51, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::What he was elected to and his actual term in office can be different things. William Henry Harrison was elected for a four year term but his actual term was one month. As I recall Bushes article said 'present' until several days after his term was over. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:11, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Actually, that's almost universal. We don't know when his term will end. He could be re-elected in four years, or shot tomorrow. We can't say when his term will ''actually'' end. Wikipedia, by the way, doesn't even have a dash- just "assumed office," "incumbent" and "January 20, 2009." If accuracy is our goal, it's best to simply put a dash, or a dash followed by "present" or "incumbent." --[[User:DReynolds|DReynolds]] 15:34, 30 January 2009 (EST)

== Article Naming ==

As the article for [[Barack Hussein Obama]] includes his full name, [[John McCain]] should redirect to [[John Sidney McCain III]], [[Joe Biden]] to [[Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr.]], etc. - [[User:LafinJack|LafinJack]] 17:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

*No. But you just keep on LafinJack. ;-) -- --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:05, 30 January 2009 (EST)

::Can we ask why we will have the inconsistency TK? --[[User:WillB|WillB]] 18:15, 30 January 2009 (EST)

I fail to understand what LafinJack or WillB are complaining about. What inconsistency? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 7:08, 30 January 2009
::They are referring to the fact that only Barack Obama's middle name is included in the article name, while the others are not. They are wondering why that is.
::The obvious answer: Hussein is a Muslim name. It helps when trying to portray the slant that President Obama is lying about being a Christian. "Sidney" and "Robinette" are regular Western middle names and serve no significant purpose. A similar line of reasoning can also explain why the Table of Contents is oddly out of view in President Obama's article. [[User:AdamSchaley|AdamSchaley]] 19:21, 30 January 2009 (EST)

Leave it to a liberal to reduce this discussion to nonsense, innuendo, and pointless name-calling. What's the use of even trying to have this discussion when you won't discuss things rationally? [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]] 19:42, 01/09

::I should remind you that this is a Conservative Christian encyclopedia with an ADMITTED BIAS. The goal is obvious: To show readers that Obama is a Muslim, however this is in line with the principals of the encyclopedia, so there isn't anything really to complain about. Conservatives want everyone to understand Obama is a Muslim. There is no NPOV, get over it (my $.02) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 21:56, 30 January 2009 (EST)

:::I'm pretty sure his religion should have no bearing in the first place. Then again, you're the type of moron who lets a candidate's religious faith influence your vote. "I AINT GON' VOTE FOR NO MUSLIMS OR JEWS." I'm quite sure the color of his skin also has a bearing on you. Let's not forget that there isn't any credible evidence that he's indeed a Muslim. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:45, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Change of wording? ==

I think "Obama will likely be the first Muslim President" would be better written as "Obama is likely the first Muslim President" ... just a thought [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 22:08, 30 January 2009 (EST)
:Nah, let's not. --[[User:VictorT|VictorT]] 17:47, 7 March 2009 (EST)

== Update picture? ==

I'd just like to rerequest that the Obama main picture get updated with a higher resolution version. It looks very bad stretched. Here is a URL to an official version (http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg) [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
[[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 10:58, 31 January 2009 (EST)
:Done. Thanks for the link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:24, 31 January 2009 (EST)

::Thanks. Looks a lot better [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 12:10, 31 January 2009 (EST)

== Obama's religious outlook ==
'''Obama's "outlook is Muslim"? That is simply not true'''

The Obama article presently reads: "Obama's background, education, and '''outlook''' are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity."

I don't think the above sentence is true and I will give two notable cases where it can be shown that Obama's '''outlook''' is not Muslim.

First, Obama heavily promotes the abortion ("pro-choice") ideology.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72511] How many Muslim countries promote the abortion ideology? Not many at all. I cite the following: "The rules are also influenced by the role of religion; in most Muslim countries abortion is prohibited and it is also restricted in Catholic Latin America."[http://www.newsbatch.com/abort.htm]

One of the first things the Obama administration did was to put on the White House website that they were going to promote the homosexual agenda. I cite the following: "President Obama had not even finished his inaugural address today before his agenda was posted on the WhiteHouse website, where he promised to "overturn" the Supreme Court's precedents on discrimination claims and to demand new laws requiring employers to provide special protections for homosexuals and others with "gender" issues.[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86633] I do know for a fact that homosexuality is presently generally looked upon very unfavorably in Muslim countries. I cite the following: "Same-sex intercourse carries the death penalty in five officially Muslim nations: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen. [3] It formerly carried the death penalty in Afghanistan under the Taliban, and in Iraq under a 2001 decree by Saddam Hussein. The legal situation in the United Arab Emirates is unclear. In many Muslim nations, such as Bahrain, Qatar, Algeria or the Maldives, homosexuality is punished with jail time, fines or corporal punishment. In some Muslim-majority nations, such as Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, or Mali, same-sex intercourse is not forbidden by law. However, in Egypt gays have been the victims of laws against "morality"."[http://www.religionfacts.com/homosexuality/islam.htm]

I think it is untrue to say that Obama's outlook is Muslim. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:06, 1 February 2009 (EST)

:His background is [[Islam]]ic, but I am unaware of his theological beliefs. Has he ever espoused a particular Christian or Muslim idea? If so, what? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:43, 20 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's Historical Ignorance ==

The first statement in the Insights section claims that "Obama displayed ignorance about American history when he said, "Throughout our history, America's confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, '''from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor''', to the threat of nuclear annihilation."

There are a few things wrong with what Obama said about Pearl Habor, but none of them constitute ignorance. The only things wrong with what he said are that he a) did no pluralize the phrase to "from the bombs that fell on Pearl Habor"; b) he wasn't accurate in the kind of weaponry used because they were actually torpedoes (which is hardly ignorance as it is a largely insignificant fact); or c) the fact that he failed to properly pluralize 'bomb' means that his phrase seems to reference a far more infamous bomb, the one on Hiroshima. This last point of course does not constitute ignorance. Even if he did mistaken Hiroshima for Pearl Habor I would see that as a gaff rather than evidence of impeded ignorance towards American history. But, given that, in the context of 'constantly evolving danger' and the other historical references contained within the whole statement, it is quite clear Obama did not mean Hiroshima, I would be inclined to either edit or remove this phrase entirely.

Politicians make gaffs all the time. If you want to find actual evidence of Obama's 'ignorance' towards American history look somewhere else.

==Rearranged content==
First, very little was removed or changed, but there was some there which was either repetative or in the wrong context. This I hope was corrected.

Second, the place of birth was changed to Hawaii. There has to be ''proof'' that he was ''not'' born in Hawaii, and we cannot allow someone else's opinion in the article which states that he was not. But, the birth controversy is still a relevent topic as far as his possible history and the campaign is concerned, and this feature has been preserved.

And third, there are minor corrections to be made to the article, which include writing and grammer, accuracy, and minor info that could be added as to his presidency. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:50, 2 February 2009 (EST)

I think that Andrew Schafly was right to move the sections back into their previous order. [[User:LatinScholar|LatinScholar]]

:I think that speculation should come after factual information in an article. Why are we talking about what Obama "may be" before what he actually is? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 18:29, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::There you go again! "Actually is" ? I think first, JArneal, in the great tradition of liberals, you need to define what "is" -- ''is''! Please find a new hobby, JArneal, as your present one of constantly arguing and disputing doesn't wear well. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::Why must liberals censor that Obama is likely a Muslim... get over it guys --[[User:PMichael|PMichael]] 20:06, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Why can't conservatives accept the fact that he isn't...get over it guys --[[User:ShawnJ|ShawnJ]] 20:37, 3 February 2009 (EST)

::: Sheesh, TK. I'm sorry if I offended you. Do you really want me to define "is"? I was just asking why we don't put factual information in front, and speculation in back. Is there a reason? --'' '''[[user:JArneal|JArneal]]'' ''' 22:24, 3 February 2009 (EST)
Is is the 3rd person singular, possessive form of be.

== Obama and Sexism ==

In the "Presidential Campaign" section of this article it states "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being '''a woman''' and outsider." The evidence of Obama mocking Palin for being a woman is explained later: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Are you talking about this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eu9Z2hXky0&eurl=http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/194057.php ? How is this video a "sexist" smear? Not only that, but there is little evidence to support the claim that Obama hired Winner to make this video.

The article suggests that Obama was caught for hiring someone to make a sexist smear video. I am asking for definitive proof that Obama was behind the video, AND definitive proof that the video is a "sexist" smear. If there is no proof, I am at least requesting that the untrue statements about Obama mocking Palin for being a woman are removed. If I do not get a response from one of the editors of this article I will email the owners of Conservapedia directly. [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 19:25, 4 February 2009 (EST)
:First, if you have correct information as to who was actually behind the video in question then it needs to be brought to our attention in a fair manner. Second, the way you brought this about, by making your statement here in the form of a DEMAND, is not going to be tolerated. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:38, 4 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, if my tone sounded as though i was demanding something from you or seemed disrespectful in some way I apologize, that was not my intent. I am merely requesting that the article changes it's tone. It states: "Obama was caught..." we do not know for certain that Obama was behind the video at all. Are we as Americans not considered innocent until proven guilty?

And what about the charges of sexism? The article calls the video a "sexist" smear. Will someone please tell me what was sexist about it? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

:Looking at the references, it is a documented fact that this video was made professionally; it is not an amateur attempt at all. It's also documented that Winner & Associates (including Ethan Winner) are die-hard Obama supporters who have given much to the campaign. While it is not proven from these pages that Obama supported such a video, it is also not proven that he didn't help out the creation of it in some way. I added Ethan Winner's ''alleged'' claim that he made the video alone. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:17, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Well that is a start, thank you. I honestly didn't think I'd get anyone to change anything in the article. But there are still those sexism charges. Can you provide some explanation to those? The line reads: "Obama was caught for his quiet hiring of Winner & Associates to disseminate a sexist smear video against her." Do you think you might be able to take out that word sexist? And maybe reword it in a way that doesn't immediately imply that Obama is behind the video (Until damning evidence is brought forth)? And there is also the claim at the beginning stating: "Obama mocks Sen. McCain's for his age and Gov. Palin for being a woman and outsider." The only evidence supposedly supporting the claim that Obama mocked Palin for being "a woman and outsider" is this smear video. Am I just missing something here? How is Obama mocking her for being a woman in this video? How is the video itself at all sexist? [[User:FairMan|FairMan]] 23:02, 4 February 2009 (EST)

*FairMan, you are in danger of being blocked. There was a well-documented news story, during the campaign, showing women were getting paid less on his campaign staff and in his Senate offices, which was hugely embarassing to Obama. [http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obamacommentary/222679,CST-NWS-sweet22.stng] Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. Please stop your liberal excuse making and time-wasting. Learn the truth, and it will set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Why exactly am I in danger of being blocked? I am aware of that news story, I will save that for another place and time (I don't want to stir up more trouble then I am already in). My main complaint is that the article claimed that Obama mocked Palin for being a woman. The only evidence that supports this claim in the article is the link to the smear video mentioned previously (If there is more evidence then please add it). It is claimed that the video is a sexist smear. Why is my questioning of the label "sexist" being ignored every time someone replies? Please tell me if I am missing something obvious here. It is not my intent to waste anyone's time. I am just looking for answers.

"Palin was mocked by Obama and Joe Biden, for her so-called "lack of experience" even though her own exceeded Obama's, in terms of executive/managerial experience. "

That is a great example! That is something you could add to the article to back up the claim of Obama mocking Palin for being an outsider. Currently there is nothing in the "Tone" section of the article backing that up.{{unsigned|FairMan}}

*Then that is what you should have said, is exactly my point! Everyone wants to be a critic, while offering nothing, as the box at the top of this page says, that will improve it. If one doesn't do that, how am I, or any editor to distinguish you from the dozens of trolls and disruptor's who sign up everyday? You know how long it took me to find that citation? Less then two minutes. I ask for your understanding, but do not apologize for my comments, simply because I have just pointed out why I would think what I did. "Assume good faith" is something attempted by lots of other places, but it rarely is achieved, and certainly not so often here, where even the most casual reader/editor knows we are constantly set-up by liberal trolls and parodists. Your last comments let all of us see your motivations are perhaps better than assumed, and I do thank you for that. This is how you will build your reputation here, and anywhere else in life. I look forward to other suggestions, offered in the same spirit, and in fact, if you want, put them on my talk to make sure I see them, if you want. Thanks. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 02:24, 5 February 2009 (EST)

== Category ==

Could a sysop edit this page to add it to [[:Category:Barack Obama]]? -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 14:20, 6 February 2009 (EST)

*No, sly mis-naming of the object isn't it? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:53, 6 February 2009 (EST)

==Minor Edits==
There is a missing parenthesis in his date of birth, and in the "Birth certificate controversy" section, the word "intelligible" should be "ineligible". Those are the only 2 I caught in a quick scan of the page. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)
:Thanks! [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hi, I'm a new user. I was curious as to whether this talk page is actualy considered in the editing of this article. What i mean by that is, as this article is locked-down, does the editing administrator read this page and make changes to the article, or will the article always be left as it is? ( I don't mean to offend, as Imentioned, I am a new user, and I am honestly just curious)

== Flag Pin "insights" ==

This section is badly written and requires major change. First, it says Obama didn't provide "adequate" explanation. "Adequate" is subjective. He either provided and explanation or he didn't. The citation indicates he explained. Second, the word "presumably." Encyclopedias aren't supposed to presume things. Third, the word "likely." Again, just an opinion. "Recently" is a vague term; be specific. The assumption about military donors is unsupported speculation. If anyone cares about making this into objective encyclopedic content, it should read as follows:

''Obama wore an American flag lapel pin after 9/11, but later stopped wearing it, explaining he felt that "Patriotism to me, isn't what you wear on your lapel. "It's what you carry in your heart. I don't need a pin to certify my love for this country."[59] As of DATE, he has begun wearing a pin again.''

I suspect that if I change this, it will be quickly overridden. Are any regular editors/sysop-types willing to change this part? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:15, 2 March 2009 (EST)

*Dantes, why are you here? If it is to talk, talk, talk, complain, complain, complain, argue, argue, argue, you chose the wrong place. Our tolerance of liberal/socialist Canadians is pretty low. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:24, 2 March 2009 (EST)

::Well, if you bother to read my entries, you'll see that I'm providing civil and rational suggestions for how to make this content more encyclopedic and objective. It's sad that you assume I'm a liberal/socialist just because I'm proposing corrections, and my country of residence is totally irrelevant. The better question would be why are YOU here? I'm here to propose corrections. Apparently you're here to try to insult me. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:40, 3 March 2009 (EST)

== Michelle ==

Could we link to her? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 15:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== Religion... ==
Correct me if I am wrong, but I'm pretty sure there is no requirement that one must be Christian to be President. Ah, I just checked the constitution and it mentions nothing about religion except once, in the first amendment. He's not a Muslim, which has been confirmed, and even if he were, what does it matter? Maybe this should be reconsidered?[[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: You're wrong on multiple points. How about learning first, and then preaching second?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:33, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:: Actually, I'm correct on multiple points as per the United States Constitution. And Hussein is not a 'Muslim' name. Muslim is the word used to denote a person whose religion is Islam. Hussein is an ''Arab'' derived name Mr. Schlafly. [[User:Heartbeat|Heartbeat]] 16:37, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::: The Constitution also mentions religion in Article VI "but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:46, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::: Whatever faith Obama is, he is not a Christian<ref>http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:Xld3RpINYVUJ:www.conversantlife.com/politics/is-barack-obama-really-a-christian+obama+quote+christian&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11&gl=us</ref>. For he fails to acknowledge the Nicene creed. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:58, 23 February 2009 (EST)

::::: The Nicene creed only applies to Paulian Christians. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:42, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::::: "Pauline Christians" as opposed to .... Muslim Christians???? Got news for you: Paul had nothing to do with the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by all Christians.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 24 February 2009 (EST)

Heartbeat, try to stick to the point; and don't be so pedantic. Many people use the terms ''[[Muslim]]'' and ''[[Islamic]]'' interchangeably. Such loose usage does not invalidate an argument. You are surely award that the Arab countries are within the Islamic cultural sphere, and that they almost all are places where the required religion is Islam. So having an Arabic name places one within the Islamic sphere and is a [[clue]], anyway, to someone's religious heritage.

These discussions are long on finger-pointing and short on research. Let's have a little more information. Has Obama been attending a church? Is church attendance a better indicator of religious faith than one's father's last name? Was the church he attended Christian? If it doesn't adhere to the [[Nicene Creed]], then is it some sort of heretical variant, or what?

And why is it important what his religion is? Does anyone think he plans to violate the [[First Amendment]] by setting up a [[state religion]] (such as [[Islam]])? Or that he plans to neglect the protection of Americans' [[religious freedom]] even more than President Bush did? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:54, 25 February 2009 (EST)

==== Affirmative Action Question ====

If all of Obama's achievements are linked to affirmative action, how did he get around Harvard Law's anonymous grading procedures? Did he find a way to communicate his race to his professors on his exams? Is there evidence of this? I know that Andy Schlafly was at HLS at the same time as Obama. Maybe he could shed some light on how Obama accomplished that. Was this not official policy when you went to Harvard: http://www.law.harvard.edu/academics/handbook/rules-relating-to-law-school-studies/examinations.html [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:15, 23 February 2009 (EST)
:Law schools have almost always graded anonymously. Journals like the Harvard Law Review do, admittedly, have affirmative action policies in selecting their editors, but they do ''not'' use affirmative action in selecting board members. So at most Obama got onto HLR by affirmative action, but his grades and election as President were his own accomplishments. Great point RickD.-[[User:LuciusF|LuciusF]] 19:01, 23 February 2009 (EST)
::I seem to recall reading that there was a vote in selecting Obama as the President of the Law Review and that a number of conservatives voted for him: http://daggatt.blogspot.com/2008/11/obamas-harvard-law-days.html

::<blockquote>
::The block of conservatives on the Law Review my year I think was eager to avoid having any of the most political people on the left govern the Review. I mean, the first bedrock criterion, I think for almost all of the editors, was to have somebody with an absolutely first-rate legal mind who would be able to engage competently with the nation's top legal scholars on their scholarship and on these articles, and who would provide the intellectual leadership for the Review that it always needed. That was non-negotiable for almost everybody right or left . . . And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. We had all worked with him over the course of a year. And we had all spent countless hours in the presence of Barack, as well as others of our colleagues who were running, in Gannett House [the Law Review offices], and so you get a pretty good sense of people over the course of a year of late nights working on the Review. You know who the rabble-rousers are. You know who the people are who are blinded by their politics. And you know who the people are who, despite their politics, can reach across and be friendly to and make friends with folks who have different views. And Barack very much fell into the latter category.
::</blockquote>
::-Bradford Berenson, #2 lawyer in George W. Bush’s White House, from a Frontline interview [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 19:32, 23 February 2009 (EST)

:::Here is a link to the Frontline interview: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/choice2008/obama/harvard.html
:::This seems to call into question the statement in the article about Obama's success being entirely the result of affirmative action. The single citation currently used to support this point consists of one sentence pulled from an article that otherwise casts Obama in a very positive light. Does anyone have another citation in support of the existing language besides that one, or should we discuss the possibility of changing or removing that paragraph? [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 24 February 2009 (EST)

At second glance, none of the citations say anything about Obama's HLS achievements being the result of affirmative action. Law students constantly publish articles on subjects that they haven't taken formal courses on. My school doesn't even offer courses dealing with election law, but my friend still published an article about it. The article is missing a logical step between "Obama published an article without taking a class on [science subject] and Constitutional Law" and "Obama's article was published because of his race." Has the writer done any research to justify that inference? [[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:20, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== <1% Correction ==

The <1% statistic appears to be legitimate, but it is not presented correctly. According to the source currently used for this statistic (http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina31103.htm), 'The Internet site aljazeera.net published an interview with Ahmad Al Qataani أحمد القطعاني An important Islamic cleric who said: “In every hour, 667 Muslims convert to Christianity. Everyday, 16,000 Muslims convert to Christianity. Ever year, 6 million Muslims convert to Christianity."'

This link puts those numbers into context and gives us the <1% figure: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/young-muslim-and-french/info-graphic-muslim-populations/info-graphic-muslim-populations-worldwide-growth/2526/. However, that is <1% of Muslims worldwide per year, not <1% of all Muslims over their lifetime, as our current wording might lead some to believe.

We could fix this by changing the sentence in the article from its current form
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.''
to
:''Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of the the Muslim population converts to Christianity annually.''

The link I provide my also be of use as an additional source for this. [[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:59, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:It also seems like a bad use of statistics. It's useful if you are trying to determine whether a random Muslim converted to Christianity, but is less useful when you're talking about a specific person where lots of other evidence makes a raw percentage meaningless. The percentage of Americans who become President is a lot lower than 1%, but that doesn't mean that Obama didn't become President.[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 14:33, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:: When the inherent fallacy of weak induction is pointed out that is ignored, however the factual correction to the nature of the 1% number probably will not. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 22:40, 24 February 2009 (EST)

::: There is nothing fallacious about the 1% statistic, or its use here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:47, 24 February 2009 (EST)

:::: But do you agree that the information I presented here, in so far as it relates to the proper wording of this part of the article, is also not false, but is in fact a more reasonable summary of the truth behind the 1% number? I'm not trying to make any statement about how applicable the figure may or may not be when talking about Obama's own religious status; that's clearly a broader debate for another time. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:: I know you're committed to this 1% argument and won't change it, but would you care to address my affirmative action question, above, regarding Harvard Law grading and law review editorial board policies?[[User:AGoogins|AGoogins]] 00:14, 25 February 2009 (EST)

== Obama's name in Arabic? ==

Should we show his name in Arabic like Wikipedia does for Muslims? Google translator turned this up "باراك حسين أوباما"

Maybe we could change the opening sentence to be

"Barack Hussein Obama II (Arabic: باراك حسين أوباما)(allegedly born in Honolulu Aug. 4, 1961) " [[User:UnLiberal|UnLiberal]] 15:46, 25 February 2009 (EST)

:Wikipedia does that for Arabs, not Muslims. Also we should get someone who actually reads Arabic rather than a Google translation, anyone can punch something into an internet translator. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 18:17, 26 February 2009 (EST)

The problem with your auto-translate is that it has too many vowels. It's assuming that you typed in a non-Arabic word and it's trying to reproduce it phonetically, instead of just figuring out the original version. I looked up "Hussein" and "Barack" on Wikipedia to see how they're spelled, Googled up those two words together in Arabic, and found the following full name spelled just like this all over the place: '''
بارك حسین اوباما'''

I think it'd be a pretty neat touch to add to the article, honestly. [[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 18:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Islam can be compatible with the modern world." ==

[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Ed_Poor Ed Poor’s] recent addition to the list of points arguing that Obama is a Muslim is out of context.

:''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."''

Examining the cited work, one finds that the lead up to that quote goes as follows:

:''In Indonesia, Obama has said, he saw women with and without head coverings and Muslims living comfortably next to Christians. He has said that his life among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

Retaining the full content of the second sentence would give readers a better grasp of the context in which he made this statement. Why did you choose to omit this information? And on what basis do you present this as proof that Obama is a Muslim?

Furthermore, knowing the context seems to weaken the point’s usefulness in revealing Obama’s religion, because it suggests that the quote was informed by his time living abroad rather than his own personal beliefs. If I spent several years living in Thailand and later commented that the experience showed me that Buddhism was compatible with the modern world, would you think I was a Buddhist?

If we insist on continuing to build the case for Obama’s religion, let’s please do so carefully so that we do not omit or obscure any relevant information. If the quote is to remain in the article, I propose that the line be altered to read

:''He has said that the experience of living among Muslims in Indonesia showed him that “Islam can be compatible with the modern world.”''

NB - I would make this and other minor changes myself, but the article is locked. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 18:49, 25 February 2009 (EST)

: The background adds nothing. Obama's promoting Islam with his statement itself, and there will be many more examples during his term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:26, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::While I understand your desire for brevity, I respectfully disagree. I think that a reader's interpretation of the quote could be made very different given the full context, especially considering the heading under which we provide it here. And though I do see how the statement itself could be seen as a promotion of Islam, there are many things which are "compatible" with the modern world that not everyone would want to endorse - homosexuality (even if you disagree with it, there's no question that it is becoming more and more accepted by society every day), war (just look at Africa), and drug use just to name a few. One could correctly state that they are thriving in these times without endorsing them. Lastly, how does the expectation of more examples of his support for Islam have any bearing on the inclusion or exclusion of information regarding this one? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 20:38, 26 February 2009 (EST)

::Conservapedia has [http://www.conservapedia.com/Out_of_context this] to say about quotes taken out of context. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 09:02, 4 March 2009 (EST)

== More religion ==

The intro states that Obama "chose not to use the Bible for his real, private oath." His first oath was also real. It was cited as being legally binding. It's misleading to call the second oath "real." Also, did he choose not to use a Bible, or did he just not use one? This is an important point. Anyone care to look into this and change it if necessary? [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 17:19, 2 March 2009 (EST)

: Perhaps you think Obama's aides wouldn't let him use the Bible for his real, private oath??? Please. Obama could have easily used a Bible ... if he wanted to.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:01, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:: You've ignored my first point, which is that the first oath was also real, valid and legally binding. It's misleading and inaccurate to distinguish the second oath as "real," when the first one was equally so. But as to my second point, it's this kind of thing that prevents Conservapedia from becoming truly encyclopedic; writers are choosing to rely on their own logical deductions instead of verifiable sources. The sentence says Obama "chose not use" a Bible. The point is you don't know he chose not to use one. Maybe Roberts said they didn't need one. Maybe Obama didn't want to use one. Maybe the only Bible available was a Klingon translation. Who knows? But this article confidently states that he "chose not to" use a Bible without anything to back up that statement. This will never be "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" if this kind of content is permitted. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 11:46, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::: "Dantes", your rant is incoherent. There's no disputing that Obama "chose not to use" a Bible for his real, private oath. Note, by the way, that if the first oath was "real, valid and legally binding," then there would not have been a second oath. No kidding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:44, 6 March 2009 (EST)

:::: I agree with ASchlafly, it's not as if a Bible would have been hard to find, or as if the second oath was so urgent that there was no time to find one. And why is a second oath needed if the first one was 'real, valid and legally binding'? I doubt he did it for his own amusement: "Hey guys, that was fun, let's do it again!" [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:13, 6 March 2009 (EST)

::::: But that isn't the point. And Aschlafly, I'm sorry you couldn't understand my suggestion. But the fact that you don't like it doesn't make it a rant. I'll explain again, in simpler terms:
:::::1) Obama didn't use a bible for his second oath.
:::::2) It is possible, even likely, that he "chose not to use" a bible.
:::::3) However, there is nothing to support the view that he "chose not to." There's no extant source to back this up
:::::4) Therefore, this article is making a logical deduction
:::::5) Encyclopedias do not deduce, speculate, assume or opinionate. They state proven facts

:::::It doesn't matter if that is the only logical explanation. Without any proof, it's just speculation, regardless of how likely it is. Unless someone can supply a reputable source that says Obama chose not to use a bible, this is an assumption. That makes it biased. Saying "there's no disputing" something isn't the same as proving it.

::::: As to the "real" oath, basic research indicates it was done out of a "superabundance of caution," not because it was legally necessary. See this article: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iJKZrJDhy6g52PZNb7phfFmsQVow A "seeker of truth" would know this, or at least try to find out. [[User:Dantès|Dantès]] 14:52, 12 March 2009 (EDT)

== Obama is likely the first Muslim President ==
Found yet another example. Muslim helps Obama get into Harvard. ''"It was former Malcom X lawyer and New York City mayoral candidate Percy Sutton who inadvertently revealed how Obama could even afford to get into Harvard. In a New York television show entitled “Inside City Hall”, Sutton admitted that orthodox Muslim, Black Nationalist, and Black Panther mentor Dr. Khalid al-Mansour personally asked Sutton to help Obama get into Harvard."'' [http://blogs.newberlinnow.com/speaking_the_truth/default.aspx Barack Obama Couldn't Pass a Background Investigation In His Own Administration] --[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 23:49, 3 March 2009 (EST)
:Blogs are nice. But if you're going to use one as a source for this article, I would prefer they disclose their own sources so that those sources can be checked. Unfortunately, there was not a single link in the entire post. Maybe an actual video clip of the interview, or a coverage of the story by a news organization? --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 01:00, 4 March 2009 (EST)
::Dear comrad, you have the peoples names, you have the name of the show, are you mad it is not sourced further for you?-[[User:Jpatt|jpatt]] 01:13, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:::I'm not mad, though I am a little disappointed that not everyone here seems interested in pushing for greater quality. We are an internet encyclopedia, and as such are expected to provide credible outside sources for all our material. In any case, I took your advice and went looking for additional sources and found [http://mediamatters.org/items/200809080018 this coverage] as well as [http://www.cashill.com/natl_general/mansourian_candidate.htm this post]. Note that, although both of these are internet blogs, they both provide material in the form of outside links to back up their discussion; the latter even does this with a video of the interview. Yes, the first one is from Media Matters, but it contains some good follow-up. If you're really interested in presenting the truth, more information always helps, even if it means having to dig around and analyze all of it before you figure out what exactly what the truth is. I hope these prove useful. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:23, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::: SStaples, now that you've overcome your initial denial and confirmed the accuracy of the statement, do yourself a favor and open your own mind further. Start recognizing that over half of what you see on television and learned in school is liberal deceit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:05, 4 March 2009 (EST)

:::::Andy, with respect, I never denied the accuracy of Jpatt's quotation. I merely wanted a better source so that both it and this article as a whole would be better supported. --[[User:SStaples|SStaples]] 08:32, 5 March 2009 (EST)

==Obama's Tax Cut Claims During the Campaign==
I would like to add this text right before the "Campaign financing" secion:
:During the campaign Obama repeatedly claimed he would “cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families."”. The Wall Street Journal asked, “how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all?” <ref>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html</ref> In truth, Obama was calling government handouts “tax credits” and counting those as tax cuts. The WSJ wondered why McCain “allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered”. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 19:32, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Good point. I just unlocked the page for you to insert info as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

::: I added this text. Thanks. [[User:Sjay|Sjay]] 20:42, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

==Obama & Che Guevara / Fidel Castro etc==
I was surprised this page had such little about all the connections out there. Thus I have added the fact that his poster is taken to resemble Jim Fitzpatricks Che poster. Also during the campaign his workers were found with Cuban flags bearing the face of Marxist "hero" (puke) [[Che Guevara]]. I added this fact as well with a ref. thanks and Cuba Libre ! (free Cuba from Commie-nism) [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:18, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can an admin possibly help me add some images to the page. I want to add [http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_8Mo9wgzZpRk/SFLC2eJtvXI/AAAAAAAAA8I/zV0AwV3hbVM/s400/obamachehouston2__oPt.jpg This one] of Obamas campaign HQ, with a Cuban Che flag. just google it for more info. Someone also needs to add [http://ecarson.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/im000541.jpg this brilliant image] to the article, showing all of Obamas Commie pals. Story behind it [http://ecarson.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/communist-obama-display/ here]. Lastly I want to add [http://www.virtuousplanet.com/shops/userimages/00003/00000000008/section/00000000000000061879.png this image] I made to his political view section. thanks and Viva Conservatism! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 20:24, 9 March 2009 (EDT)

== Abandoned ==

This article is starting to look like nothing more than an abandoned campaign ad. [[User:Everett3|Everett3]] 00:05, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: please be more specific? [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:22, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

==Page should be unlocked==
Right now it seems that registered users can't edit the article. Why is that? How do we expect to compete with the Communists at Wikipedia, if we ham string some of our best talent. Things are happening everyday, and our nation irks closer to disaster and Marxist takeover. This article should be our best one, and our most updated. Come on fellas, this is a war of ideas. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:30, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

*The reason that it is locked is comments like yours. Communists at Wikipedia? That is so over the top, it rounds the bend and meets up with the liberals wacky comments, PaulRevere. I will be happy to unlock it for you, so long as you read what it says at the bottom of the edit screen: ''"If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here."'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: With all due respect TK, I disagree on Wikipedia being communist infiltrated in many ways. Just read their Obama article compared to the one here. As for sources and added info, there is tons of good info at [http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289 this article] that I wanted to add. Basically Obama should be described right off the bat as a MARXIST, no if ands or butts about it. [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 00:47, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::Remember encyclopedia's do not use speculation or conjecture. While you and I might agree as to the plausibility of of many of the items in the article, the author's opinion, absent facts, is just that; the opinion of the author. I have unlocked the article. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:55, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Please unlock the article, many recent disasters are missing from it. Thanks & Viva America ! [[User:PaulRevere|PaulRevere]] 21:25, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

==Age template==

I mentally calculated his age wrong, which is embarrassing for a math tutor! Anyway, I added an {{tl|age}} template, so on August 4th he'll age one year. And the year after that another, and so on. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 15:50, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

: Ha ha. You're a genius, Ed!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:54, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

::Not to boast, but the [[Template:Age]] which I created over at Wikipedia is in over 50,000 articles. It's hard to find a bio there which doesn't use it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 16:00, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Referring to America in 3rd person? ==
"We may not get there in one year or even one term, but America - I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."- this is 1st person plural, surely? Sorry to nit pick, but it ''is'' on the front page after all. [[User:WillD|WillD]] 17:27, 21 March 2009 (EDT)

== Damned if you do, damned if you don't ==

On the subject of his American flag lapel pin, the "Insights" section says that he ceased wearing one because it "presumably" would have hurt his relations with anti-military campaign donors. Then he starts to wear it again, and this is explained as being "likely" to do with political pandering. It sounds as if the author is determined to view every action Obama takes in a negative light. --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:58, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

== Needed updates for Turkey speech, "no longer Christian", etc. ==

I don't have editing power for this article, but it'd be great if someone can add:

*update on Obama's "no longer a Christian nation" comments. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735]
*confirming that the "speech in muslim capitol in first 100 days" prediction came true (Turkey)
*any other pertinent facts from his recent speech in Turkey, especially the "Islam is not the enemy" type of content.

Lots of significant events that flesh out his perspective and stance in recent weeks...
[[User:DavidLReyes|DavidLReyes]] 17:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

: Go ahead, David. I just unlocked it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:14, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Interesting.... so Obama said in Turkey, and I quote, "The United States has been '''enriched by Muslim Americans'''. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because '''I am one of them'''." [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 22:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::What's also interesting is where you chose to add your emphasis. Why not read it as: "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. '''Many other Americans''' have Muslims in their family, or '''have lived in a Muslim-majority country'''. I know, because '''I am one of them'''"? --[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:27, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::I have respect for Muslims and for Islam, but this hardly makes me non-Christian. I am a Jewish convert to Christianity. I wish we could stop branding Obama as non-Christian.

:::If we must criticize him, let's focus on describing his policies and the effects they have had or are likely to have. He is primarily a politician; he is not a religious leader. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 13:48, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Ed, you make a valid point, but many (including myself, historians, reporters and voters) would disagree. A president's religious beliefs are significant. When a president ''lies'' about those beliefs, then the significance is amplified. Do you think Obama told the truth when he campaigned as a Christian? I don't, and that raises valid questions about what the truth really is that Obama was lying about.

:::: Ed, you suggest focusing only on Obama's policies, but unfortunately policies are often not known in time to object to them. Obama quickly sent a secret letter to Russia upon becoming president, and the public had no opportunity to object. Hitler did not publicize his policies to give people an early opportunity to object.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Yes he did, most of his polices were clearly laid out in Mein Kampf, which was published before he came to power --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 20:21, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

*That's really ludicrous. A small, hardly read tome, little noticed or read, written by a fringe paper hanger, is hardly (in any era) publicizing something. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:32, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

I do not think that your above description can be accurately applied to Mein Kampf. It consists of two volumes and a total of twenty seven chapters. Granted its popularity grew with its authors profile but it had already achieved 850,000 sales by 1933, the year in which Hitler rose to power. In any case Hitler can hardly be accused of trying to suppress circulation of the book, as is evidenced by the German government’s purchase and distribution of six million copies in the following nine year period.
In Mein Kampf Hitler sets out his ambitions, including the establishment of a new world order, expanding German territories in the east and exterminating the Jewish people. I must admit that I have not read Audacity of Hope, but would be extremely surprised to discover that it contained similar content. As such think it is a huge leap to try to draw parallels between the two leaders. --[[User:LPowell|LPowell]] 18:18, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

==Allegedly Born in Honolulu?==

The first sentence says he was '''allegedly''' born in Honolulu, except one of the references linking to this statement is a '''confirmation''' from state officials that he was born in Honolulu. And not to mention he's released his birth certificate. I think it is dishonest to have the word 'allegedly' here. I'm taking it out unless anyone objects. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 08:38, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Ok I changed it and it was instantly reverted back. It is a '''fact''' that Obama was born in Honolulu verified by many independent sources. Encyclopedias report '''facts''' not unproven allegations. I am reverting it back. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:25, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Argument for Obama being a Muslim ==

Can we have an honest discussion about this section. There may be something to it, but a lot of the bullets are a bit absurd.

The argument that Obama is a Muslim includes:

* Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them."[16]

I interpret this as he '''lived''' in a Muslim country which is true. This doesn't make him Muslim.

* Obama's background, education, and outlook are Muslim, and fewer than 1% of Muslims convert to Christianity.[17][18]

This is misleading to say the least. Random statistics have no place in an encyclopedia. Does this 1% figure include all the Muslims in the middle east who do not convert to Christianity, it likely does and therefore has nothing to do with Obama who is an educated US citizen. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

* Obama recently mentioned his religion as "my Muslim faith."[21]

If you watch the video, it's clearly out of context. He said "John Mccain has not talked about my Muslim faith". Meaning John Mccain had not himself accused Obama of being Muslim. If you watch a few seconds past this on the video he explains this.

* He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."[22]

Ok, it probably is "compatible with the modern world". Why is this evidence he is Muslim.

I could go on but I am getting tired of this. I'm not saying get rid of this section, but the claims should be factually correct and not be based on sweeping generalizations. Furthermore, why is this the first section in the article? Usually in an encyclopedia, the biographical content comes first. Early life and legal career and that stuff. And usually encyclopedia articles not the place for pushing your particular beliefs or rumor about somebody. I welcome any comments. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:05, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: Paul, you have free will to reject that 2+2=4 too. I'm not going to spend my morning trying to convince you. [[Obama]] lied when he campaigned as a Christian. It may be years before you admit that to yourself, or you may never admit it, or you may admit it but actually like the [[deceit]]. Suit yourself, but the evidence is overwhelming.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:36, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

Since you never addressed my concern about the ordering of the article I'll assume your in agreement. Biographical information first and then other issues. By the way, perhaps Obama lied about being a Christian, but if he did, its much more likely he's an Atheist than a Muslim. -[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 09:54, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

: You assume wrong. Don't think that you're going to downplay the truth by burying it later in an entry.

: As to your theory, it just doesn't fit the evidence. Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent, and atheists' intellectual style is very different from Obama's. Feel free to start a different entry developing your theory, because it will become apparent quickly how implausible it is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:11, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

It's not a truth, it's your theory that he is a Muslim, just as it is my theory that he is an Atheist. Obama says he is Christian, and who is to say otherwise? A person's faith is entirely a personal thing, you can never say for certain what he believes in, you have to go with what he has said in public, namely that he is Christian. Whether he might secretly be Muslim or Atheist is inconsequential, they are both theories, and neither theory belongs in an encyclopedia (which is fact based), end of story. --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:31, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

::And your claim that "Atheists having Obama's upbringing are virtually non-existent" is another sweeping generalization. Please tell me how that proves that he is a Muslim (or not an Atheist), because it's completely absurd

: By the way, Obama's father was an Atheist. I suspect that most people retain the religion (or lack thereof) of their parents. But either way, I'm not trying to make the case that he's an Atheist (or that he's not a Muslim). My point is that he says he's a Christian so anything else is just a theory which has no place in an encyclopedia article (unless this is not really an encyclopedia, but just a forum for pushing your conservative ideology). --[[User:PaulLaroque|PaulLaroque]] 12:40, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dog ==

Do we want to add anything about the Obamas' new dog (Portugese water dog)? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 11:19, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion of [[User:Clintville]] ==

I believe these have been discussed on this talk page before, and settled after input from [[User:Aschlafly]]. In particular, I think it has been exposed that Snopes has been bit gullible in the past when it comes to liberal deceit. As far as the other two items go, though they are not convincing in a vacuum, we must consider them in context of all the other evidence. See the two or three talk page sections above this one, or the talk archives, for more discussion on this. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:10, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

----
== Kenya is not a muslim country. ==

According to the CIA World Fact Book, Kenya is 78% Christian.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ke.html
So I have deleted the claim that Kenya is a predominantly muslim country. [[User:DanielVaccle|DanielVaccle]] 09:52, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== Middle Name in title ==

I noticed that Hussein is in the title for this article (Barack Hussein Obama). This is not done for any president who doesn't regularly use his middle name (Obama doesn't use Hussein anywhere). Can we either a)take Hussein out of the title of b)add the middle name of every US president. while his middle name i on of the many proofs he is a Muslim, that goes in the article, not in the title.

:That's the name he was sworn in under. He's not ashamed of his middle name, why are you? Fair and balanced is a news organization motto, adding a middle name to each President is not a requirement here. Though nobody is stopping you from additions.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 23:19, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Every other president was sworn in using his middle name and it isn't in there title. I'm not ashamed of his middle name, that is an unfair statement portaying me as a liberal. I will take you up on that challange and add middle names to every president, because we can't single Obama out in the title, it is in the article we go for the kill.

::I take that back, it seems as editing the title of an article is harder than it seems. Can anyone help me. {{Unsigned|Backstop}}

:::No other President has gone to such lengths to obscure/hide their background and connections, either. That is why the middle name is used. If you try making the kind of changes you are talking about, we will simply wish you Godspeed, and say goodbye, so I don't suggest it. Also, use the signature button above, when editing, on all posts, please. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:12, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::: Obama uses his full name. Why does that bother you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:12, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

First off, i do believe Obama is a Muslim, based partly on the middle name, but mostly on other proofs. However, there is a time and place for proofs, and the title isn't one of tem, I'm just asking about a minor inconsistency in the titles of articles (the Presidents), why it is there and what is planned to be done about it. i am in no way offended by hiss middle name, that is an unfair comment portraying me as a liberal.

TK, we have had presidents smuggle illegal goods out of Italy (Jefferson, who also was reported to have had an affair with his slave that produced a cild), we've had a president who was never married and lived with a male roommate (Buchanan), while Obama ranks right up there, the middle name has nothing to do with it. I respectfuly ask TK to make that connection please.

Also, I saw TK told me I was a "sock". not quite hip with the lingo, can you explain what that means.--[[User:Backstop|Backstop]] 18:24, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

*Aschlafly asked you above: "Obama uses his full name. Why does that bother you?" Now, it is apparent you are not here to help, but rather to pursue your own agenda. We are not striving here for NPOV, but rather the facts. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:40, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Arguments for Obama being a Muslim ==

While there is enough proof to convince me Obama is a Muslim in the article, but some of these proofs are untrue or misused:

'''Obama declared in prepared remarks, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them.'''

''Obama is saying that he is a person who has had "Muslims in their families or have lived in a Muslim-majority country" such as his father and Indonesia. not that he is one of those Muslims. That is my interpetation of this statement.''

'''He has said that "Islam can be compatible with the modern world."'''

''I think that lots of things can be compatible with the modern world (like my Mac!) but does that make me a follower of the Mac necesarily?''

'''Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset," and recited "with a first-class Arabic accent" the opening lines: Allah is Supreme! ... I witness that there is no god but Allah ....'''

''I think that many Christian prayers are beautiful, and I'm Jewish!''

'''On the campaign trail, Obama was reading "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria,[32] which is written from a Muslim point-of-view.[33]'''

''Fareed Zakaria is my favorite author and journalist. I've read his book many times and I'm still not Muslim''

'''Obama enjoyed a bigger increase in voter support in 2008 (compared to 2004) by Muslims than by any other voting group, including blacks;[38] "Muslim turnout in the U.S. elections reached 95 percent, the highest Muslim turnout in U.S. history."[39]'''

''Similar things happened for Obama with Hispanics, and I think we all agree Obama is not Hispanic. Maybe Muslims were excited to finaly have a president with a Muslim backround after 8 years of Bush, who they didn't like at all.''

== Encyclopedic Setup? ==
I was wondering if it would be ok to try to re-format this on my talk page to include all the same information in a more encyclopedic manner, because...this article isnt very good right now (no offense intended to the writers) [[User:DerekSmalls|DerekSmalls]] 21:42, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

*Create a page: User:DerekSmalls/Obama draft and that would be fine. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:12, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

:Derek, forget-about-it if you think you're going to dilute the entry with Wikipedia-style [[placement bias]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:22, 21 May 2009 (EDT)
::ok, I'll Try. Before I start, if i make such an article and you deem it full of placement bias, will I suffer negative side affects? Because I would rather avoid nefativityt period. If that makes any sense[[User:DerekSmalls|DerekSmalls]] 18:50, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

::: "effects", not "affects". We are logical here. If your proposed substitute is separate from the entry and does not vandalize it, and is not vulgar or otherwise obviously inappropriate, then there will be no negative side effects. So feel free to make encyclopedic suggestions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggest we delete Muslim accusation ==

I suggest we delete the section claiming President Obgama to be a muslim as this has already been proven to be false. {{unsigned|Michaelkirschner}}
:"Likely" doesn't suggest positively a Muslim. I am interested in your proof that has yet to be released to the public. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:54, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

==Michelle was Obama's second marriage?==
Photo of Barack from 1980 at Occidental College with a wedding ring. [http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/arts/la-me-oxyobama27-2009may27,0,4992416.photogallery?index=3]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 15:22, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Seconded. Either add it here, and/or to Michelle Obama's page. [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]]

:::Obama's ring as pictured above shows something wider in the center than a normal wedding band, which means he's just got a ring on that he liked at the time. It's a good pic from his college days, but not evidence he was married in 1980. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:54, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

== Two proposals ==

1) I think the contents needs to be raised up the page. Intro paragraphs, contents, muslim section, etc.

2) This article does not mention Obama's snooty mustard gaffe. I suggest the following paragraph be added to the end of the section "Obama and Elitism":
<blockquote>

Obama clearly exhibited his elitism on his May 5, 2009 limousine trip to Ray's Hell Burger in Arlington, VA.<re.f>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE</ref> Intended to showcase a connection to the ways of common Americans, Obama instead struggled to compose his order, finally settling on a cheeseburger with fancy Grey Poupon french mustard. This combination is rare among those who frequent burger joints in the United States, demonstrating Obama's lack of familiarity with U. S. culture and lack of American upbringing. Naturally, the liberal media abetted Obama by covering this up during their doting coverage <r.ef>http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2009/05/msnbc-hides-obamas-dijon-mustard.html</ref>, in which he purchased burgers for liberal reporters.<r.ef>http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/05/05/barack-and-joe-go-to-white-castle-%E2%80%A6-i-mean-ray%E2%80%99s-hell-burger/</ref>
</blockquote>

(I broke the ref tags so it would be easier to copy and paste) [[User:MikeMike|MikeMike]] 21:20, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

::Please stop trying to hide the truth! Yes sure lets bury the little reported fact that the "president" is a muslim!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:04, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Barack Hussein Obama

2009-06-08T18:46:47Z

CJHallock: Archive

{{protect|TK}}
 
{{articletalkheader|prefix=archive}}
 

[/archive7]

==Obama clueless about American history==
In introducing Sotomayor, he flubs the constitution being the paper written over 200 years ago, mistakenly says 20 centuries ago. Maybe Totus was thinking the other paper written 20 centuries ago, the Bible! [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiRhHqlzaG4 Video Obama: Constitution written "20 centuries" ago]
::A much as I hate to say this, I think taht was simply a slip of the tongue nothing more, also sign your comments please--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:02, 7 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-06-08T18:37:26Z

CJHallock:

[[ /archive1 | Archive 1 ]]
==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words/archive1

2009-06-08T18:35:27Z

CJHallock: Archive

==Couple of points==
* Interventionalism is an ugly kludge. The word should be "interventionism".
* Some of the terms are just not Conservative in '''any''' meaningful way. For example "design by committee" is used by both Liberals and Conservatives to describe the same problem.
* A word to describe Conservative concept may be worth calling a "Conservative word", but the mere fact that Conservatives like or dislike something doesn't mean the word is Liberal or Conservative. "Grassroots" isn't a Conservative word-- it's a word for local community activism, regardless of political bent. Ditto phonics. "Condescention" isn't a Liberal word, and it was originally, considered to be the Christian virtue of treating one's social inferiors as equals.
* I don't know anyone who denies the '''effectiveness''' of abstinence, Liberal, Conservative, or pink-and-green-striped.
[[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 17:48, 23 February 2009 (EST)

: Your first point is good, and I just changed it. You could have changed it yourself.

: Your second point is baseless. The conservative terms do reflect conservative insights. Sure, sometimes liberals use them. Sometimes atheists quote from the Bible too.

: Your third point again is misguided. Liberals say "community organizing" or "community activism." Conservatives say "grassroots". The concepts are different, though similar. Think about it more.

: Your fourth point shows you don't yet recognize the liberal viewpoint in its full deceit. Stick around here and you will. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 23 February 2009 (EST)

==Some suggestions==
How about 'responsibility' (1737) and 'self-discipline' (1838)? [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 08:58, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Superb ideas!!! Fantastic. Please add them. I have some that will add also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:19, 10 January 2009 (EST)

The list is good, but it doesn't say why they are ''conservative'' words. Perhaps something could be added related to this? Also, I have a suggestion: 'Rags to Riches'? *Hopeful* [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

What are the criteria for "conservative words" (as distinct from "liberal words"?) [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:10, 10 January 2009 (EST)

As per "radar", I suggest "sonar" and "laser" (also acronyms, from similar domain), and "radio".

: (edit conflict) Words that express more precisely a conservative concept, or criticize more effectively a liberal characteristic. I'm going to insert Mike Salter's suggestions above, for example, and feel free to add your own.

: The distribution of the words as a function of time (and perhaps what was happening at the time) will become illuminating.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: P.S. I don't see sonar, laser and radio as adding any conservative insight.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: Understood. But "radar" does? [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:27, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, because it was the first and it has broader use than your other example.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:28, 10 January 2009 (EST)
::: I understand precedence going to the earliest word, but don't see how "radar" expresses more precisely a conservative concept, or criticizes more effectively a liberal characteristic. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 14:33, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: Your point is well-taken, and I agree this is borderline. However, I would still say that "radar" is a conservative concept/insight that is used effectively to convey a powerful conservative idea. Let's see what others think before deleting it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Well, RADAR was created in Britain just before WW2 - indeed, it was one of the reasons why Britain defeated the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain. So I'm not really sure why it's on a list of American Conservative words when Britain is highly liberal by comparison to America. Also, I added one - 'self-determination'. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 15:13, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Frankly, I'm confused. I normally think of "radar" (in the non-scientific sense) as meaning perception. "In the public's radar" means "something the public notices." Is there a different conservative conception of the word? [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 15:14, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The inclusion of "radar" is debatable, but essentially it is a powerful self-defense mechanism conceptually analogous to the [[Reagan]]'s concept of [[SDI]] and the [[Second Amendment]], which [[liberals]] loathed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:49, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Here's two:
*pro-life ([http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pro-life 1976], though I'd prefer a better citation since the quote they have underneath is very anti-conservative.)
*normalcy (1920 in the Conservative sense, although dated back to 1857 in a mathematical sense. In a rare glimmer of unbiased truth on a political subject, the WP article even states: ''"Furthermore, the concept apparently encapsulated what Americans wanted, since he was elected president over his Democratic opponent James Cox by the greatest margin since the popular vote was introduced."'')
-[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 14:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)

: Fantastic suggestions, both of them. Very insightful.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:57, 10 January 2009 (EST)

"elitism" (1947) - Seems to be used much more widely with this last election campaign. [[User:Reg32Idaho|Reg32Idaho]] 15:26, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:Conversely, "populism" and "grassroots," which have formed an important basis of conservative politics since 1980 (earlier?) [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:17, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:: "grassroots" is a good suggestion, and I just added it. "populism" is not a term used particularly by conservatives; nor does it yield any conservative insight that I am aware of.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:40, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Seriously? Populism is used continually to refer to Reagan, and more recently, George Bush and Sarah Palin, as they seek to speak for the "people" as opposed to "elites." Strikes me as deeply conservative. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 17:44, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::: I don't doubt that liberals, the media, history books, and a diversity other people use the term. I doubt that any of the conservatives you mention, or any other conservatives, use the term much. It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, if I were wrong. I don't see anything conservative or insightful about the term. Majority rules? That's a mundane, almost meaningless concept at best. It begs the question of what the majority thinks at a particular time, which of course is very fickle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Pat Buchanan calls himself a populist (though it notes Goldwater and Reagan would not use the term). [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n15_v47/ai_17161967] Rove calls Bush a populist on taxation [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9905EFD61130F930A15752C0A9659C8B63]. I suppose there are two different concepts of the word: first, the classical "majority rules" idea which was rejected by the founding fathers in favor of checks and balances, and second, the modern term, conservative "populism," which refers to deriving your power from the people and relying on widely and deeply held conservative Christian values (example would be Palin's emphasis on the "real America" and blue collar workers) as opposed to deriving your power from intellectuals and media magnates. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:21, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: Phyllis Schlafly refers to the Goldwater ideology as populist, and she'd know! [http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1998/june98/98-06-10.html] [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:31, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The word ''populist'' has a far better tone than the word'' populism''. Similarly, the word ''fundamentalist'' has a far better tone than ''fundamentalism''. In political contexts, these are four completely different words. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:32, 10 January 2009 (EST)

:::::: The problem comes when liberals attempt to use the terms as smears, and we stop using them as a result. I for one am proud to call myself a fundamentalist, and I know many other who feel the same way. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:35, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::::: Me too. I take pride in saying I believe in fundamentalism. All would agree that ''-ism'' added to almost any word gives it a negative tone, yes? For example, "science + t + ism = scientism" and scientism always refers to a bad set of science-related ideas. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 18:42, 10 January 2009 (EST)
(Unindent) You have a point there. But now you have liberals calling muslim terrorists "fundamentalist muslims," to try to paint us with the same brush. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 10 January 2009 (EST)

::::: The cites above are interesting but inconclusive. RickD's point in distinguishing "populist" from "populism" is superb. None of the above cites refer to "populism" in a conservative or even favorable light.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:00, 10 January 2009 (EST)

Some suggestions off the top of my head: Truth, Integrity those these are quite general I think they contrast well with the article on liberal deceit. [[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 21:16, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Pro-life==

Andy, do you have a cite for the earlier attestation of "pro-life" than the one I provided? I think it's great that you've found a date that predates [[Roe v. Wade]]. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 18:38, 10 January 2009 (EST)

==Atheism==
It's not an English word; it's Greek. The claim is hardly "Silly," ASchlafly. But given your other claims on the page, IE that "quote mining" A: is a word and B: Was never invented, I guess I can forgive you for thinking that. [[User:RaymondS|RaymondS]] 00:04, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Use of the Adjective "New" ==

Is "new" the right word to be using for terms that originated in the 1600's and 1700's? `I'm not saying they should be removed from the list, but referring to them as "new" implies that they were originated with the modern conservative movement. Maybe these should be referred to as ''Powerful'' or ''Significant'' conservative words, which makes their date of origin irrelevant. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Origins==
I used the Oxford English Dictionary to correct the years of origin for some conservative words--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 12:45, 11 January 2009 (EST)

: You made a mess of the entry. For example, the date you inserted for "conservative" is not for the political sense used here. Now I have to clean up your mess ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:13, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::Then you should have made it clear you wished this to done in the current political context.--[[User:Saxplayer|Saxplayer]] 13:20, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:::Be courteous, please. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:22, 11 January 2009 (EST)

:: The atheism date may perhaps need changing too, in that case. In the 16th century it probably applied to matters in which there was no superficial need for God, or to people who had never been given a choice regarding the matter (for example, in the 16th century you could be burned for being a Protestant/Catholic or for witchcraft; imagine what they would do to a modern atheist!). Today, however, the term has been changed to mean one who has apparently ''voluntarily'' rejected God. I hope this helps; I also added racism to the list of Liberal words earlier. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:26, 11 January 2009 (EST)

==Spiritualism==
This may be a cultural/linguistic difference, but in the UK 'spiritualism' has a very specific meaning, of belief in communication with the dead. This was very popular in the early twentieth century, even Conan Doyle was a believer, but has since abated, though there are spiritualist 'churches' and mediums around. I would have said that 'spirituality' was the opposite of materialism, or 'religious feeling', 'religiosity', 'belief'. [[User:MikeSalter|MikeSalter]] 13:10, 11 January 2009 (EST)
:Not a cultural difference, but a plurality of definitions. Spirit-conjuring charlatans like to use the term, but in a philosophic context, ti's opposed to materialism. A similar opposite is "idealism," which also a number of unrelated non-philosophical definitions. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 13:17, 11 January 2009 (EST)
::I suggested dualism, which seems the best fit to me. Materialism can be phrased as the believe that everything boils down to matter, there is only one ontological world/realm and that's the realm of matter. I don't think there is an exact opposite of that (well, perhaps believing in no worlds at all, but that's just stupid), there are just alternatives like dualism and pluralism which believe in resp. two or more realms of existence and of these two dualism is the strongest held position.
::Another kind of opposite would be idealism, the belief that there is only one ontological realm and that's the realm of the mind, but even this one is more of an alternative than an opposition and not a strong position either.
::Anyways, asking for an opposite of materialism isn't very realistic, since it all depends on what you deem an opposite. What's the opposite of "one"? Is it zero, minus one, any number greater than one or "eno"? It all depends on the context, and in the context of ontological philosophy dualism is the strongest opposition to materialism. --[[User:TBrouwer|TBrouwer]] 18:43, 11 January 2009 (EST)

::: The opposite would be a sensible equivalent of anti-materialism, or immaterialism.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:18, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Reversion ==

I had to revert many of Saxplayer's dates, and some minor edits were lost in the reversion. Feel free to reinstate if their quality is improved (e.g., spell "tyranny" correctly, or give a date of origin for "racism"). Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:33, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Conservapedia ==

Surely this must be one of the newest words that should earn a place! --[[User:JamesDW|JamesDW]] 23:09, 11 January 2009 (EST)

== Definition / Categorisation ==

I'm reluctant to edit the page, as it may be reverted, but I have a suggestion for the opening. The term "conservative word" isn't defined, and could have many possible meanings, such as "a word coined by a conservative", or "a word for a conservative principle", or "a word commonly used by conservatives, but not by liberals or other groups". The list being produced includes examples of all these. Perhaps the page should therefore be split into accordingly different sections: "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles", "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", "terms and concepts invented by conservatives", and so on.--[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 10:53, 12 January 2009 (EST)

: No, I disagree. The meaning is obvious enough and splintering into different categories would obscure rather than enlighten. Your three suggested "different" meanings in fact lack any significant differences.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 12 January 2009 (EST)

:: I concur with ASchlafly. As well as obscuring the information, if I were to go onto a page and see in the contents box "Words coined by conservatives to describe liberal principles" or "Words which encapsulate conservative principles", I would quickly go and find another page. They hardly grab one's interest. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 11:42, 12 January 2009 (EST)

== New word for 'liberal'? ==

Does anyone have any suggestions for a more descriptive word for 'liberal'? I find 'liberal' to be an unsatisfactory description for liberals in the present day, since they tend to support large government and curbs on freedom. Perhaps an alternative word would better sum up the set of views that liberals hold?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 04:47, 3 February 2009 (EST)

--There are plenty of words to use in sarcasm, eg "lie-beral." Other than that, all that comes to mind is what some liberals call themselves: Progressive. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:33, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==[[Fellow traveller]]==
Is this a conservative word? I think its from the early 1900s and originally described communist sympathizers who did not belong to a communist party. It also might be a good word for now to describe your "terrorist sympathizer" situation.

Other suggestions: design-by-committee and democide. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

: All three are superb suggestions for this entry. Please add them with informative material, such as date of first use. Well done!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:00, 10 February 2009 (EST)

== New article -> New liberal words? ==

I believe we discussed this prior to the server move where we lost a weeks worth of edits. I remember creating a new article on [[New liberal words]], by removing that section from this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

== Words? ==

Many of these are phrases not words. How long can a phrase get? Can Reagan's acceptance speech be listed as a new word? We need guidance on what a word is. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 10:41, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: What are you talking about? The vast majority ''are'' words. If you're genuinely so confused, then I doubt we can help you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:44, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "Terms" would probably be a more accurate description than "words". However I assume that most people will be able to work things out from the examples given. [[User:AndyJM|AndyJM]] 10:47, 18 February 2009 (EST)

:: "affirmative action" is two words, "Affirmative" and "Action", a full 43% of the listed "Words" are really phrases like this, not including the words with hyphens. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

== Humanism ==

Since Humanists and Big Bang were originally pejorative terms should they be under the conservative list? --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 19:38, 18 February 2009 (EST)

: No, because they are liberal terms now. And I doubt their origin was conservative, either. Fred Hoyle was not a conservative. He was a liberal who rejected the theory of evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:27, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::Wasn't Hoyle ''ridiculing'' the idea of the [[Big Bang]]? I'll go take a look at the [[Fred Hoyle]] article. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:30, 20 February 2009 (EST)

::: Yes, he was ridiculing it. But liberals adopted the term and made it popular.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:59, 20 February 2009 (EST)

:: Evolution is a separate issue. they are only united by the fact that they both are in the standard naturalistic view of the origin of the universe. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 11:59, 22 February 2009 (EST)

== We should make a unifying convention or get rid of the divide ==

There are words that belong in both groups, that or we need a clear convention used through out. Communism is most often used by Conservatives, its a sore subject for liberals (you know, with the millions killed and mass poverty and all) and they rarely talk about it. I just want a better convention than "because Andy figures this way is best". --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:17, 23 February 2009 (EST)

== A new word? ==

Andy - "self determination"? It started around colonial times, so it could well be from the 1700's. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 13:45, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

: Date is 1670, and I'm sure it's all that conservative. Sometimes it is a euphemism for something harmful, like communism in Cuba. But thanks for the suggestion!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:12, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

:: You're very welcome - I made the suggestion because I felt that it is one of the reasons that America freed Iraq (a move opposed by liberals and supported by conservatives); so that the people there could hold fair elections, rather than suffer under Hussein's despotism. At the end of the day though, you probably know more than me on this subject, so I'll defer to your wisdom! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:19, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::: You raise interesting issues, but I think Saddam Hussein was also "self-determination" by Iraqis, right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:20, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

::::(Edit conflict) Oh, and what about "survival of the fittest" for a liberal word? I noticed you mentioned it in your lecture. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
::::I think you're right about Saddam Hussein coming to power, but I also believe that towards the end of his reign many wanted him out, but were compelled to vote for him or else be punished (this is why I think the American system, with its two-term limit, is the best in the world). Mugabe is a good example of this; when he came to power, he was hailed as an African anti-oppression hero, and Zimbabwe was held up as an excellent example of post-colonialism. Now, however, his people want him out but are prevented from voting him out by the security forces (and when they did vote him out, it was declared illegal) and the world, including Africa, recognises him as a madman and a tyrant. In the meantime, the country is starving and in the grip of a cholera epidemic. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 14:28, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Reversion explained ==

"Natural selection" is a misleading euphemism, and the explanation discusses why. Also, it's improper to refer to creationists accepting a claim by evolutionists as though that somehow fully resolves the matter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:32, 8 March 2009 (EDT)

== Affirmative Action is a conservative word? ==

Why is "affirmative action" considered a conservative word?

It was first used in [http://www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal6/eo10925.htm JFK's Executive Order 10925] in 1961 (not 1965, as the essay states), and later "pushed" by LBJ.

Criticism of it is certainly a conservative concept, and it is now largely used critically by conservatives, but it hardly seems to qualify as a conservative "word" (or, more accurately, "term"). [[User:ArthurA|ArthurA]] 08:08, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Good point and etymology. I'll move it to the "difficult to classify" section.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:26, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Politically correct ==

I can't help but notice that this term appears in both the 'New Conservative Terms' and 'New Liberal Terms' section (along with two different dates and explanations). Obviously, it can't be both! While it would appear that it was indeed coined by liberals to help their cause, I would say that its meaning has flipped and it now has negative, oppressive connotations. Perhaps the 'Hard to Classify' section? However, I leave it up the the judgement of an admin to sort this conundrum out. [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:13, 16 March 2009 (EDT)
Oh, and 'survival of the fittest' to go with natural selection for a liberal term? (Before I forget!) [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:15, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

: Fixed it per your suggestion, figuring that "politically correct" is used more by conservatives now. I don't think either side uses "survival of the fittest" and I think the euphemism "natural selection" covers that concept. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:42, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

:: Can't say fairer than that. Thanks for the fix! [[User:ETrundel|ETrundel]] 12:56, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

== Some further suggestions for words ==

Constructionist (1835-1845): Clearly, a valuable term when discussing the original intent of the Founding Fathers; equally clearly, a conservative one.

Capitalism (1850-1855): Goes almost without saying.

Big Government (unable to find a date for this one)

Right to Life (1970-1975): Pro-life is already on the list, but I think this is an important term, too, since it emphasizes that life is an essential right.

Moral Sense (1690-1700): Originally coined by Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury.

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:51, 16 March 2009 (EDT)

Virtual Thesaurus has an interesting essay,
[http://www.visualthesaurus.com/cm/wordroutes/1786/ A Brief Glossary of Recession-Speak] which may contain words appropriate for this article. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 18:31, 27 March 2009 (EDT)

==Constant==
This word was in use a long time before 1832. It appears in the King James Bible, for example. [[User:Pepperlynn|Pepperlynn]] 23:12, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
:Also, what, exactly, makes "constant" a "Conservative Word"? I don't see it. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:12, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:Oh, and a reference for Pepperlynn: 1 Chronicles 28:7. -[[User:CSGuy|CSGuy]] 00:16, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

:: My dictionary says the noun form (something unchanging in value) originated in 1832. That's surprising, but it is what it is. That's what makes this an educational project.

:: I agree it's debatable how conservative this term is, but the notion of unchanging values seems conservative to me. You don't think so?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:18, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:::The ideological attraction to unchanging values is conservative, but there is n conservative claim on the concept of constancy. Yours in Christ,--[[User:JWeatherman|JWeatherman]] 22:46, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Questions ==

This is unlikely to be a popular view, and I can guess the sort of comments that might very well be sent my way as a result of this, but I believe that this article is deeply flawed and is setting a dangerous precedent in the context of political discussion here.

The second paragraph begins by stating that conservatism will inevitably triumph over liberalism. Conservatism and liberalism as political groupings only exist relative to each other. If every single person were tol hold conservative or liberal views then they would not be named as such. It glosses over the dynamic nature of these terms themselves. 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' today do not believe the same things they did 10 years ago let alone 100. The words mean different things and I think it is naive to assume that their current connotations will remain consistent. Not only are the words themselves dynamic in their meaning but I cannot possibly see how any aspect of human history would lead to the conclusion that one set of political beliefs will 'triumph' over another, at least for more than a few decades. History has been shaped by conflicting ideologies and it seems completely against human nature to imagine that the future will be any different in this sense.

Although me calling this a 'dangerous precedent' is rather melodramatic I'll admit, I just think that it is rather odd to be claiming aspects of the English language as being inherently 'liberal' or 'conservative', although there are a very few obvious words linked clearly with one or the other, most on this list are simply normal words that have been 'claimed'. The whole process of selecting words is highly subjective, and to measure the 'dominance' of one ideology over the other by such a means seems a very strange way to go about it. Though there are a few words that can clearly be directly linked with conservatism or liberalism, this article has, in my opinion, taken it to the extreme. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 21:14, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

: Robert, I don't know why you expect such a backlash, or why your comment is so long-winded. I agree that a few of the words on the list are debatable, but the vast majority plainly are conservative or liberal in nature. And a comparison of the two lists is enlightening: the conservative words are more insightful, helpful, and durable. That speaks volumes about where we're headed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:19, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::I'm sorry if my initial comment seemed somewhat ill-mannered, but all too often such discussions can result in the term liberal being thrown around as an insult rather than sticking to the issue, though I'm glad to see that I have been proven wrong thus far. And sorry if my posts are rather long-winded, that's just how I write I'm afraid. I still think that the way conservatism and liberalism are defined differently across the world and throughout history makes the compiling of any such list a futile task. Making claims as to how insightful or helpful a word is, is of course highly subjective. A self-styled liberal would probably say the exact opposite to yourself on the matter which means the debate never really gets anywhere. And I think the question of 'where we're headed' is far to complex to be answered using a few highly subjective words as a guide. Your country has just gone from a relatively conservative to a relatively liberal administration, and my own country looks quite likely to go back to conservative leadership after 12 years of labour. If there is one thing that history has taught us, i think it's that nothing remains constant for long. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 22:45, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

::: That's your view, but the evidence is that the United States is growing more conservative just as the English language is. This entry shows that the creation of insightful new conservatives words is greater in quality and frequency than that of new liberal words. Over time, culture and politics must inexorably follow the lead of language. That doesn't mean a liberal politician won't use smoke-and-mirrors to be elected occasionally against the grain, but the flow dictated by language cannot be reversed. Ah, perhaps I've stumbled onto another new term: "smoke and mirrors"!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:12, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

:::: Actually, Andy, I believe language turns more liberal over time. I agree with you regarding the new words, but like all languages, English does evolve. To describe the language as "conservative" would really require the number of words in it to be reducing, perhaps to something like 1984's Newspeak! Why do we have multiple words for the similar concepts? Plus, look at our syntax - it's nothing like the English of Shakespeare's time. [[User:Andyt|Andyt]] 17:25, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

::::: English adds new words. If you call that evolution, so be it. Others call it growth.

::::: You're welcome to disagree with the direction of English's growth, but the evidence in this entry is overwhelming that English is becoming more conservative.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:33, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

Besides my main point, I would also counter by suggesting that it is language that follows the lead of culture, not the other way around. The language is of course part of the culture, but new words are only likely to come into existence when they have something to describe in the first place. It is cultural shifts that lead to the coining of new words and phrases and some become so well established that they enter the common vocabulary. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 23:29, 24 March 2009 (EDT)

== Big bang ==

You quite sure about that being used to mock the suggestion of how the universe was formed? I was under the impression that it was a scientific theory proposed by a few physicists, not a liberal word used to mock creationism. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 17:40, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

-- You're both wrong. When the big bang theory was first introduced, 'Big Bang' was a term used by scientists to mock what seemed at first like a ridiculous idea - leading scientific knowledge at the time was that the universe had no origin, but was sufficiently stable to have existed indefinatly. But when the evidence for the big bang theory became so compelling it replaced the old steady-state model, the name stuck, and ceased to be an insult. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Right. I'll see if the entry's description can be improved, and will do so. I also note that the term "politically correct" migrated it the opposite direction: it started out as a serious compliment, and then became known as an insult.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:33, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

==New word==
I've thought of a word to describe people who live in this (or any) country and ''take advantage of it'', but spend all or most of their effort ''criticizing or demeaning'' it: misopatria (hatred of one's country), or misopatrist (one who hates his country). What do you think? [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:00, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:I like it a lot! I think I'll continue to use "traitor", though, at least for now. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 18:10, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
::No thanks. Traitor is much more simple. --[[User:Jack456|Jack456]] 18:13, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks BHarlan! Yes parodist Jack, we strive for simple words (hey, sounds like something called ''newspeak!'' [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:05, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

"Traitor" means something slightly different from what Addison suggests. Addison, how about adding your suggestion to the table in the entry that seeks a word for the concept? You're right that it describes millions of malcontents.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Electricity ==

Electricity was a word created by William Gilbert 1646, and was researched by many great scientists, such as Robert Boyle, [[Benjamin Franklin]] and [[Thomas Edison]]. I suggest it as a conservative word because it has allowed many great technological innovations through the ages, but is untainted by association with theories that carry a political agenda.

:Interesting suggestion, but I don't see enough [[conservative]] insight in the largely neutral "electricity" term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:24, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
::I see your point, though electricity is currently opposed by many 'green' liberals who try to interfere with electricity production (see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7447371.stm here]).

==Relativism==
Are you sure that relativism is a conservative term? More often, the term is preached against by conservatives. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 15:45, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's a word created to criticize. The "-ism" ending is tell-tale sign of being pejorative. Examples of "isms" created or used by liberals to criticize are "isolationism" and "protectionism" and "creationism".--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Morally bankrupt ==

Thanks, Jpatt, for the insight!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
 Pat Tillman was morally bankrupt?--[[User:KimSell|KimSell]] 12:49, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

== Dramacast? ==

Under your words not yet recognized, you include the word "dramacast" to decribe what happens when "mainstream media presents drama fluff stories as news, e.g. 20/20 - Dateline."

I've never come across the word "dramacast," and a google search brings up no hits. However, doesn't "infotainment" mean the same thing? Has that made it into the dictionary yet? [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 09:25, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

: Good point. The "dramacast" addition was not by me, and you can insert a better substitute such as "infotainment" or perhaps "docudrama". Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:47, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::Just did. Infotainment seems closer to the concept than "docudrama," which always seems to indicate something longer. It might be good as its own separate entry. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 10:32, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

== Closed Shop ==
You might like to include Closed shop. -[[User:CGoodwin|CGoodwin]]

: Superb suggestion. Will add now. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:55, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggestion ==

From the 19th century, I suggest 'scrooge' - a miser who, despite wealth, does not give to charity or allow wealth to circulate and benefit the wider economy. Clearly this orginates from ''A Christmas Carol'', which was written in that century.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:45, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Superb suggestion. Please add with a precise date, if you have one. I'm also working on a few possibilities for 1700s and 1800s to perfect the geometric fit, but yours is better than mine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::It looks like the novella was published in 1843 [http://www.stormfax.com/dickens.htm] but I don't have a citation for the first general use of 'scrooge' to describe any miser. I know the book was an immediate success when it was published, so it can't have been long after. Perhaps you have a bigger dictionary than I do?--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 19:42, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Question ==

Just out of curiosity, what exactly makes a word conservative or liberal? For example, liberals often practice double standard far more than conservatives, so wouldn't that make it a liberal word? Same with hysteria, since most media hype is in liberal news sources like MSNBC and CNN. [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 18:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:Welcome to Conservapedia, home of Patriots. Take hysteria, studies will prove people without God are less grounded, more frequent to have off-the-wall behavior patterns, gradually regressing in communication with others. My conclusion is a sane person (grounded in the Lord, conservative by default) would have created the diagnosis, hence crafted the word hysteria. That is just one example, my 2 cents anyway, comprehend?

:If you do Merriam-Webster dictionary search, you are likely to find the dates and further research the origin, its like word salad.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:23, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::So it's less words that apply to conservatives and more words coined by the conservatives themselves? [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 19:11, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Conservative terms are crafted, coined (growth rate) faster than liberal words. This shows that generations have been conservative while liberal crafted words have spurts of growth. Example, 1960 ideas such as freedom of mind drug talk, explore feminism, tune-in drop-out of society became associated with that generation in disproportane numbers. We may be now in such a new phase of liberalism; tax, big government, empathy legislation, gay rights, environmentalism- which will give way to the next sustained period of conservatism.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:30, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Suggested word ==

Could I suggest Astroturfing as a conservative word? It was coined around 1998 as a response to false grassroot movements by Microsoft, but can refer to political movements as well. I consider it conservative because it is a good word for pinpointing deceit. [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/astroturfing] [[User:TheRealMattJohnson|TheRealMattJohnson]] 21:22, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

: Haven't heard of that term in politics, so I'm not sure it qualifies yet. The word has to catch on a bit to earn its way in this entry.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:41, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== No capitalism? ==

I was rather shocked to notice that capitalism (circa 1850) isn't included as a new conservative word. Was this intentional? I would also suggest constructionist (circa 1835) as another conservative word of value.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:58, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more suggestions (one from 1700's) ==

According to Random House, "republican" has its origin around 1685...close, but not quite in the time period you're looking for. "Evangelism" is 1620-1630, and "missionary" is 1635-1645.

Aha! What about "states' rights," circa 1790? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 12:11, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

: "Republican" is a good suggestion, but the term is associated more with the Republican Party than with conservatism. There are arguments that conservatism is populist in nature. "Isms" are usually derogatory; missionary requires more discussion.

:"States rights" adds nothing conservative to "federalism", a 1789 term that we already include. Liberals invokes "states rights" often also.

:I'll add all four terms as difficult to classify, pending further discussion. Thanks but we're still looking for a a 1700s term to perfect the geometric fit.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== A few more possibilities from the 1700's ==

economics (1785)
division of labor (1770)
patriotism (1720)--I know "isms" are often pejorative, but surely this one isn't (regardless of how some people might try to malign it?)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:00, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

:patriotism has been on the list. Division of labor is good. Economics can be liberal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:56, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

== Further suggestions ==

Two suggestions from Gulliver's Travels, which was published in 1726 and immediately became popular:
* Lilliputian - small-minded or trivial, used to satirise people who are preoccupied with petty squabbles.
* Yahoo - a person who embodies all the worst human characteristics because of a lack of moral or civilising influences.

--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:08, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: Fascinating suggestions! I think Lilliputian is the better of the two. "Yahoo" does not seem to have retained its original meaning, perhaps due to yahoo.com's use of the term.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:11, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: I agree that Lilliputian is more relevant today. It strikes me as an excellent way to describe many people's obsessions with gossip, people's personal lives, celebrities, entertainment etc while they ignore far more important concerns. It's actually amazing how much of what Swift wrote is even more relevant today than it was when he wrote it.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:51, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::: According to M-W, ''yahoo'' as a noun dates to Swift's book in 1726; ''yahoo'' as an interjection (synonym for "yippee") dates to 1870. But I disagree with both as conservative terms: ''Gulliver'' is extremely rooted in the attitudes of the [[Enlightenment]] and the glorification of Reason above all else - hardly conservative IMO. (Yes, I know that the Enlightenment produced some conservative ideas also.) [[User:Carillonneur|Carillonneur]] 12:34, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:Carillonner has a point. Swift is regarded as one of the greatest satirists of all time - I am personally a fan of him. You shouldn't adopt his words unless you have read the book from which they come, and understand exactly what they intend to mean. The entire country of Lilliput was a criticism of the trivialities that dominated british and european politics - much of which is lost on a modern reader, unfamiliar with the subject. That the people were tiny was but incidential to the real significence of them, the way in which they would turn the tiniest event or question into a source of great conflict or debate while entirely ignoring far more serious issues, culminating in a war fought over which way up an egg should be placed in an eggcup before breaking it open. If you're looking for a section good for criticising liberals with, I suggest the third country visited by Gulliver: Laputa. The floating island satirises scientific and artistic accomplishment performed for it's own sake without thought to practical benefits, and a community of academics who posess vast knowledge of subjects entirely useless to anyone else. [[User:Suricou|Suricou]] 12:45, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Thanks for the insights above. Looks like we'll hold off on both terms, then. That means we're still looking for one more word from the 1700s to perfect the geometric increase in generation of insightful conservative terms for the list. Suggestions are welcome!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:21, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Suricou is right about the original context of the satire, but I would contend that 'Lilliputian' applies equally well to any small-minded, petty obsession of the kind that Conservatives strive to rise above, so I'd still consider it a conservative term.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 07:04, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== More 1700's possibilities ==

Businessman (~1710)

Checks and balances (~1780)

Separation of powers (1748)

--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:55, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

: The latter two are good.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:02, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Self-respect (1765)

: Don't think "self-respect" is conservative. It may be liberal. "Self-worship" is a big defect with the liberal approach.

: Looks like "separation of powers" is the term to perfect the fit to the geometric increase, unless someone objects.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 08:38, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

== Liberal word from 1830 ==

'''Reactionary''' - liberal smear-word for conservative ideas.--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 21:05, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Best New Conservative Words

2009-06-08T18:35:04Z

CJHallock: Archive

==A different take on the Geometric Growth issue==

It might be geometric growth, it might be geometric decay too. If say every year one new conservative word is coined, but every hundred years half of the existing conservative words fall out of use, then the words from the 1600's would be half as prevalent as conservative words than the words from the 1700's. Also, why is transistor a conservative word? It doesn;t seem like it is any more politically important than automobile, or cucumber, or steak. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 23:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

: But there is no "decay" in the conservative examples provided. Your point would apply to the liberal terms, which do quickly fall out of use. The conservative insights grow in usage and value.

: The transistor is "more politically important" than a steak. The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the [[Strategic Defense Initiative]], a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the [[USSR]]. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:04, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::If my proposal were correct would you expect the decayed examples to be in the list? I would think that would throw off the numbers and we wouldn't see the exponential growth in the numbers. As someone working in the cattle industry I would contest the notion that steak isn't politically important. It is a food source for conservatives by conservatives. It seems like the SDI is built on a whole lot of other technological innovations as well that aren't on the list. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 12:34, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::There is exponential growth of conservative words that continue to be useful. The liberal words do fizzle quickly, but the conservative words do not. If you have counterexamples, let's see them. If you say the counterexamples have vanished and cannot be found, then your proposal is [[non-falsifiable]] and thus unscientific.

:::"Transistor" is on the list for several reasons, as I explained here and in the entry. If you can find other examples used for SDI that are comparable, then let's discuss them too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:03, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

::::My point was that it might be decay too, of course we cannot test it unless we find a comparable list from 100 years ago. However, it seems contradictory when you say that we can't test, but our words are increasing and their words are decaying. It seems like both sets would be simultaneously growing and decaying. --[[User:JGHuston|JGHuston]] 15:38, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Conservative words don't disappear as you suggest. You have access to older works on the internet. I've provided 150 new conservative words that have lasted. Can you identify even 1 that has disappeared?

:::::It doesn't seem to me "like both sets [conservative and liberal] would be simultaneously growing and decaying" the same way. In fact, I'd be shocked if these very different categories behaved identically. One is almost certainly growing and lasting more than the other, and the evidence is that the conservative words are winning this struggle. Difficult for liberals to accept, I'm sure, but the facts don't care if they are accepted or not.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:15, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::::Let me jump in here just to ask, Andy, do you have a dictionary-type definition of "conservative word"? It is impossible to test for geometric growth (or whatever we call it!) if we don't know how to identify a [[conservative]] word. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

Oxytocin

2009-06-08T18:25:43Z

CJHallock:

Moroni

2009-06-08T04:59:19Z

CJHallock: Created page with 'Moroni is both the capitol of the African island nation of Comoros and the name of the angel reportedly seen by Joseph Smith the founder of the [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_o...'

Moroni is both the capitol of the African island nation of [[Comoros]] and the name of the angel reportedly seen by [[Joseph Smith]] the founder of the [[Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints | Mormon church]]

Template:User straight

2009-06-08T04:34:33Z

CJHallock: Created page with '{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=Straight |info=As an arrow}}'

{{Userbox |border-c=#000 |border-s=1 |id-c=#fff |id-s=12 |id-fc=#000 |info-c=#039 |info-s=8 |info-fc=#fff |id=Straight |info=As an arrow}}

Paganism

2009-06-08T02:58:11Z

CJHallock:

'''Paganism''' is a group of religions in which practitioners worship a deity, or deities, usually based on the earth or nature, and not [[Christian]], [[Muslim]], or [[Jewish]]. Paganism, from Latin paganus, literally means (as a noun) "country dweller." Alternatively, pagan is used as a pejorative to describe anyone not of a certain faith, similar to the pejorative '[[heathen]]'. Originally to term Pagan was used by the romans to describe those living in provincial regions of the Roman Empire, unsophisticated country folk, their religious practices later came to represent the main focus of this.<ref>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pagan</ref>

==Subdivisions==

Pagan subdivisions coined by Isaac Bonewits:
*'''Paleo-Paganism''': coined to contrast with "Neopaganism", denoting a Pagan culture that has not been disrupted by other cultures. The term applies to [[Hinduism]], [[Shinto]], pre-Migration period Germanic paganism as described by [[Tacitus]], Celtic Polytheism as described by [[Julius Caesar]], the Ancient Greek religion and religion in ancient Rome.

*'''Meso-Paganism''': Groups begun as an attempt to revive, recreate, or perpetuate what their founders believe(d) to be original Paleopagan beliefs and practices, which is, or has been, significantly influenced by monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic worldviews, but has been able to maintain an independence of religious practices. This group includes Native Americans and Australian Aborigine Bushmen, Viking Age Norse paganism. Other examples include: [[Freemasonry]], [[Rosicrucianism]], [[Theosophy]], [[Spiritualism]], as well as [[Sikhism]], early (pre-1970) [[Wicca]], and the many Afro-Diasporic faiths like Haitian Voudou and Santería.

*'''[[Neo-Paganism]]''': Groups begun as an attempt to revive, recreate, or perpetuate what their founders believe(d) to be original Paleopagan beliefs and practices, but consciously attempting to avoid monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic influences. This definition may include anything on a sliding scale from reconstructionist to [[New Age]] and non-reconstructionist groups such as Celtic reconstructionism and [[Wicca]]. Gods from ancient [[mythology]] may be worshipped in this context.

The terms may be spelled with or without hyphens after the prefixes.

== See also ==

*[[Philosophy]]
*[[Anthropology]]
*[[Religious Studies]]

[[category:Paganism]]

Paganism

2009-06-07T20:40:30Z

CJHallock: a little etymology

'''Paganism''' is a group of religions in which practitioners worship a deity, or deities, usually based on the earth or nature, and not [[Christian]], [[Muslim]], or [[Jewish]]. Paganism, from Latin paganus, literally means (as a noun) "country dweller." Alternatively, pagan is used as a pejorative to describe anyone not of a certain faith, similar to the pejorative '[[heathen]]'. Originally to term Pagan was used by the romans to describe those living in provincial regions of the Roman Empire, unsophisticated country folk, their religious practices later came to represent the main focus of this,

==Subdivisions==

Pagan subdivisions coined by Isaac Bonewits:
*'''Paleo-Paganism''': coined to contrast with "Neopaganism", denoting a Pagan culture that has not been disrupted by other cultures. The term applies to [[Hinduism]], [[Shinto]], pre-Migration period Germanic paganism as described by [[Tacitus]], Celtic Polytheism as described by [[Julius Caesar]], the Ancient Greek religion and religion in ancient Rome.

*'''Meso-Paganism''': Groups begun as an attempt to revive, recreate, or perpetuate what their founders believe(d) to be original Paleopagan beliefs and practices, which is, or has been, significantly influenced by monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic worldviews, but has been able to maintain an independence of religious practices. This group includes Native Americans and Australian Aborigine Bushmen, Viking Age Norse paganism. Other examples include: [[Freemasonry]], [[Rosicrucianism]], [[Theosophy]], [[Spiritualism]], as well as [[Sikhism]], early (pre-1970) [[Wicca]], and the many Afro-Diasporic faiths like Haitian Voudou and Santería.

*'''[[Neo-Paganism]]''': Groups begun as an attempt to revive, recreate, or perpetuate what their founders believe(d) to be original Paleopagan beliefs and practices, but consciously attempting to avoid monotheistic, dualistic, or nontheistic influences. This definition may include anything on a sliding scale from reconstructionist to [[New Age]] and non-reconstructionist groups such as Celtic reconstructionism and [[Wicca]]. Gods from ancient [[mythology]] may be worshipped in this context.

The terms may be spelled with or without hyphens after the prefixes.

== See also ==

*[[Philosophy]]
*[[Anthropology]]
*[[Religious Studies]]

[[category:Paganism]]

War on Terrorism

2009-06-07T20:28:50Z

CJHallock: Added name change

The '''War on [[Terrorism]]''' is a collective term used to refer to several military and political campaigns with the stated goal of "ending international terrorism". In March of 2009 the Obama administration ended their use of the term "Global War on Terror" in favor of the term "Overseas Contingency Operation"<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/03/25/report-obama-administration-backing-away-global-war-terror/</ref>

==See also==
*[[September 11, 2001 attacks]]
*[[June 2007 UK terror attacks]]
*[[Iraq war]]

[[Category:Disambiguation Pages]]

Talk:Main Page/archive75

2009-06-07T20:12:19Z

CJHallock: Archive

== UCSD Email Fail ==
I really don't see why this article should make the front page at CP. It's an admin error that could happen at any institution, and has happened at many. The administrative staff at a uni have nothing to do with, and are no reflection upon, the academic credentials of the institution itself. You do not need to have a Phd. from UCSD to work in it's post room.

This might be a subject of mild lulz. It is not, however, front page material of what it supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 14:07, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

:Just moved my comment up to this section since you beat me to it, but I have to say I agree. Why is it that what was essentially a simple mistake (albeit one that ended up being sent to 29,000 people) is being used to try and criticise the quality of not just the university in question, but all universities? It was a simple mistake likely made by one member of staff, it doesn't reflect well on the university of course but I don't think you could justifiably read much more into it than that. [[User:RobertWDP|RobertWDP]] 14:08, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

::I'm going to agree with both of you in this; it possibly is not an order of this university to send out the emails to those rejected, and it should not reflect on all universities as a whole. But at the very least, someone got stupid; 29,000 emails to tell rejects they were accepted, then 29,000 more saying "sorry, you're still rejected" should be a case of getting the sender fired. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:22, 1 April 2009 (EDT)

== Obama Quote ==

"In prepared remarks, today Barack Obama declared, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country. I know, because I am one of them."

I was rather shocked by this so I looked at your source which is AOL news yet couldn't find these words, wrong source maybe? --[[User:Asiak|Asiak]]

: The quote is correct. [[CNN]] played it over and over last night as Obama read the words from the teleprompters. I'll simply update the link on the Main Page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:11, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::I had concerns about this one too - glad to see you're on top of it. Including both the existing article and a link to the actual quote would be ideal. Of course, it's not news that Obama has Muslims in his family, or that he has lived in a Muslim-majority country. We've all known that for a long time. However, it's interesting to see how he is leveraging his Muslim experiences on behalf of the US. Perhaps the item can be expanded a bit to encourage the reader to look at the article, by including some reference to the new information, rather than just the quote. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:23, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: You do realize that Obama was referring to his time in Indonesia, a Muslim majority state, and his step father who was a Muslim. He wasn't saying that he himself is a Muslim. And either way I fail to see how this is of any relevance.--[[User:Asiak|Asiak]]

::::[[User:Asiak|Asiak]], if you put <nowiki>--~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your post, it will be signed and dated, which is helpful. There's a button on the editing page to insert it - it looks like a scribbled signature. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:36, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: Asiak and Hsmom can try to spin the quote as much as you like, but its message is unmistakable, and that message is primarily for Americans.

::::: It will be interesting to see how long Obama defenders continue to remain in denial about his belief system.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:39, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::Mr. Schlafly, are you reading "I know, because I am one of them." to mean "I know, because I am a Muslim"? I didn't hear the clip on CNN, so perhaps I am missing something by reading it instead of hearing it? What was the message for Americans, as you heard it on CNN? You're much more up on this stuff than I am; sometimes I don't see stuff that is obvious to those who keep up with the news more than I do. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:50, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::: Thank you Hsmom. And this "defender" will continue to remain in denial until someone produces legitimate hard evidence to say otherwise. And I wonder how long Obama "opponents" will continue to manipulate his words to make them sound more controversial. I also wonder how long his opponents will continue to stretch things to make him seem like a Muslim, when it is obviously not true and even if it was it is hardly relevant. --[[User:Asiak|Asiak]] 10:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::::<edit conflict>[[User:Asiak|Asiak]], I agree that the item as it reads now seems irrelevant. We all know that Obama's father was Muslim, and I believe his half-sister is also Muslim. It's not that uncommon in African American families to have Muslim friends or relatives. Also, we all know that he lived in Indonesia when he was young. So on the surface, the item seems to be "old news". The "new news" is in the linked article - it's the way Obama can relate to Muslim heads-of-state, in a way that previous presidents have not been able to do, by using his familiarity with Muslim religion and culture to the advantage of the US. That's news. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:42, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::It's good news, right? I'm confused by the point of the news entry, as it seems to rely on an assuption that's unclear. [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 09:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== News roundup ==

Just a few headlines that caught my eye, one for opinion and one for error:

''We all knew the election of a Democrat for president meant this: Barack Obama Slashing Weapons, Fighter Programs. In order to pay for ATV trails and resod the National Mall, America would have to sacrifice Defense Department spending.''

First off, the F-22A Raptor fighter program was highly over-rated, a gross waste of money, and produced no viable results for it's cost. Every jet cost $137.5 Million to roll off the lines, compared to the JSF [a comparable figher, with carrier and anti-ground capabilities as well] for $83 million. so I think cutting the Raptor was a wise choice. To put it in comparison:

Let's round off a soldier's total equipment costs [Including armor, eyepro, weapon, 210 rounds of ammo, etc.] at $10,000. I am not sure of the exact figure, but I know that each m-4 kit costs under $1,500. Now, multiply that by 2,000 soldiers [Another ballpark figure, but i'm fudging the numbers] for a Division of infantry. That's $20 million. Add in vehicles, communications equipment, and logistical assets, and you come close to around $40 million. For a Division of Soldiers. You can fund at least three major division on one F-22A. [If someone has better figures than I represented, I would be happy to use them. Once again, these are approximate statistics, not exact, and the total may be less or more. Still, even if it's one division, you can put a lot more boots on ground for one F-22.]

The second article in this little roundup was about the President. The article goes to state:

''In prepared remarks, Barack Obama declared, "The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them."''

The general vibe I get from the Conservapedian treatment to the news is that "OMG he said he's a muslim!", which is an error in fact. In print we have these a lot of the time, known as misplaced modifier. When the President stated 'one of them', some would believe that he is referencing 'Muslim-Americans' in the first sentence. However, the modifier 'them' is closer to 'Muslim-majority country', or even to the family reference. While it is well documented that President Obama spent some years of his childhood in a foreign city [Jakarta, Indonesia, from ages six to 10], I believe he is speaking about his family, most notably his father. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 08:33 07 April 2009 (CST)

:If you listen to the speech, and his speech patterns, it's clear he was referring to the entirety of his statement, i.e. all the previously mentioned clauses. Combined with the other evidence we've compiled here, I'd say it's pretty damning.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 23:43, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::I'd say with all the evidence included in other areas and in his own words that he is not Muslim, but that is my expressed belief, and I won't try to force it on you. The speech, however, was clearly not referring to himself [and yes, I read the article and listened to the video] but to the enrichment of America's cultural diversity by Islam, in the same spirit that Mormonism, Judaism, Baptism, Christianity, Catholicism, and other faiths have contributed. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 09:49, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::: The carefully chosen remarks were plainly designed to condition Americans to fully support a Muslim President. Obama could not have gone any further without admitting that he lied about his religion in order to be elected.

::: No Christian would have worded those remarks as Obama did.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::::A blanket statement like 'No Christian would have worded those remarks as Obama did' can be taken wildly out of context and used against you because it invokes the 'No true Scotsman' argument. Instead, try "A Christian who is comfortable with his faith" instead of the blanket statement. It still keeps you on message and protects you from a logical loophole in your argument.

::::As for a Muslim president, I still see no article or law that states that a Presidential candidate cannot follow a specific religion as long as it does not affect his judicial policy [We still don't have shari'a law, so I think we're covered]. Remember the spat that JFK created because of his Catholic faith? I believe, instead on trying to demonize the man for his religion, you should target the fact that he lied about it consistently since he joined Trinity Church some years ago [A position I do not believe in] and continues to lie to a public that trusts him [Again, a position I do not believe in]. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 13:32, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

::::No, Andy. Nothing is as "clear" about Obama being a Muslim as you seem to think it is, as evidenced by the fact that many people, including at least a few Conservapedia sysops and admins, reasonably think you are wrong. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 23:41, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Israel article ==

I would like to make an addition to the Israel article to discuss the Law of Return and recent changes in the law that create ambiguities in the rights of citizenship of people residing in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority. Is someone responsible for this article that I must seek approval from to make edits? American conservative people and American Christians might be interested to know that some recent changes in our laws are creating difficult problems for the Arab non-citizen spouses of Israeli citizens who would otherwise have been permitted citizenship if they resided anywhere other than Palestinian authority zones. It is literally creating a problem of being from the "wrong side of the tracks." Thank you - Shmuley Bernstein [[User:ShmuelBernstein|ShmuelBernstein]] 11:48, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question on Envelopes ==

Now I do not mean this entry to be read as sarcastically, so please do not take it as such. This is a sincere attempt to obtain information/understand another perspective. My question has to do with the red envelopes sent to the White House as part of an anti-abortion campaign. Now this act is obviously symbolic in nature, and has no real tangible effects in of itself. May I ask, why is it that this act is extolled and promoted, but then an act such as Earth Hour is demonized and called "liberal symbolism"? Both acts are symbolic in nature (although it could be argued that Earth Hour at least does save some energy, the amount can be argued separately) and both are designed to further some viewpoint/campaign. I am not casting judgment on either movement, but I am curious as to when is a symbolic act appropriate to further a campaign?

Again not trying to instigate anything, but just gain information.
Cheers--[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 15:15, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:Try to understand AndrasK that this is a conservative wiki. You may think Earthhour represents something good for both conservatives and liberals, it does not. It pushes the leftwing doctrine man-made global warming, which is of course, a lie.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::According to the news articles, not even [[Al Gore]] found "Earth Hour" particularly important. And I hardly think there can be an equivalence between supporting global warming curtailment efforts and human life, the murder of babies. One is a historically repeating natural occurrence, and the other is a deliberate human choice. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:29, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Reagan and Church? ==

I found [http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/07/sammon_obama_church/ this] on Fox Nation. It doesn't seem correct to me that President Reagan didn't go to church while in DC. Can anyone else find a cite for this? [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 17:43, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*President Reagan and Nancy infrequently attended the Santa Ynez Presbyterian Church and the First Presbyterian of Santa Barbara, when at the Ranch. When in Los Angeles, they often attended their home church, the Bel Air Presbyterian Church. To attend ''one'' church regularly, as President involves sometimes great inconvenience to the parishioners, due to the Secret Service carting over, metal detectors, etc. So, after being elected, Reagan opted not to attend one particular church, out of respect to the other church members. Many times, if he wanted to attend a service, it was at the very last minute, usually only the Pastor being informed less than an hour before, and just before the service began they would enter from the side, if possible, and be seated in the first row. When at the White House ministers were often on the guest list for the weekends, and he talked often to Billy Graham, as a White House guest, and on the phone as well, whom both the President and Nancy had known several decades. So, Bill Sammon is correct in what he said. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:23, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Thanks for the info, TK. I suppose Obama will use this as political cover, even though it should surprise nobody that a Muslim doesn't go to a church to pray! [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 19:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Well, all I (or anyone) can go on is the statement issued by the White House, that they will find and attend church services in due course. They didn't say he wouldn't for the reasons President Reagan did. So one must assume that eventually they will. ;-) --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:12, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

'''UPDATE:''' [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/07/family-lookout-new-church/ Obamas Still Searching for Church to Call Their Own] --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 07:19, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Please don't ban me ==

Why did my other account ShmuelBernstein get banned? {{unsigned|FredCorps}} -- 20:20, 7 April 2009

:This comment wasn't mine, as is easily seen in the history. Why did you put this here?--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 00:32, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

*08:06, 7 April 2009 Karajou (Talk | contribs | block) blocked ShmuelBernstein (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ '''(Using anonymous proxy: Golden Lines International Communication Services, Israel (kodix.org); use your legitimate ISP if you want to edit here)'''

--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Offshore Drilling Gov't Comment Page ==

I just filled out a comment on the page. "Yes please, more oil" ha ha! Anyway, it wasn't that hard to get to, and you don't have to remember any code if you simply cut and paste. But I'm fairly net savvy and I could see how some people may have difficulty. Here's a direct link to the comment and info page for the docket.

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064808e9d16

I thought you may want to put it up in the sight somewhere so those here who support the drilling could send out their feelings. I'm all for it, as long as we're very VERY careful and don't cut corners on safety precautions and as long as it's just a temporary measure to help us get some new energy sources up and running. Hopefully some renewable ones. But anyway, I though you may appreciate this easier to access link for the government comment page for offshore drilling. Just hit the link then click on add comment. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:28, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Grammatical error in Biden story ==

It reads "much more safer." It should be either "much safer" or "much more safe."--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 10:22, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

== Economic War Games ==

This is a little unnerving. The Pentagon recently hosted a series of war games simulating economic strife between the worlds superpowers. They invited economists, CEO's and such and had them manipulate numbers for economic supremacy...and China won. That's a little concerning to me. Newsworthy? --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 08:48, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21053.html

:Yes, I think so. Thanks for the tip! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:26, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

== Obama Bow ==

although I do not like Obama's politics, I think it should be pointed that [http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too George W Bush] bowed before the Saudi king (before having the king put a medal on his neck) and going way back, [http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33293_Monday_Morning_Bow President John Adams bowed before King George] both links curtesy of Little Green Footballs. [[User:Nathayus|Nathayus]] 13:51, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:Did Obama make a similar bow before any other head of state on his recent trip? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)
::I believe Obama has bowed to an envoy from Japan, so I really think it's more of a cultural thing. Still, he ought to know better when it comes to how he is perceived. Unless he really doesn't care.--[[User:FredCorps|FredCorps]] 14:04, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Oh Poppycock, FredCorps! A neck bow, nod, is etiquette. Bowing almost to a persons waist, as Obama did, is not even comparable!

:::The Bush reference is an apples and oranges comparison, inasmuch as President Bush was receiving a medal from a diminutive man, and short of getting on his knees, or the King standing on a box, how would one comfortably enable the medal being put over his head? And I have doubts, Nathayus, you really dislike Obama's politics, insofar as the whole point of your posting was relativism, to point out his action was no different than other President's ''when in fact it was not''. Obama made a deep, very deep, bow, past the King's shoulders. It cannot be credibly interpreted as other than what it was: ''A highly visible sign of deep Muslim respect for the Saudi King''. It was hardly the normal Head of State "nod" that is usual. As for your Adam's comparison, or Green Footballs really moronic, over-reaching, Obama idol-worship comparison.....using something so inane and archaic as a 16th Century social convention is political relativism truly worthy of radical leftism! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:20, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Little Green Footballs has Obama idol-worship? Now that is an interesting thought. I'm sorry you doubt my personal opinion, but as there really is no way for me to prove that to you, I suppose we can't go too much further. [[User:Nathayus|Nathayus]] 14:53, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

*The fact you made a sock when your previous posts from the Denver school district earned you a block under another name, and your only contributions under this new name were to this topic, says all we need to know, Nathayus. The fact that I had blocked the IP of your earlier post, and you ran and found a proxy to still argue this point proves your [[liberal deceit]]. Godspeed to you. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 15:00, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

Regarding Obama's deep bow, the video doesn't lie, but the Obama apologists do. Obama did not bring his left hand up until after he was done bowing. President Bush lowering his head to receive a medal from a shorter person does not constitute a bow. I've been looking into Charles Johnson's posts about Obama and against conservatives, but he's gone and blocked me from the entire site. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 21:50, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

I disagree. I think this supposed bow, if that actually was the case, shows diplomacy, respect and an attempt to bridge rifts and differences that have been caused between the US and even her closest Arab ally. The House of Saud should be seen as friends and allies of anyone looking for sustainable peace in the region, and showing them a little courtesy is hardly a bad thing. it is always better to be seen as civilized and respectful than coarse and uncultured. However, it is hardly earth shattering news, whatever the case. If he did, kudos for the nice gesture of respect for King Abdullah. If not, I hope that a good impression was made, etiquette honoured, and real progress made, whilst the press found nothing more substantial to write about that how the rulers of the world greeted each other. --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 17:20, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:I disagree with Krysg. The Saudis owe us respect, not the other way around. How America is perceived is a bull excuse. If they can't see America stood for righteousness when it came to Iraq, then forget what others think. If Obama was to bow to anyone, it should be the Queen, the staunchest of allies. Have you seen her title. {{cquote| Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith, Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich, Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Order of Canada, Sovereign of the Order of Australia, Sovereign of the Order of New Zealand, Sovereign of the Order of Barbados, Sovereign of the Order of Valour, Sovereign of the Order of Military Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Sovereign of the Queen’s Service Order, Sovereign of the New Zealand Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of St. Andrew, Sovereign of the Order of Logohu, Sovereign of the Order of the Star of Melanesia, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Mercy, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.}}

He bowed to the custodian of two Mosques. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 17:42, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Jpatt, I am a monarchist, and I have every respect for HRH Queen Elizabeth II. However, that does not mean I don't think Obama bowing before King Abdullah was wrong, just because he (King of Saudi Arabia) is not '''my''' sovereign (as it happens, I have a lot of time for him). I'd like to have seen Obama bow before the Queen though. I think your ruler owes mine some thanks for our tireless support, misguided or otherwise :) --[[User:Krysg|Krysg]] 18:58, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:No American, president or otherwise, is expected to bow in any way to anyone - not even royalty. A slight head bow is considered polite and respectful, but not necessary. A deep waist bow is extraordinarily against protocol as it denotes subservience to the person being bowed to. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 22:00, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

== Coming Attractions at YouTube at a Time of My Choosing ==

[[Image:3416169365 2716fc0bc7.jpg|left|thumb|300px|[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00t Thunderf00t] ]]

[[Image:3142545888 8f41475f6d.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazingAtheist TheAmazingAtheist] ]]

.

.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxFArfwpjPU The time of stalking will soon be over. It will soon be time to move in for the kill.] :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:28, 9 April 2009 (EDT)

...This confuses me greatly --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 07:59, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

:Wow. Homicidal, much? After all, the Internet is Serious Business.

:Seriously, it is! -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:03, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

What on earth is this nonsense? Surely the original poster is a parodist!? Why hasn't anyone reverted this yet? [[User:SimonAG|SimonAG]] 19:59, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

If conservative has actually flipped out, has found the addresses of and kills some youtubers, will we be held responsible for not reporting this foreshadowing to authorities? I mean, I jest, but only partially. I remember that shortly after the Columbine incident I was suspended from school for two days pending psychological evaluation for telling me friend "I'll kill you!" after he shot his fifth rubber band at my head during lunch. I'm not sure what the rules are these days in the real world for murder threats, even if they are apparently in jest... kind of. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 07:55, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

:::A couple of people who know me saw the deer heads and cheetah caption and laughed. The title above is '''coming attractions at YouTube'''. If you can show me how you can literally kill a person '''at the location of YouTube''' I would be very suprised. Last time I checked, it was not possible to literally kill someone in the "territory" of cyberspace at a cyberspace "location". Please tell me when your melodramatics are over. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:26, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
::::Here is what I wrote on the Conservapedia evolution talk page: In the Conservapedia evolution article, perhaps a section on YouTube and popular evolutionist/atheists poorly and/or errantly promoting their atheist/evolutionary dogma may be created. Do you have any suggestions as far as individuals who could be featured? :) I believe I have some rather humorous examples that could be used which I believe will be revealed at time of my choosing. By the way, if I did discover a very popular YouTube evolutionist making a factual error in the scientific realm (that even his evolutionist friends would be forced to admit was an error), which occurred when he was promoting his atheistic dogma, how widely do you think I should I make it known? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:30, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: I am a student of theatre (I use the British spelling out of respect for my main man, Willy S.). Dramatics are part of my nature, both melo and otherwise :). It is not at all impossible to extrapolate an individual's real name, phone number, and address from information they post on sites such as youtube, although I've been trying to get Kenneth Branagh's number for years...alas. But anyway, it's happened before that a crazy person has announced his intentions [http://www.conservapedia.com/Jokela_School_Shootings via online forums]. It happens. Cheetahs aren't guns and I don't seriously think you're going to kill anybody. A humorously presented post should be met in turn...and I was kind of just making sure. You know what the neighbors always say about the axe murderer: "He seemed like such a nice person!" As for killing a person via cyberspace...hmm...it wouldn't be easy, but [http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003736033_logo06.html seizures] can be deadly. :) HA!...But seriously, I don't want to be an accessory, so please don't use the seizure idea. --[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 23:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

== Need help with vandal ==

I don't know where else to turn, and I can only revert vandalism, since I haven't yet earned block rights. Please look at [[User:PaulLaroque]]. Thanks. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 01:19, 10 April 2009 (EDT)

==Child Actor Sentenced to Death==
Is there a place where I could figure out what exactly Mr. Deleon acted in? No mention of his career was in the article provided or in other sources. [[User:JY23|JY23]] 17:23, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

:Very little. See here [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylar_Deleon] [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 17:43, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
::he was never a "Hollywood Actor" -- at age 14 he was an extra in a show. He never had a credited role. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 19:01, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

:::He was in fact a child hollywood actor. So his bit in power rangers was one show. He was in fact an actor in commercials “Skylar James Deleon (born John Jacobson Jr.) is a former American child actor. The son of a convicted drug dealer, '''Deleon began acting in bit parts in commercials as a child'''. At age 14, he appeared in a non-speaking part in the series ‘Mighty Morphin Power Rangers’ on the episode titled “Second Chance” [http://dogandponyshowwebsite.com/tag/skylar-deleon] Don't trust wikipedia to get the story right.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:28, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
::::Not to split hairs, Jpatt, but what you posted is verbatim what Wikipedia says. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:32, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

But how can you possibly equate someone who appeared in a few commercials and one episode of a TV show as an extra, to a 'hollywood actor'??? He's a criminal who happened to have an insignificant role in something years ago, not an actor who happened to commit a crime. [[User:SimonAG|SimonAG]] 19:58, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

:SimonAG, it seems as your only reason to be here is to argue. I suggest you contribute or be gone. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 20:01, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

But I am contributing, I'm trying to help you correct an inaccurate news story on your main page. Can I consider the spelling correction I have made in your previous post a contribution? [[User:SimonAG|SimonAG]] 20:05, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

::Hoillywood values comprise a lot of hyperexaggerated PR and CP must not fall for that. Deleon was a con man. After appearing at age 14 in a couple scenes in one 30-minute show--in a non-speaking "extra role"--he always called himself a Hollywood actor and even a "child star". An encyclopedia should not be a sucker for that ridiculous hype.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 20:48, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

The critics above miss the point. Nobody cares, least of all the families of the murder victims, whether this criminal was a ''good'' actor or not. What matters is that he was a child actor who grew up with [[Hollywood values]]. Indeed, some of the child actors are most notably messed up as adults. Check out Tatum O'Neal's troubled adulthood, despite all her privilege and opportunities.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:15, 11 April 2009 (EDT)
::He was never an actor--he was and is a con man who lies about his past. That's how he fooled the people he murdered. We should not be fooled by his fantastic boast that his four minute appearance as an "extra" standing in the background in a half-hour TV show ago made him a "child star". Tatum O'Neal is what a real child star looks like and Andy is right to point out her problems. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:20, 11 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Don't want to perpetuate this discussion, but this murderer does seem to have been raised in the Hollywood culture. That's the point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:02, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

If he wasn't a child actor, then why does even the vaunted Wikipedia describe him as such? A struggling child actor in bit parts is still a child actor. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:07, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
::Wikipedia was fooled, The guy repeatedly claimed to be an actor, that was his trick to meet people like the couple he murdered. It's a well-known con-man trick in Los Angeles because tourists go there hoping to meet a "star". He not only murdered, he lied: he NEVER had a speaking role in anything. The TV series used him as an extra in ONE episode and did not list his name in the credits. Should we believe this liar-murderer? [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 00:33, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

*What this shows is there is good reason as to why we don't cite Wikipedia! I guess we need to keep repeating that it is never acceptable to use WP as a source or citation here on Conservapedia. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:11, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
:''Mea culpa'', TK. I was the one who first linked to Wikipedia, because it was the only single site which consolidated the known information about him. And at the moment, the information about his "acting career" is scant, which explains the confusion. Everyone here is reading between the lines, because there simply aren't that many lines to read at this point. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:38, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

The distinction between a successful actor and a wannabee is not a meaningful difference with respect to [[Hollywood values]]. Deleon did enough to earn a place in the Screen Actors Guild; the fact that he may have been unsuccessful with an acting career simply makes him ''more representative'' of Hollywood types. Indeed, it is when they start to fail, as nearly all do, that the [[Hollywood values]] become most dangerous.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:04, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== Obama brother ==

I saw strange story on BBC about half a brother of your President Obama not being allowed into Great Britain because he was suspected of horrible sex attack on British girl. Is this true or does American media censor stories like this? I read it on BBC web site which I put link here. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7995544.stm --[[User:Temujin|Temujin]] 09:42, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

:That looks like [[gossip]], the kind of stuff we avoid here. It could hardly be called educational.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:58, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
:: I don't know if that assertion, backed by a news article, really counts as "gossip." It may be alleged, but the Obama article already includes alleged facts like that Obama is a Muslim, and that he likely wasn't born in Hawaii, so why not put this in? --[[User:RobertT|RobertT]] 18:04, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Well, it was reported here by [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,514855,00.html Fox News] which essentially was the report by a credible U.K. newspaper, ''The Times'', which I linked to in the Main Page news item. This is a family-friendly site, and it seems to me the one of the important items is that the Obama family seems to have a proclivity for illegal entry into countries, and of course not knowing just where members of their family are residing... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 10:10, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

== Easter Sunday ==

I realise that your main page means well but I think in all fairness I should remind you that for many millions of Orthodox Christians throughout both the USA and the World, Easter Sunday is next weekend. We don't all follow the Roman and Western Protestant churches way of calculation of the date as you no doubt know well. Xronia Pascha! [[User:BrianNTS|BrianNTS]] 15:55, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

*Well I realize that, however your first clue would be that this is an American/Conservative encyclopedia, therefore no one of good will would ever take exception, or think it unfair that we celebrate the risen Christ on our front page. So your post is but a mystery to me, since Conservapedia has always also recognized the major Eastern Right holidays. No matter the day, we all celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus Christ! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:06, 12 April 2009 (EDT)

== Might be an interesting debate topic ==

Is it an insult to the Vatican for a US President to appoint a non-Catholic, pro-abortion rights person as Ambassador to the Vatican?

The thing is, should we be appointing people to ambassadorships because their background, character and beliefs are the same as or similar to those of the host country? [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 12:00, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

: Maybe you're on to something, Mike. How about appointing a member of the IRA as ambassador to England????--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:07, 13 April 2009 (EDT)
::Ah, Andy beat me to it. MikeAndrews, as the child of a diplomat, I see the ultimate aim of an ambassador (or any of the diplomatic staff really) being to represent the views of the incumbent government that has appointed them to that role ''(which is why I find it strange that the [[ANC]] government here is appointing senior members of the official opposition to ambassador posts)''. However, in some cases it would probably be best to take into account the culture and beliefs of the country in which you are technically a guest. You are there to build and foster relationships and having somebody pro-abortion in the Vatican is hardly likely to get things off on a good footing. In a similar vein, we would be unlikely to send a woman to be the ambassador to Saudi Arabia. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 12:22, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Jessica, it strikes me that your majority party has hit upon a brillant political stratagem! Appoint all opposition leadership to jobs outside of the country! :P --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:16, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::LOL - well, it works to to perfection so far, seeing as they all accept the nominations (including the leader of the opposition in Parliament!). Then again, I suppose it is as a friend explained to me - "Politics" is derived from the Greek "poly" meaning "many" and "ticks" meaning "blood sucking creatures" {^_^} --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 14:45, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::The current US ambassador to Egypt, appointed by Pres. Bush, is a woman. A couple of women have been ambassadors to Yemen. I would imagine that we don't go out of our way to appoint Muslim's as ambassadors to Muslim countries or card carrying communist to be ambassadors to communist countries. I don't know, it just seems like it doesn't have to be seen as an insult by the host country if the ambassador isn't completely on board with that countries culture. [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 14:35, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::At the end of the day Mike, I suppose the ambassador is there to represent his government first and foremost and after all, they are not supposed to get involved in the internal affairs of where they are posted (look what happened when the US ambassador to Zimbabwe (rightfully) spoke out). At the end of the day, it is up to the leader of the host nation to accept or reject their credentials. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 14:45, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

::::::Agreed! [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 14:49, 13 April 2009 (EDT)

== Columbus and liberal bias ==

I'm confused--how is deciding not to recognize Columbus Day an example of [[liberal bias]]? [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 11:53, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
:It is a liberal politically-correct movement. This nation honors Columbus, liberals hatred of Columbus is the same as blaming America for taking land from American Indians. Like liberals who change Christmas break to winter break as not to offend a minority. Or voting for a President because he is black, not because he is qualified. Getit?--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:00, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
::No, I don't get it. Columbus took natives as slaves and sent them back to Spain, and (according to Bartolome de Las Casas, a noted Catholic historian and priest, hence a conservative Christian) pretty much waged open ethnic war against the Arawaks. Why is is liberal bias not to respect a man who does these things? [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:30, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
::It is anti-intellectual to judge past events through the prism of todays "political correct" thinking. Historians and journalists cannot even manage to get the facts straight on events occurring twenty years ago, let alone 500. That liberal thinkers, with the ultimate advantage of 20/20 hindsight, pronounce judgment on historical figures based upon the knowledge we have accrued since they lived is laughable! The ''idea'' of Columbus Day is to honor a great historical figure and the "discovery" of the New World. Did others previously also "discover" some other part(s) of the New World? Yes. Does that minimize the great diffusion of knowledge his voyages produced? No. In retrospect, ''by modern society's standards'', did Columbus and party do reprehensible things? Most likely so. But to use the advantage of hindsight to turn him into a "non-person", historically speaking, and denigrate the symbol that he represents, of the adventurer, pushing the boundaries of man's knowledge, is stupid. Such politically inspired historical revisionism has always been present, and historically resisted by the intelligentsia. No more, it seems, with radical liberals insisting on meting out some Bizzaro World form of post-facto "justice" that really isn't. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:26, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
:::I'm doubly confused now. Since when do conservatives couch things in terms of "anti-intellectualism" and "modern standards"? It sounds like you're advocating moral relativism. Columbus was a skilled navigator--no one should doubt that--but we don't have to honor men who do awful things by giving them a holiday. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 12:30, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
::::So after how many years of honoring Columbus, time to correct? Foolish! Let's remind everyone what party was for slavery- Democrats. It's about time to dissolve the Democratic party for the support of slavery.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:34, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
:::::Why are you trying to change the subject? (See [[Liberal style]] #51.) Even Christian historians agree that Columbus was not a man worthy of honoring, unless you think Bartolome de Las Casas was actually a [[liberal]]. At best, Columbus seems like he was similar to [[Benito Mussolini]] or [[Barack Obama]]--a person who claims to have been a Christian but whose behavior (apparently) reveals that he could not have been one. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:13, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

*Jpatt, TaKess knows he is being deceitful, and merely goading. A silly ploy (and not so much of a gamble), when dealing with me, because he already knows what the outcome of such deceit is. Anti-intellectualism isn't specific to any political school, but it is specific to man. Let me put this in terms a liberal can understand; Since Columbus cannot possibly face a jury of his peers, he is actually not "guilty" of anything, other than the suppositions of some Historians. Terms like "seems like" are based on knowledge today, not on the prevailing thinking of the time. It is a liberal/ radical leftist trait to tear down the basis of our society, from Columbus to George Washington and other Founding Fathers, to legitimize their hatred of it, and love of European-like welfare state Socialism. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:17, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

::I am still not sure why you're trying to change the subject by bringing up things like socialism or George Washington; the ''only'' person I have criticized on this site is Columbus. You claim that it is laughable to pronounce judgment based on the knowledge we have accrued since Columbus' time. Bartolome de Las Casas was a contemporary of Columbus, and he wrote extensively of the cruelty inflicted on the natives by Columbus and his men. What information have we gained since then which legitimizes what they did and makes them worthy of honor? [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 13:33, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Ahhh...so in your little, fair-minded world, the word of one person is good enough for conviction? Mitigation means nothing? We used to consider American Natives inferior, savages, and Blacks as well. There was a great body of supposed scientific work proving that they were. Doctors used to appear in Tobacco advertisements. Doctors told us regular, daily consumption of Cocain was beneficial, as was regular blood-letting. Should we de-legitimize the medical profession, put them on trial for contributory negligence, perhaps murder? How about the Democratic Party? They favored slavery, you know, fought tooth and nail against all efforts to abolish it. Should we now take action against it? Or are you in favor of just selective revisionism, only when it fits with your world-view? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:50, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Again with the silly false analogies and the accusations of revisionism. Listening to the word of a renowned Christian historian who was a contemporary of Columbus, an eyewitness to much of what he wrote about, and wrote the most complete history of the natives available at the time is not revisionism. Calling him a liar, on the other hand, ''is'' revisionism. No idea why you continue to try to change the subject toward something else unless, of course, the evidence that Columbus was a reprehensible man worthy of condemnation is simply too strong for you to attempt to rebut it.

::::Nowhere have I advocated anything similar to what you are suggesting. I have merely requested an answer to the question: Why is it a "liberal" characteristic to think that reprehensible men who slaughtered thousands shouldn't have holidays names after them? [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 14:09, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::Ah, the circular logic of TaKess, are the analogies false or spot on? Tell us why America created a holiday for Columbus in the first place. "Oh he murdered and the smartest generation finally gets it, so it is logical"--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 14:22, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::"renowned Christian historian"? Some Christians would disagree with that statement. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, Bartolome de Las Casas was very biased:

:::::"It was in 1522 that, after the failure of his plan at Cumaná, Las Casas retired to a Dominican convent on the Island of Santo Domingo, where he soon after began to write his voluminous "Historia de las Indias". His picture of the earliest times of Spanish colonization is gruesome. He exaggerated the number of aborigines on the island at the time of discovery, and magnified into a deed of revolting cruelty every act which savoured of injustice. Sober common sense demands the revision and correction of his indictments."

:::::"But the bitterness of Las Casas grew with age. In 1552 there appeared in print his "Brevísima Relacion de la Destruycion de las Indias", a most injudicious book, glaringly partial, based upon testimony often very impeachable and always highly coloured." [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03397a.htm] --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 16:00, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

The idea that Columbus being a sinner disqualifies him from being honored would prevent anyone from being honored! Christianity teaches that we are all sinners. [[User:BHarlan|BHarlan]] 16:49, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

== Tea Parties ==

Regarding the headline about the Tax Day Tea Parties, I would argue that they are not non-partisan at all. They may purport to be non-partisan, but if you look at the financial support, promotion, and speaking lineup they are very much partisan. As just one small example, [http://teaparty.gop.com this] is a link to an RNC tea party page. [[User:Corry|Corry]] 10:37, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
:They're non-partisan - when you consider that conservatives outnumber liberals 3:1 (or something like that, according to this website), and when you consider that liberals are against them - then the polling that shows a [http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iVPKNWGZDbu2Xzq4C14mhJqCdXwQ majority of '''all Americans''' are against them], then you can tell that both conservatives and liberals are united against them.--[[User:Cupoftea|Cupoftea]] 22:00, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Don't follow your connect-the-dots argument but many people who voted for Obama, and who indicate support for him in polling data, are very much opposed to tax increases or even existing levels of taxation. New Jersey is an example of a heavily Democratic, pro-Obama state that is also generally anti-taxation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

:::That might be true - but if that were the case, than many people who voted for John McCain must've been pro-taxation. If you read the article I posted, you'll see that a majority of Americans (currently) favor (quote from the article) "Obama's expansion of the government's role in the economy" - and we all know that big government interference in the economy means big taxes, so thus you can conclude that a majority of Americans favor the taxes.--[[User:Cupoftea|Cupoftea]] 22:15, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

== Terrorism != Tea Party ==

I thought I'd just point out that there's not enough evidence in the articles provided tot state that tea parties are equivalent to terrorism. One quoted a man as saying that he was afraid because he saw another man with federal license plates filming for a short period, another article quoted a "WND reader" (whose name was withheld - which is ironic, given that he said "Let me know where I need to turn myself in, because I don't want the government wasting money looking for me.") - which isn't exactly a reliable source (a reader who makes a statement about a policy with no evidence whatsoever and no credentials to support making an original statement; it'd be like me saying "According to the government - contributing to Conservapedia is now terrorism", and then the news source quoting me as saying that).--[[User:Cupoftea|Cupoftea]] 21:47, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

:We can be pretty safe in assuming that the source (which is WorldNetDaily) wouldn't publish an inaccurate quote without making note of the inaccuracy; by publishing the quote and not making any such note, the WND is taking responsibility for the content - thus there is a reliable source to support the statement.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 21:50, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
::Oh, smart one, so we can be pretty sure that their accurate even though we can't find a source to confirm it? Great. I'd prefer if an editor who wasn't until recently on parol commented on this.--[[User:Cupoftea|Cupoftea]] 21:54, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Ok, ''smarter one'', here's where the story broke [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/], and here's the report itself [http://88.80.13.160.nyud.net/leak/us-dhs-right-wing-extremism-2009.pdf]. You can read it while you're removed from the site for a while, and your task will be to identify every ''left wing'' activist or terror group in this document. Just to be fair. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:04, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
::::Dude -read the articles on your own site - one says that a document on LEFT-WING groups was released PRIOR to this document. If I am the smarter one, you, sir, are the brightest bulb in the shed. And neither of those pages mention Tea parties, and the report doesn't mention taxes.--[[User:Cupoftea|Cupoftea]] 22:17, 15 April 2009 (EDT)

*[[Red Herring]] argument, CupOTea, sorry. Don't come here and argue a silly argument, cherry picking the source you want to make your point. That's anti-intellectual. Google and see that far and away, it is the radical left, and the Obama Administration, now directing Homeland Security, that is making targets out of anyone who disagrees with Obama's socialist agenda, up to and including the Vets, returning home from Iraq service, are most likely to become Domestic Terrorists! Shame on you and your liberal deceit. This isn't a courtroom, (and we are not on trial, nor do we have to prove anything we say) and you are not a real lawyer, just a wiki one. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:27, 15 April 2009 (EDT)
:Perhaps this is old news and a bit anecdotal, but I do recall noticing an unusually large State Police presence at the tea party I went to in Raleigh last week. Just a thought. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 16:44, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

::Where did the demonstration take place? Not the city, the location? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:57, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
:::It was in the courtyard behind the General Assembly; there weren't that many people left when I got there so that's why I thought the police presence was unusual. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 22:34, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Well that explains it, then. That kind of speculation is what gets all sorts of weird rumors going. Anything taking place at any state Capitol, on the grounds, is under the jurisdiction of whatever State Police. It's actually written into law, in all states. Anything owned or leased by a state is technically under their jurisdiction. If there seemed to be too many state police officers there, it might well be due to their sympathizing with the demonstration, and wanting to take part, but having to be on duty. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:46, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

== Possible News ==

It's less breaking news and more of an interesting observation. Wow, the wackiness of the media is spilling over in all directions it seems. I had noticed this happening off and on but reading this article kind of condensed it into a single "Ahh...that's kinda off". [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21307.html Somehow, Sarah Palin has apparently become the next Coke product]. Organizations wanting cash are touting the generic Palin brand left and right! (Did you get the pun? Left and Right! I'm hilarious, I know.) She's gonna have to copyright her own name soon. Anyway, newsworthy? I don't know. Interesting sign of the times? Yep!--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 09:46, 16 April 2009 (EDT)
:I didn't add it to the Main page, but I did add it [[Wikiproject:News_by_Subject#Sarah_Palin|here]]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 11:08, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Ahh, and now I know where to post such things in the future. Thank you.--[[User:NicholasT|NicholasT]] 13:43, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

== Stem Cell News Item ==

Just a clarification on the news item: it was only Type I diabetics (the one that's possibly autoimmune) that were included in this trial (also, now all were cured). Regardless of those small technicalities, that is incredible news! --[[User:JLauttamus|Jeffrey W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|Discussion]] 16:07, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

== Strikeout humor ==

The "Barney <s>Fife's</s> Frank" and "President <s>Carter</s> Obama" bits are funny, but I don't think they are appropriate on Conservapedia. [[User:Jinxmchue|jinxmchue]] 19:20, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

*Well it is. I am surprised at you, Jinx! Liberals are the ones without any sense of humor usually! :P --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:58, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:: News items should be punchy and provocative. I don't see anything categorically wrong about occasional strikeout humor. As TK suggests, a sense of humor is worth preserving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:58, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks, Andy.....and come on everyone....does anyone watch a clip of Barney Frank and NOT think of old, bumbling, Deputy Barney Fife from the old Andy Griffith show? I perceive a double standard, as I think Andy pointed out elsewhere...you can make fun of conservatives, but not liberals. Well I say who says? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 00:08, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

I just think the humor of their words and actions speaks for itself without the need for adding anything. *shrug* [[User:Jinxmchue|jinxmchue]] 13:57, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

: Fair enough. Your point is well taken for the future. There's always room for improvement!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:13, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== "Culture of death" news item needs direct link ==

The story on Jill Stanek's website is moving down the main page there. The link should be changed to this: [http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/04/wikipedia_delet.html "http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2009/04/wikipedia_delet.html"]. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 10:30, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
:Thank you. I have changed the link and added the deletion log entry from WP. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 11:03, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

== UN to dismantle CIA - begining of World Government? ==

I knew it! We need to get a news item about this. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/21/AR2009042103742.html?hpid=topnews 
And of course, H. Obama is just laying down and letting it happen! 
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKTRE53K63020090422 
Those are the only articles I saw on google news, I'm still looking. 
It's all from these OPEC countries- especially the Saudis- controlling the member nations to send the UN to attack the US to protect their friends- the terrorists. If I gambled, I stake it all on that.

[[User:JoeKinch|JoeKinch]] 01:24, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
Edit: sorry, forgot sig.

*Well, I miss the connection between doing away with central intelligence and world government, but let me say the left has to have a devil, Bush is it, and they need to vent. Would President Bush be subject to arrest traveling abroad? No. For the simple reason retaliation would be the pay back. Right now any tin-horn dictator loved by the liberals, is allowed to enter the United States unmolested to attend U.N. sessions, etc. Open that Pandora's Box, and the hounds would be loosed. Besides, without our financial support, no country or group of them, has the means to allow those corrupt United Nations officials to live high on the hog like they do. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:39, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

**But don't you see? The UN is trying to weaken or control the CIA, directly working against the US' ability to defend ourselves (let alone the world) independently. They want to replace the US as the global authority. Why else do you think there where so many international donors to the H. Obama Campaign? The answer is so that they needed a weak president who would not protect the people who do the essential work of terrorism-fighting.
I see what you mean about the money needs of the UN, but let's not forget the wealth that the Chinese and Saudi are always draining from us. Either one of these countries could be the real power behind this attack, in my opinion.
[[User:JoeKinch|JoeKinch]] 13:45, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== MSNBC Obama Poll ==

Dare I suggest we give Obama a 'D' instead? My reasoning for this is twofold: First, the poll is already heavily skewed towards the 'F' grade (42%), and second, let's be honest, the worst is yet to come. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 13:36, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== Miss California and the other victims of anti-Prop 8 activists ==

It might be good to note that Miss California is only the latest victim of the widespread backlash against people who supported Proposition 8. Queers (They like being called that, don't they? Or is it only okay when they call themselves that?) and their supporters lost at the polls, so now they are targeting anyone and everyone they can with these vicious, dehumanizing, intolerant, bigoted attacks. Makes me almost wonder if Mr. Hilton might have guessed or known what her answer was going to be before he asked the question. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 13:39, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

*And the worst part is that those liberals call everybody else intolerant, bigoted, and dehumanizing, WHILE doing it![[User:JoeKinch|JoeKinch]] 14:11, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

== More dishonesty about the Blair memo... from the New York Times no less! ==

Just another typical day for the "open and honest" Obama Administration: [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22blair.html?_r=3&hp Link]

<blockquote>
Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information '''was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media''' last Thursday. '''Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics''' after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
</blockquote>

Emphasis added. Apparently according to Obama's Newspeak, "open" means "dissembling" and "honest" means "dishonest." [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 14:23, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

*I believe the piece I added to the Main Page on this matter, says just that. Right? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:25, 22 April 2009 (EDT)
::It doesn't say that the information was consciously deleted from the memo released to the media. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 08:53, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

:::The truth is often properly inferred, and people rarely admit intentional wrongdoing. In many criminal trials the defendant never testifies, and wrongful intent is properly inferred from the evidence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:10, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

==Toomey/Specter==
I for one am happy and support Toomey 100%. But judging by the last election cycle in Pa., Specter will be re-elected. That generational theft he voted for will line the pockets of Pa. special interests, who will be more than glad to help fund him in '10. Then you have the biggest jerk of a politician in Murtha. He calls his constituents racists, then rednecks and Pa. residents re-elect him. Then you have Obama calling Pa. residents bitter, clinging to guns and bibles and they elect him, go figure. Does Toomey have a realistic shot? I hope so.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:36, 23 April 2009 (EDT)

== Featured Article ==

The featured article [[Prime Number]]s - includes an inadequate pic for the [[Sieve of Eratosthenes]]. I described this problem at the talk page of the article, [[Talk:Prime Number]]s, and at the talk page of the pic, [[File talk:Prime number.gif]].
Could one of the math buffs replace this
[[Image:Prime number.gif]]

by this:

{{User:ClementB/SieveOfErathosthenes}}

or this:

{{User:ClementB/SieveOfEratosthenes}}

Thanks, [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 16:49, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

: Yours are more complete, but I don't see a big difference in terms of learning. I'm reluctant to rely on your user page for the link, as user pages can often disappear by virtue of a [[liberal]] [[Parthian Shot]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:02, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
::The biggest difference in terms of learning is perhaps that my version is correct, while the other pic is wrong: look at the number ''13'' in the [[:Image:Prime number.gif]] - it is colored green, indicating that it is divisible by ''3''.
::I don't expect you to link to my user-page, copy&past will do. [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 18:08, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
:::Aschalfly, the mere fact that in the picture that is in the "featured article" suggests that the number 13 is (evenly) divisible by the number three should make you want to change said picture to '''''something else'''''. The ''least'' we can do is eliminate the incorrect picture.
:::As for ''"as user pages can often disappear by virtue of a [[liberal]] [[Parthian Shot]]"'', well, if your administrators didn't burn the field and salt the soil after long term and (sometimes) valuable contributors have said their peace and moved to less hostile climes maybe something could be salvaged for use in your little encyclopedia.
:::For Pete's sake, stop fighting all these niggling little details! You needn't win EVERY battle to win the war! There was a "philosopher" who opined, "Never defend, always attack," and that carried him through his endeavors though he had many detractors and naysayers besieging him. Please, I beg of you, do not continue this siege mentality that only further invites vandals and ensconces you in an ever dwindling editor pool.[[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:12, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::: Margery, you and Clement are right. Sometimes it takes strong words like yours to wake someone up. Thank you so much for your "tough love."

:::: I've unprotected [[Prime Numbers]] for you or Clement to fix it as soon as possible. I know you'll do first-class work in improving it. Thank you and I look forward to learning from your edits.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:37, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: I changed the article - [[User:MargeryCampbell]] won't be able to do so any more (''tough love'', indeed). Please remember for other occasions: Sometimes I may sound ''petulant'', but this is because I care about the areas I'm qualified to talk about [[User:ClementB|Clement ♗]] 12:57, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== 98,000 readers a month ==

Who reads us? see [http://www.quantcast.com/conservapedia.com Quantcast audience profile for Conservapedia] [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 18:04, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:Wow. That's fascinating. Note how Conservapedia attracts a '''more educated''' audience than Wikipedia does, and nearly as many monthly visitors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:07, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::Are you sure about that "nearly as many monthly visitors" as Wikipedia stat Andy? I would expect Wikipedia to have many times as many visits, based on the higher rate of editing going on there. [[User:Ferret|-- Ferret]] [[User talk:Ferret|Nice old chat]] 21:36, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::: My statement about "nearly as many monthly visitors" was based on comparing conservapedia.com to wikipedia.com on the quantcast site, which would most reflect the direct visits using URLs. Evidently quantcast treats wikipedia.org differently, but the .org site is more likely to reflect referrals from Google, perhaps due to algorithms giving Wikipedia preferences unrelated to visitor interest.

::: No problem; the basic conclusion about Conservapedia attracting the "more educated" is still true.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:38, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

::::That's not really all that surprising when you think about it. Wikipedia is popular mainly because it's popular. Thus, it takes only the most superficial sort of knowledge to go there. On the other hand, Conservapedia doesn't benefit from the same kind of media love-affair, and as such, it takes a certain amount of earnest seeking and research to find your way here.
::::It's a little like McDonald's versus the little four-star restaurant tucked away in a quiet neighborhood. Many, many more people will go to McDonald's...but the people with more educated palates will inevitably find their way to the quality restaurant. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 14:57, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::::: The analogy to McDonald's and a four-star restaurant is a good one, but doesn't go far enough. Wikipedia ''tries'' to be like McDonald's or worse, by encouraging or allowing gossip, smears, obscenity, anonymous vandalism, liberal bias, etc. And people who use Wikipedia are no better off than those who eat a daily diet of greasy french fries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:23, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

I skewered a liberal reporter friend of mine with a similar restaurant analogy. It was his analogy, discussing some supposedly high-brow magazines, all liberal of course. He was very eager when I applied it to online sites.......right up until I added CP to the list! Of course that wasn't the same thing he cried! His point (and mine) was that sites such as Conservapedia, one would need to weight the numbers. I would say each person who finds CP through the liberal clutter of the Web, and the huge placement biases of the search engines, and the never-ending liberal vandalism/trolling, should be given a factor of ten weight. No wonder our users have greater intelligence, they need it to fight their way through! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:22, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

: The nice thing about logic is that it is not a popularity contest. Those who seek the truth are special people who reap special benefits for themselves and for all those to whom they communicate the truth.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:22, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

== Le Pont d'Argenteuil. ==

[[File:Claude Monet Le Pont dArgenteuil.jpg|thumb|200px]]

Some files can not be resized. Any help? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 21:31, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

: I tried adding "200px", but that didn't help. Anyone else know?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:48, 25 April 2009 (EDT)
::I had a similar problem with a file a while ago. Try renaming it without the ' and upload again. The software doesn't seem to like non alpha characters. (& is another that causes problems). Hope that helps. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]][[User talk:JessicaT|''nandeyanen?'']] 21:54, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Joaquín, my friend, what is it exactly, that you are wanting to do? You can re-size it yourself, than upload a new version, with same name, otherwise delete old one completely and then add a new one. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:14, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

::::Yes, Jessica, Joaquín and Andy, the new update to wikimedia doesn't seem to like thumbnails much, and is every so often refusing to show them. Webmaster is aware of the problem, though. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:22, 25 April 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Thank you to all of you, fortunately JessicaT solved the problem. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 11:00, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

== Obama apologizes for Air Force One alternate buzzing of NYC ==

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/27/white-house-apologizes-nyc-flyover/ White House apologizes for NYC flyover]

<blockquote>
President Obama's White House was forced to issue an apology Monday after a photo opportunity gone badly wrong — an Air Force 747 plane did a low flyover over Lower Manhattan, prompting terrified citizens to flee from their offices and high-profile accusations of government insensitivity in the post 9/11 era.

White House Military Office Director Louis Caldera issued a brief statement saying he was too blame.

"Last week, I approved a mission over New York. I take responsibility for that decision," he said. "While federal authorities took the proper steps to notify state and local authorities in New York and New Jersey, its clear that the mission created confusion and disruption. I apologize and take responsibility for any distress that flight caused."

The panic started Monday morning when a backup 747 known as Air Force One when the president is aboard flew by Lower Manhattan with a U.S. fighter jet closely following, rattling windows and causing some limited evacuations.

Over the course of a half-hour starting at 10 a.m, the plane flew low over the city and near the Statue of Liberty.

The late afternoon statement came as New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — an Obama ally so far — said he was outraged.
</blockquote>
This, my friends, is what America looks like when there's a true idiot in the Oval Office. Since this was the president's plane, the buck simply cannot stop with Caldera. You know Obama had to make final approval for this brainless, insensitive stunt. Here's video of the panicked, terrified reaction of New Yorkers (possibly some language, but it's difficult to tell for sure):

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn0tMMYEkQU Air Force One Flyby Of Goldman Sachs Tower]

Stupidest. Administration. Ever. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 19:22, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

* Was it stupidity? Or was is a carefully crafted plan that backfired? I think he wanted to make a scare and drum up popularity; he wanted to make something akin to 9/11 as if to remind the US to be beholden to him. We're just lucky it backfired. [[User:JoeKinch|JoeKinch]] 11:43, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

A quibble regarding the news item: It says, "yesterday (Obama's) Air Force One, escorted by a U.S. fighter jet...". That implies the president was aboard at the time, which he was not.--[[User:KellyB|KellyB]] 15:01, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

:Here's a thought: perhaps a staunch Conservapedian with Photoshop skills could put together a nice picture of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty and we could send it to the White House...with a comparison of how much OUR picture cost taxpayers, how much THEIRS cost taxpayers, and perhaps a note pointing out that ours didn't cause panic.
:Still, it could've been so much worse. I think the President should thank his lucky stars that apparently, nobody was hurt during the panic. They could've been. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 16:23, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

::Yeah, no kidding. That would've been the economically and environmentally conscientious thing to do. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:19, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:Well, sort of. It's one of two official aircraft that the president uses. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinx McHue]] 00:19, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

I would think to give the man some credit. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/29/white-house-calls-new-york-city-flyover-stupid/ WH and President comment on fly-over]. It seems that he wasn't informed of the situation, at all. Afterwords, he started an investigation into why they did this, instead of using photoshop. Also, in retraction to KellyB's statement, fighter jet escort is S.O.P. for all unscheduled flights in a restricted area, not just for VIP visits.

I can also understand why they wouldn't want to use CS3 for the picture. For evidence, look at [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518474,00.html Hannity's Photos] in this article. Many times, the light is contradictory, or the depth is so skewed it's hard to tell what is going on in the photo. I say they should have used other means to get the photo, but it may be wise not to let Fox near the editing tools -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 10:42, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

== Craig's List Killer ==

Does anyone else thing we should include this on the front page as an example of Massachusetts' Liberal style, look what kind of human beings Massachusetts produces! --[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:42, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

*Perhaps, in retrospect, you will find your statement inappropriate, as well as lacking the use of a spell-checker? Geographical location doesn't produce wrong and aberrant behavior. When all is said and done, I am fairly certain we will see that the person is a sociopath for many of the usual reasons: growing up lacking family/moral values, too much unattended computer use, lots of television watching (South Park and MTV garbage) and lack of interaction with appropriate adult role models. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 23:37, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

:: My apologies for the poor spelling! Sorry if my statement was unclear TK. What I was trying to say was that Massachusetts’ liberal culture which downplays God and Christianity, family values and morals, creates people like the Craig’s List killer. Liberal culture encourages and promotes the behavior of people like the craigslist killer. I was not implying that the actually physical place caused his actions rather that the culture of the place caused them.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 21:10, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Well the Lord has given us free choice. What one chooses, what one refuses to open their eyes to, is indeed our responsibility. I don't think Massachusetts is more liberal than California or New York, actually. Your point, I understand, and agree with you, insofar as it is a by-product of the general lessening of moral standards, this creeping multiculturalism and relativism of American society in general. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:30, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
::::Actually, the suspect wasn't even from Massachusetts. he had only lived there for the two years of being in medical school. he didn't even do his undergrad there. [[User:RPreston|RPreston]] 10:04, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== Christianity wasn't responsible for everything. ==

In response to the MP article about Dinesh D'Souza .. DeanS tells us that Christianity was responsible for equality and liberty. If my memory serves me right, it was supposed to be Jove's child who gave us those things, not Jehovah's.--[[User:JZim|सफ़ेद-बाघ]] 23:44, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

== Jon Stewart video ==

The linked video is not a video of Stewart calling Truman a war criminal. It is a video of Stewart saying that calling Truman a war criminal was "dumb" and "stupid, in fact" and that he does ''not'' believe Truman was a war criminal because dropping the atomic bomb was a complicated decision. In other words, it totally contradicts the assertion that he has "no question" about Truman being a war cirminal.

There is a video of the original interview, where Stewart ''did'' call Truman a war criminal, on the Comedy Central site. You could link to that instead, but it contains strong language, so I'm not sure what should be done. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 18:43, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
:Update: On Thursday he apologized and admitted saying that was stupid. [http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225918&title=Harry-Truman-Was-Not-a-War-Criminal video] [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 15:06, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

::Well, you are "half-right", DLerner. While Stewart later offered a lame apology, wherein he actually said he knew he was wrong when he said it, he also said Truman was insane, suffering from temporary insanity when he ordered the bombings. Also, he made the Truman remark to justify his position that George Bush was guilty of War Crimes. To my knowledge he has yet to apologize to Bush....--[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:08, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Everyone knows about the Japanese war crimes of the Chinese but does that really justify a nuclear attack on 2 civilian cities? Or incidents such as the Dresdan bombings? Somehow i think if it was the other way around the term would probably be used. ([[User:MSmith2|MSmith2]] 11:54, 4 May 2009 (EDT))

::::Liberal crackpot talking points. More Japanese civilians were killed by by firebombing their cities than by atom bombs. If we didn't drop the bombs, an invasion of japan would have killed more civilians than the atoms bombs plus thousands of more Americans. Jon Stewart and all liberals are fools. Politically correct means political dead heads. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 12:29, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

*What a silly, self-indulgent statement, MSmith2. The breadth of ignorance displayed, and of course the revisionist thinking, is pretty typical unfortunately, of many of today's Euro socialists. War Crimes of the Chinese? Justification? Do you know anything of war, and especially World War II, aside from what moronic pacifist professors have told you? You signed up here to make that trolling post? ''The Allies quite simply saved the entire world.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:41, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

::All MSmith2 did was ask a legitimate moral question, the exact kind of question I'm sure Truman had to grapple with when he ultimately made that difficult (and it was difficult) decision. He even acknowledged the nasty war crimes inflicted by the Japanese against the Chinese. In return, you flipped out, ridiculing him, calling him a "revisionist" and a "Euro socialist" (odd to bring up socialism, because MSmith2 said nothing about his economic views). In fact, it seems like every time someone expresses a dissenting view, you do this. I cannot imagine that it stimulates discussion or invites editors to contribute further. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:::While the edit is a better one, it still puts words into Stewart's mouth by claiming that he called Truman "insane", which is stretching the truth at best. What he stated was that "war is, by definition, temporary insanity" and thus people who make tough decisions during the stress of war don't have to face the same accountability as the rest of us do. This is not the same as calling Truman crazy.

:::For that matter, as long as we're getting at people for not apologizing for some things, maybe the front page editors should apologize for falsely claiming that Jon Stewart has '''no question''' about Truman being a war criminal, only to link to a video where he retracted that very claim (clearly he did have '''some question''' about it). [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)
::::I'll simply note that a number of Truman's highest advisors and other high-ranking military officers, including Eisenhower, disagreed that the bombing was necessary or would have saved lives. Were they right? I don't know, but there's no reason to think that a hard judgment like that had a clear, obvious answer. Truman certainly thought it was a tough call. The liberals are going too far when they call it a "war crime", thought, for exactly the same reason. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 15:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

::::*Where you go wrong, TaKess (aside from taking your talking points from that vandal site), is in thinking we want liberal contributions that spin, as you clearly have. We are a Conservative and Christian friendly encyclopedia. By definition we do not want, and will reject, anti Conservative and Christian edits. The original link that you are talking about was indeed not the original Stewart statement, but I changed it. His apology wasn't specific and rather self-serving after the firestorm erupted criticizing him. As for Truman's advisor's, you use the tired deceit of the half-truth. Who among Truman's advisers favored using the bomb? Who among those you mentioned, were merely against it at first glance, and which ones actually favored its use, after weighing the pros and cons? MSmith2 didn't acknowledge the massive War Crimes of the Japanese, he only mentioned China. What about Korea? The Philippines? It is revisionist thinking to second-guess history, and apply the silly contemporary thinking of those who have never actually faced real life or death situations, to decisions made under those circumstances. And please do not make posts out of order, inserting them into prior conversations. Simply note what you are answering. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:29, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

I was talking about Japanese war crimes inflicted on the Chinese, because you bought it up. But them committing a lot of horrific war crimes does not mean that dropping to their level and bombing civilians is right. Was a nuclear bomb needed to be dropped on a major city to make them surrender? I doubt it. It could have been dropped on a millitary target or anywhere really as proof. I think its well known that infact the Emperor of Japan was ready to surrender, but it was the millitary generals who wanted to stay in the war. Jpatt, your point regarding firebombing is very strange. Yes many civilians were killed by this too so somehow your reasoning is that because nuclear bombs killed less it was an acceptable course of action? It seemed to me like more of a show of power to the Russians and an act of vengeance than actually a necessary millitary action. The show of atomic power alone would have been enough alone without the deaths of so many people. Its personal opinion though if you think it was justified thats ok, its just personal interpretation of the situation. It wasn't a war crime because thats a legal term and i don't believe it was illegal, but the morality of it can certainly be debated.

Also regarding the officers Eisenhower i'm pretty sure regretted it always afterwards and said it was a mistake, not merely against it at a first glance. I'm not sure about other officiers. ([[User:MSmith2|MSmith2]] 19:01, 6 May 2009 (EDT))

*More obfuscating/trolling the issue? This was about Stewart and his moronic statement, not a debate about U.S. foreign policy, or war policy. As you say above, "I doubt it". You, as in someone living sixty years past and completely unknowing about what real life and death struggle is about, unlike those living at the time, actually faced with real (rather than academic) life or death decisions.

*In Karl Compton's ''"If the Atomic Bomb Had Not Been Used,"'' he states, "The atomic bomb introduced a dramatic new element into the situation, which strengthened the hands of those [Japanese government officials] who sought peace and provided face-saving argument for those who had hitherto advocated continued war." Why had some Japanese officials continued to support the war even after the atomic bomb had been dropped? What was Emperor Hirohito's role in the surrender process? Why was Hirohito not forced to abdicate as promised by the Potsdam Declaration? All good questions, but not actually germain to the news items focus on Stewart's knee-jerk liberalism. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:27, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:Now that we have established that a) liberals exist and b) they have liberal views, can we move on to more important issues such as the state of the economy or the stability (or lack thereof) of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan?--[[User:JZim|सफ़ेद-बाघ]] 20:47, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

::Several things, TK.
::I have no idea what "that vandal site" is, so I cannot possibly be getting my talking points from it. As I have stated repeatedly (and as you seem not to believe), dropping the bomb ''was a difficult decision''. The view that it should not have been dropped is a view that Truman himself grappled with, and it was a respectable view which many of his advisers held. (Do you want a list?) It is not "liberal revisionism" or "Euro socialism." Trying to link it to socialism, on the other hand, ''is'' revisionism.
::Stewart's apology was far less "self-serving" than almost any apology I've ever seen in the public sphere. I've never seen a politician (Republican or Democrat) or journalist flat-out admit that what they said was "stupid" and "dumb" and wrong.
::Is MSmith2 required to provide a ''list'' of war crimes committed by the Japanese before he's allowed to engage in this discussion? Maybe we should also require a list of unwholesome things the Allies did or supported, like granting amnesty to the [[Unit 731]] experimenters in exchange for their (useless) medical "data". Or, better yet, acknowledge that "the other side did worse things!" is not a relevant or morally useful argument to bring up. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wrong, it doesn't matter what the Japanese did to deserve it: one atrocity cannot be repaid with another, so I have no idea why you continue to bring that up except as a far-fetched way to smear the opposition. [[User:TaKess|TaKess]] 21:08, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

:::*Yes, of course, TaKess, of course you have no idea. Of course. I invite you to make substantive contributions here, off the talk pages. Your capacity for finding excuses for all liberals, and never conservatives, is telling. I hear, very faintly, off in the distance, a bell tolling, TaKess...spend more of your time here contributing positively, rather than arguing what you, or anyone like-minded, can possibly justify or call into question. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:27, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

== Olbermann: "Torture is bad! Unless you use it on conservatives." ==

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/28/hannity-waterboard-offer-_n_192578.html]

Keith Olbermann is mighty quick to volunteer to administer a technique he calls "torture," isn't he?

So: Sean Hannity doesn't think waterboarding is torture. Sean Hannity doesn't think it's really all that bad, and thinks it should be used. Sean Hannity is willing to undergo waterboarding to prove his point.

Sean Hannity is consistent.

Keith Olbermann thinks waterboarding is torture. Keith Olbermann thinks waterboarding is horrible, and thinks it should never be used. Keith Olbermann is willing to PERFORM waterboarding to prove his point.

Keith Olbermann is liberal.

--[[User:BenP|BenP]] 12:46, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

Sorry, but Hannity said he was willing to be waterboarded for charity. All Olbermann did was call his bluff, and pledged $1,000 '''a second''' for every second Hannity endures, and he will '''double''' that when/if Hannity admits waterboarding is torture. Check your facts. Watch the videos. [[User:DLerner|DLerner]] 15:09, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

:...which conflicts with what I said how? Hannity doesn't consider waterboarding torture, and to prove it, he's willing to undergo the process himself. That's consistent, whether you agree with him or not. Olbermann insists that it IS torture, that we shouldn't use it, and then offered to personally administer it to Hannity. That's hypocritical, regardless of whether he thinks Hannity is bluffing or not. --[[User:BenP|BenP]] 16:44, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

::Hannity "says" that he doesn't think waterboarding is torture and "says" that he will undergo it but he hasn't and he hasn't responded to Olbermann's offer. Olbermann doesn't particularly want Hannity to suffer and didn't call for Hannity or anyone else in partcular to submit to waterboarding. Hannity made the offer to do it. Olbermann just wants him to follow through because he assumes that Hannity will discover that waterboarding is torture and whether Hannity admits it afterwards or not, Hannity's experience will be part of the public record for anyone to see (and if they see it, they will have to conclude that Hannity suffered through a torturous experience). Get it now? [[User:MikeAndrews|MikeAndrews]] 17:21, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Sure. Olbermann objects to waterboarding, but he's willing to use it to make a political point. I wonder: if someone said "Being beaten with a baseball bat is no big deal, I'd do it for charity," would Olbermann volunteer to beat him with a baseball bat? Would he follow through? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:54, 8 May 2009 (EDT)

== Minor proposed change to left toolbar ==

Given that not all images are in the "All images" category, I would propose that we simply link to [[Special:AllPages/File:]] and change the wording to be "All files" (or keep the "All images", since I believe all (or mostly all) of our files are images). I don't have a strong opinion on the issue, but I think do think the change would make sense.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:29, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

:Actually one downside to doing this would be that you wouldn't see previews of the images, and it ''might'' be slightly harder to navigate. I would stand by the proposal, but again, not a huge deal.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 15:31, 2 May 2009 (EDT)

== Jeb Bush, et.al ==

While no one should live in the past, especially the Republican Party, I think Jeb Bush is misinterpreting the tea leafs and is missing what is the real problem; ''Republicans lost the voter's trust because they turned their back on the principles of Ronald Reagan, not because they were living in the Reagan past.'' Jeb's brother, George, lost his way, mainly because he was, like Lyndon Johnson, consumed with the important task of keeping the country safe, and getting bogged down with the War on Terror, attending to details better left to the military, and in seeking the Democrats support, the support of the entire Congress, he allowed spending of such a huge magnitude, and ignored needed oversight of the financial sector. Similarly, Johnson (no slouch in mastering politics) did the same, lost the broad picture and concentrated on the too narrow conduct of the Vietnam War, to the point where he lost his own party's support. Brian Summers is absolutely correct. While the Republican Party needs to reach out to its base, more importantly it needs to acknowledge to the voters it went off the tracks, and does indeed stand for exactly those principles Reagan is known for. Jack Kemp literally dragged Ronald Reagan to supply-side economics, when Reagan had never made it an issue or embraced it. It was a popular idea with the voters, and produced a robust economy. For anyone to ignore that Ronald Reagan did all that he did with a popular, optimistic message of America being the last, best hope for the world is idiocy. Ronald Reagan was always the personification of optimism in America's bright and ordained future, and the eventual freedom of those enslaved throughout the world! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 14:20, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

: Overall, Americans are more conservative today than when Reagan was president. The course of history is a slow but steady movement to the right, as logic and the lessons of history have their positive effects. If Jeb Bush means the GOP needs to get beyond Reagan by moving forward-right, then he'd be correct!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:25, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

::I agree with TK on two big points. First, conservatives must continue to fight for fiscal responsibility. We must win back the libertarian-leaning moderates to regain political control and expand the base of the Republican party. Second, I think optimism is something Bush was not able to convey after 9/11. People don't want to be afraid of terrorists, we want to know how to fight back! And thanks to this site, we can do just that by winning the War of Ideas. God Bless. [[User:JeffC|JeffC]] 19:04, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Agreed, JeffC. Is there doubt in anyone's mind that had Reagan been President on 9/11 how swift and devistating his response would have been? I hardly think we would have needed an expeditionary force of hundreds of thousands to oust Sadam, or find Bin Laden. Given all the treasure spent on finding one moron, why haven't we offered a 1 or even $5 Billion reward for him? Surely at that level more than one committed Islamo-Terrorist would have sold him out! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 19:11, 4 May 2009 (EDT)

::::I think Jeb Bush's credentials are beyond dispute. He just needs to mind his language a bit. [[User:Jdixon|Jdixon]] 10:32, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

==Minor grammar issue==
President Obama has said he end the 16-year-old military ban on homosexuals 
would sound nicer with a "will" in there [[User:Psl1089|Psl1089]] 15:35, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

==Another minor grammar issue==
''The future of Conservapedia's evolution article appears to be very bullish! A creationist just unexpectedly told Conservapedia that he is going to inform tens of thousands of people about the Conservapedia evolution article! A well known creationist is going to email 600 fellow creationist about the Conservapedia evolution article. Evolutionists, you can run from Conservapedia's evolution article, but you cannot hide! Creationists of the world, spread the news about Conservapedia's evolution article far and wide and quickly! Faster, stronger, higher!'' 
This should read "600 fellow creationist'''s'''". It might also read a bit more clearly if it said "A'''nother''' well known creationist", assuming that the item refers to two different creationists. Is there a reason we are not naming these people? --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:46, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

''"'NY Times' Chairman Asked About Spiked Obama-ACORN Story," claims he didn't know about it.[19]'' 
I think there is an extra single quote mark at the beginning. (The single quote after "Times" is to indicate that "Times" is possessive - the Times' Chairman - and thus it doesn't need a matching one at the beginning.) In addition, the comma should be a semi-colon. Thus it should read 
'''"[[NY Times]]' Chairman Asked About Spiked [[Obama]]-[[ACORN]] Story;"''' claims he didn't know about it.[http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/06/top_stories/doc4a0152a4bdad0342302497.txt]

== Rush ==

Do we have access to a picture where Rush doesn't look like the bad guy out of a Chuck Norris movie? I know that black is slimming and he is concerned about his weight, but we should just do a head shot rather than making him look like a creep. --[[User:MrEmerson|MrEmerson]] 01:25, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

*I so agree! However the photo was given for us to use, and done by his producer. Since he's the most listened to talk-radio personality in the world, they must be doing something right, I guess. Wikimedia's pickings are blurry, so I used that one. If you can find a better one, just let me know! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:47, 7 May 2009 (EDT)

== Merging Content ==

The article on the Main Page about the merger of Mainstream Media and Blogs may be an example of 'too little, too late' fact reporting. It's been known for a while that news stations take from online sources. MSNBC has been using Huffington Post for a while, CNN uses whatever it can get it's hands on, and Fox News uses Politico.com whenever it can.

Then again, let's take a look at the 'Fox Nation', in which many reporters from Fox use openly. Yes, the Daily Kos revels in it's liberal slant, but the conservative tone of Fox Nation is almost the same thing, just inside Rupert Murdoch's circle of businesses instead of outside [like Daily Kos].

It doesn't make it any better, however. Those who work in the news must remain neutral to ensure factual reporting. However, let us remember we are dealing with cable channels, looking for ratings. Factual reporting is up to the consumer these days, sadly. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:14, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

*You compare the "Fox Nation", which is dedicated to those who believe in the American Dream, to hate sites like Kos? The same Daily Kos who allowed content from their bloggers like the hope that [[Nancy Reagan]] would die from her fall last year, because of the "crimes" of her husband? The same Kos who regularly allowed the lowest, most vile hate speech against George Bush? Do you find the same type of [[hate]] content on Fox Nation, [[National Review]] or [[Conservapedia]]? How come ''major'' studies done by the Kennedy School and Harvard, along with several other prominent organizations continually show Fox News to actually be more balanced than the other cabelers and the [[MSM]]? I detect liberal relativism at work here. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:30, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm not saying that one is better than the other, or that the Fox Nation is a 'hate site' with a conservative view. However, both are the same 'type' of site, if you will. Which is to say both are sites that tend to 'pander' to a base with their news. Of course, the Daily Kos with articles like [http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/10/729966/-PollWorst-VP-in-History-endorses-Fat-drug-addict-over-former-Chair-of-the-JCS Poll & Worst VP in History endorses Fat drug addict over former Chair of the JCS] is insane, but I think no more insane than [http://www.observer.com/2009/media/msnbc-place-changemakers-big-re-brand-obama-network MSNBC, The Place for ... Changemakers! Big Re-Brand as 'Obama Network'].

::Which brings me back to my point. Both sides of the spectrum lean heavily on these clearly biased resources with no regard to their objectivity. It tarnishes their image and jeopardizes their journalistic integrity, making them harder to trust and in turn harder to believe.

::One last thing to point out is that Fox forums are filled with the same hate and unbelievable slander that the Kos is attributed to. For an example, go to 'opinion' on [http://www.foxnews.com Fox News], and check some of the posts. There is just as much vitrol in the people in these places as there is at the Daily Kos. But they allow it because it is an opinion, regardless of how insane that opinion really is. I don't have a problem with opinions, I have a problem with them being used as 'news'. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 19:04, 10 May 2009 (EDT)

::You have to be very careful about posts on such sites. A great deal of such "hate and unbelievable slander" comes from liberals pretending to be conservatives...or, more precisely, pretending to be a demonized and exaggerated stereotype of conservatives. Conservatives can and will condemn immoral behavior, or behavior that violates their principles, in strong terms. Generally, though, when you see someone who claims to be a conservative saying something truly vile, it's a liberal behind the keyboard. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:43, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I agree, Benp, the truth of that is demonstrated here weekly, and Cody is flat out a liar, about the content at "Fox Nation". Here he is once again using liberal relativism to excuse one place, while attacking another. It won't work here, CodyH. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:31, 11 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Alright, first I would wish to address TK on something I find disturbing. You say that I am a liar, and accuse me of using 'liberal relativism' to excuse one and demean the other. What I said, up above, is that both sides are currently taking an untenable approach to news. Both Sides. How, if I may ask, is it liberal relativism to say that the Daily Kos is insane? How did you come to that conclusion when I said that both sides [Note, liberals as well as conservatives] take from far-wing internet sites and hurt their objectivity? I am not here to 'push' a liberal agenda. I simply gave my opinion on a subject that I noted on the front page. My Opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

::::As for the remark "Generally, though, when you see someone who claims to be a conservative saying something truly vile, it's a liberal behind the keyboard" as stated by Benp, I ask to present proof. It should not matter if it is a liberal or conservative behind the keyboard at any rate, but why do you suppose that only a liberal masquerading as a conservative can make rude remarks as a conservative? Can we not agree that no matter the political bent, there are people out there who simply wish to spread slander and hate speech? I'm not saying that liberals never do so, because they do. But to say conservatives never do so falls into the same 'no true scotsman' argument, and is easily discredited.

::::I have never disguised my dislike for neo-political thinking, and as I stated above it is my opinion that neo-cons and neo-libs, in their unending war with one another, are tearing this country's media, social and moral grounds apart. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 18:36, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::I don't believe I ever said "only a liberal masquerading as a conservative." I said that a great ''deal'' of such vitriol comes from such liberals, and that ''generally,'' when you see a supposed conservative saying something truly vile, it's not really a conservative.

:::::I don't think that either of those are unreasonable statements. I certainly can't prove it, in that I can't tell you the identities of all the posters, but if you think about it logically, I think you'll see the validity of the observation. Most conservatives have no particular reason to say really vile things. On the other hand, someone pretending to be a conservative ''does'' have such a motive--he wants to make conservatives look bad.

:::::It's not that different from people who attempt to ridicule Creationists by pretending to be Creationists and insisting that the world is flat because "the Bible says so." (Yes, I've seen that on numerous occasions.)

:::::Seriously--all you have to do is take a look at the number of supposed "conservatives" who log on here for no other reason than to sabotage the site to recognize that it's not a rare tactic. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:48, 13 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::I still find it untenable that 'a great deal' would just be liberals in disguise. I would say a fair amount of those harmful posts are just people who believe their opponents are wrong in their beliefs, and therefor attack the person directly. Or, in more extreme cases, people pushed too far by the opposition's evidence with no logical counter. I am not going to say that everyone does this, becuase i've had thoughtful debate with conservatives before. Usually, however, it's broken up by someone preaching to impeach Obama or telling me that I am an evil man for not believing in Christ [In a non-religious discussion, at that].

::::::But now we're just arguing a moot point, it seems. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 08:59, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

==Afghanistan Commander==

Can we get a reference that shows that Gates hired (or even '''recommended''') McKiernan? As it stands, the news factoid makes it sound like the only Bush appointee Obama kept on, is having to deal with having made a poor choice before.

Or is it that Obama's idea about war strategy is different from Bush? If so, our readers would like to know what the difference is.

A friend of mine, an officer in army intelligence, is a big fan of Petraeus, who recommended McKiernan's replacement. Petraeus has a good track record on counter-insurgency in Iraq. Perhaps the story is less that someone had to be fired than, "US changes strategy in Afghanistan". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:53, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
:I'll go you one better--can we get a reference that Gates is the Secretary of State, as the front-page story claims? [[User:DavidZ|DavidZ]] 13:56, 14 May 2009 (EDT)
::Pointing out discrepancies could have been done a lot better than your comment here, DavidZ. Needless to say, it has been corrected. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:06, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

::DavidZ, do you think Hillary will be upset that I gave her credit? I've never known her to mind receiving attention and credit before ....--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:46, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Careful. Her conflicting commandments of "Take credit for everything" and "Never believe anything a conservative says" might cause a short-circuit! :) --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:15, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== Windmill news item correction ==

"The Windmill Ministries theory of evolutionary" should be "evolution" not evolutionary [[User:JimP|JimP]] 22:55, 14 May 2009 (EDT)

== New Gallup poll ==
I know I've gotten in trouble for using the talk pages too much, and I do sincerely apologize for that, but I found this link and I definitely think it deserves mentioning:
[http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx Gallup poll on pro-life vs. pro-choice]. For the first time in history, more Americans
identify as pro-life as opposed to pro-choice, with almost all demographics (men, women, conservatives, liberals) shifting support significantly. -[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 13:30, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

:I'm returning your apology unused. This is a good use of talk pages: alerting us to important news that we and our readers care about. Thank you! ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:52, 15 May 2009 (EDT)

::Both of you should check the Main Page, as there was a new item added a few hours ago on the topic! ;-) The story linked to has even better news, that it is the middle of road people changing their minds about the murder of babies. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:26, 15 May 2009 (EDT)
:::Hi TK. In all fairness, I posted at 13:30, 20 minutes before the news story went up. I agree that the news post is better, but I think it's still important to link to the original source (which the story does not do) so that people can look at all the raw data themselves. -[[User:Countryforchrist|Countryforchrist]] 01:15, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Wow. Feeling picked on much? The link provided, BTW, includes a link to Gallup, but perhaps you didn't check... --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:54, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

== More Conservative? ==

I stumbled across your site and I notice that aschlafly makes the interesting assertion above that, "Overall, Americans are more conservative today than when Reagan was president. The course of history is a slow but steady movement to the right, as logic and the lessons of history have their positive effects."

I would be interested to hear how he--or any others--reconcile that statement with the following:

1. Conservatives seem to have been on the losing side of most of the "big" debates in American history. It was conservatives who opposed rebelling against England, who denounced the Constitution, who favored the maintenance of slavery, who argued for segregation, who preferred to remain isolationist rather than enter into WWI/WWII, and who opposed civil rights. Viewed through this lens, it would seem that the course of history is a pretty steady movement to the left, not the right.

2. The above is, I would say, a reflection of the more general truth that conservatives--as their name suggests--generally resist change. As Calvin Coolidge said, "Conservatism means 'change nothing' and if you're not sure, ask your grandmother." It would seem to me that if the nation is growing increasingly conservative over time, that the pace of political/social/economic change would slow or even grind to a halt. Is this what you feel has happened?

3. Finally, if America has grown more conservative since Reagan, how come that is not reflected in the political system? The number of registered Democrats has grown since then, and it's not like we've had a president since him--even G. W. Bush--that was as conservative as he was.

I look forward to your response. Best regards.--[[User:Cdavis|Cdavis]] 09:24, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

:You got your facts warped, Cdavis. Not a single conservative-minded individual opposed the rebellion against Great Britain; it was the Tories, as they were called back then, who favored big government, who favored heavy taxation on the colonists, who favored putting down protests against it. The statements written by Jefferson himself into the [[Declaration of Independence]] reflect that. The writings of the Founding Fathers reflect that. As to your accusations of slavery support, it was the Democratic Party who supported it fully, who supported and enforced the Jim Crow laws, who enforced segregation, and who tried to prevent civil rights from happening in the South. Those are historical facts you cannot get away from. For an example, see [[Clement L. Vallandigham]], whose behavior in Lincoln's time was exactly like anti-war liberals are doing today.
:As far as I'm concerned, all you are trying to do is to look at all of that bad history through your own kind of lens, one that has the word "conservative" pasted to it; you've taken some of the worst racism and bigotry in history and placed the blame for it where it never belonged in an effort to steer it away from your beloved Democrats. I believe that you have never read much - if anything - regarding original source material except that which you've twisted to support your point. If anything, all you've done is to prove just how much liberals will lie in order to push their agenda. Regards. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:56, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

:In addition to Karajou's response, Cdavis illustrates how some fall for the public-school demonization of conservatism. It's obvious, basic American history that the Democrats promoted and defended slavery, not the conservatives or Republicans. Indeed, it was a Christian "fundamentalist" who finally end the British slave trade.

:Cdavis, open your mind a bit and spend some time here. If you're willing to recognize that you may have been misled in the past, you'll grow tremendously here and your life will immensely improve.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:25, 16 May 2009 (EDT)
:
:Well, you are right, Cdavis, in several respects with your history, and I agree with your conclusion, but you do make several historical generalizations that aren't entirely accurate. This post is also for Aschlafly and Karajou, so that you can understand the context in which these issues occurred, and understand Cdavis' point.
:I just want to say, first, that it is extremely difficult to put history into our current historical context (especially with our flawed and over simplified one dimensional spectrum), but barring that, lets move on. You claim that it was Conservatives who were against the American revolution; in this case, you are both right and wrong, depending on how you define conservatives. I shall use my crude definitions which I just use as a personal definition that I made in an attempt to synthesis Conservativism into one governing philosophy. The first, is social conservativism, which I describe as being a philosophy focused on Societal Stability. This is the reason that Conservativism tends to be interrelated with Religion, Tradition, and "Family Values", since all are bedrocks to a Stable and organized Society. This is also why many wealthy people are Conservatives, since a Stable society provides no threat to their wealth.
:The second definition is more in a Libertarian view, "Conservative" also means "against Excess". So, a Conservative in this view is against large Government, and whatnot. These are how I would define "Conservative", so I apologize if I made some mis-characterizations or generalizations. However, using these definitions, we can answer your point about Conservatives and "Historic" debates.
:In the American revolution, the Tories were mostly wealthy, and aristocratic, thus, they would probably be Conservatives under the First definition, because they feared that the Revolution would cause 1) Anarchy, which would 2) Threaten their wealth. However, if you go by the Second, then the Revolutionaries are Conservative, due to their dislike of powerful government. So, in this case, you are both correct and incorrect. This is similiar for several other things you mentioned: Slavery, The democrats were for it, however, at the time, they were the more Conservative party (though, as mentioned before, it is difficult to put history into modern historical context), since the Republicans were for things such as; Progressive Taxation, Railroad construction, and more tarriffs. It could be argued that Both Libertarian and Social Conservatives could be either for it or against it; Libertarians because they were for States rights, Social because it was part of the longstanding social order. Likewise, Libertarians could be against it due to the infringing of Social Liberties, and Social, due to the anarchy caused by a split up nation.
:With Isolationism, Conservatives were mostly for it, although not entirely, Teddy Roosevelt was for interventionism, and Isolationism dated back to Washington.
:Civil Rights is something else that could be viewed through a Social/ Libertarian divide. Socials were for Segregation because it was a longstanding Social order that should not be upset (also, the social upheaval caused by it was disliked by Social Conservatives, bringing out the "Law and Order" type that got Nixon elected), but Libertarians were against it due to Overreaching government intervention.
:Barring this, you were fairly accurate with your assessment, and Aschafly should take note. Though, I should remind you again, it is difficult to judge historic politics out of Context and have it in present terms, so everything I say about it should be taken with a bucket of salt. have fun --[[User:MichaelJamesF|MichaelJamesF]] 15:18, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

::I'm glad that this debate popped up, because it gave me a chance to read Conservapedia's article on [[Conservative|Conservatism]], which is very well-written and brings up some interesting points I hadn't encountered before in history classes.

::However, it also highlighted a few conundrums which strike to the heart of what Cdavis and Karajou's response pose. I have a few questions, for Karajou or Andy or anyone else who wants to weigh in:
::*If the [[Loyalists]] in the Revolutionary War were "mostly politically conservative," (as CP's article on Conservatism states), how can Karajou claim that "not a single conservative-minded individual opposed the rebellion against Great Britain"?
::*To what extent was the Republican party of the 1860's conservative, seeing as it developed from the [[Whig]] party, which according to CP's article was a big supporter of government intervention in business, and was represented by several anti-abolitionists?
::*The CP article also claims that most conservatives supported the [[Civil Rights Movement]], but the movement's most vocal opponent was [[Barry Goldwater]], the day's most prominent Republican. It's clear that Southern Democrats switched over to the Republican party purely because of Goldwater, Nixon, and the so-called "[[Southern strategy]]." How then can conservatives claim Civil Rights as their own? What prominent conservatives did support Civil Rights, and to what extent can the role of the Southern Strategy be ignored?

::I'm willing to admit that I've been misled by my public school education (though it was in solidly conservative rural East Texas), but I'm just curious to hear a perspective from a conservative who understands the historical dynamics better than I do. God Bless. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 16:42, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

==A Thank You to [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]==
''A Christian creationist evangelist, who travels across the United States spreading the creationist message, has just expressed interest in sharing with people the Conservapedia evolution article. From California, to the New York Island, from the redwood forest, to the gulf stream waters, the Conservapedia evolution article is spreading across the United States!'' 
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]], I enjoyed the way you wove the words of a classic American song into this item. It made me smile. Thank you. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:33, 16 May 2009 (EDT)

==Liquor-Induced?==
''Vice President Joe Biden, well-known for his verbal gaffes, often liquor-induced, may have finally outdone himself...'' The article cited does not mention liquor. I did not watch the video cited - does it contain a statement about the gaffes being "liquor-induced"? If not, then we need to either remove the claim or find a credible source for it. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 16:53, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

*It is only your own good idea, Hsmom, that takes conjecture to new heights, that somehow "In the news" equates with encyclopedic articles. How do you manage to come up with that? If Jimbo Wales makes a statement of known fact to him, do you really believe his statement, if put on his Wikipedia page, needs sourcing? "In the news" is the electronic version of CP's take, like in a newspaper, the opposite page of the Editorials. It is quite obvious (to most people, anyway) what the news items are for...to bring to the ''uninformed or under-informed'' conservative news, ''from conservatives'', that the biased and deceitful MSM usually won't publish. That Biden has an occasional problem of putting his mouth in operation before engaging his brain, is common knowledge, a truism. That most "insiders", familiar with his intellect (which isn't small), attribute the instances of "Bidenism's" to his infrequent over-tippling, is also another truism, which a simple web search reveals. How would you, Hsmom, cite such common knowledge? Do you know many in high public office, or their staff members? Have you personally found many on the staff's of such officials willing to be attributed on such matters? Instead of being so prickly anal-retentive, perhaps your efforts here would be put to better use contributing sound conservative or Christian content (''since you claim to be conservative'') rather than your sporadic and picayune criticisms on this ''talk'' page? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:22, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

::"Senator Biden does not drink at all, and he is frank about the reason. “There are enough alcoholics in my family,” he said last month as he sipped cranberry juice on a train ride from Washington to Wilmington." <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/us/politics/24biden.html?pagewanted=1&hp</ref> So Biden himself says he doesn't drink and the cite you provided doesn't say he does. Do you have any citation to anyone credible that says Biden drinks, much less to excess? I don't think you do. If I liked Biden's policies I'd say the same thing: your reflexive dig on him is obvious and inappropriate. You yourself recognize the argument is lost if you have to resort to ad hominem attacks. Move onto something productive like criticizing his policies for what they are instead of taking personal shots at the man. And as for your mistreatment of HSMom, your policy of burning through any of the remaining productive editors on this site until there's nobody left but you and Andy is transparent. I'm sure you will burn this edit and I'll be blocked infinitely as a vandal or paradist, but I sincerely hope people who are capable of taking action against your obvious usurpation will see it. [[User:GaryJ|GaryJ]] 17:44, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

:::What we can and will do, "GaryJ" is take action against liberal trolls, who sign up to argue and attack (obviously without comprehending what I said above, and having little knowledge of the contributions of editors, by using one IP from Germany, and yet another from Sweden, to insert their liberal/socialist deceit here. The fact that liberals cannot even reveal themselves shows how little they are willing to support their own biased POV. Bye. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:55, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

== Typo/quirk in headline ==

Hello, hi, everyone, I'd like to point out an odd little neologism that appears to be a typo on the news-feed.
<blockquote>
Attention YouTube viewers: Three more... ...videos coming Christian '''YouTubbers'''!...
</blockquote>
Should that be "YouTubers", or maybe less messily, "YouTube users"?--[[User:Woloct|Woloct]] 23:38, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

== In other news... ==

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090519-missing-link-found.html They found something...] --[[User:Samjames|Samjames]] 17:41, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:Hmmm, they found ''something,'' though they're not yet sure exactly what its significance is. Interesting story anyhow, but I don't think its important enough for front page news. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 17:47, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
::Uh, they found the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinius_masillae#Publicity_and_media_coverage Holy Grail of Evolution]. [http://www.google.com/ Google is celebrating]. Clearly something's going on. --[[User:Samjames|Samjames]] 17:53, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::Yes samjames lets all join in and believe the liberal media! No!! This is a joke, of course it isn't a link to humans and evolution. I'm sure we will find that this is all some elaborate Swedish hoax.--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 18:14, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Why is so important anyway? It is supposed to be 47 myo, and it's an early lemur. All it does it confirm in some scientists' minds that lemurs are the earliest primates. It is not the "missing link" connecting us to apes, in fact it holds little significance in the human evolution debate. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 18:35, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::"Samjames" says "[c]learly something's going on," but all that is "going on" is that evolutionists are scamming those who fall for it. In the United States, the number fooled is less than 50%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::[http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2009/05/19/2009-05-19_missing_link_found_fossil_of_47_millionyearold_primate_sheds_light_on_.html Clearly] [http://blog.ted.com/2009/05/darwin_validate.php they're] [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723 all] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm lying], [http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/fossil-ida-missing-link-discovery right?] In the future, please note that the United States is not the world. "Statistics" such as those are quite different in most other first-world nations. --[[User:Samjames|Samjames]] 19:41, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::So you beleive it because major media outlets tout it? Why not look into the science of it yourself, Sam? That's not an insult, I'm serious. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 19:56, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::Uh, because I am not six scientists with paleontology degrees? The original publication is [http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0005723 here] if you're interested. Of course, Andy, I'll be laughing at whatever interpretation of this data you choose to offer. We all know how qualified you are. --[[User:Samjames|Samjames]] 20:05, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::::"Samjames", your attempt to bully with degrees isn't going to intimidate anyone here. You just look foolish trying. There's nothing special about evolutionary theories that requires anything more than a good grade school education to understand (and reject). In fact, the theory appeals more to people who are intellectual underachievers than those who did well. Have you figured out what Richard Dawkins' academic credentials really are yet?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:31, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::::::Andy, perhaps, if that is all that is needed, we could work on a project to disprove their new findings line by line. Perhaps you could even get them to release their findings to the public, so that we could see whether their findings are fraudulent (of course, if they have nothing to hide, they should have no qualms with releasing their information to the public) --[[User:MichaelJamesF|MichaelJamesF]] 22:26, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::::Sam, I am interested in that publication and I will read it. I suggest you read it also. Also, perhaps you could have a discussion without mocking the other members. Let me say that I am not skeptical of evolution for religious reasons. It is for scientific reasons. Maybe you think that's funny, but think about how many assumptions, rather than facts, go into the claims of evolutionary theory. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 20:36, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:Would anyone else be in favor of writing an article on the "Eda" fossil based on this article: http://www.holyplan.com/2009/05/20/did-atheists-find-missing-link-with-darwinius-masillae-ida-fossil/
--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 20:55, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::Do you mean want to write it or want it to be written? I am busy but it should be written. Only it should not tout the claims surrounding the fossil as absolute facts. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:09, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::: A first step is to determine how the age of the fossil was estimated. Often evolutionists make claims of age that have no logical basis, such as testing things other than the fossil itself, or doing no testing at all. You may not even be able to determine what the basis of the age estimate is; it may simply be made up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:18, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::It was found in the Middle Eocene. Eocene is estimated as 55-33 million years ago. The implication of course is that the fossil is the same age as the rock strata that it was found in. Accuracy of dating methods aside, the estimated date of 47 myo seems right. But I haven't read anything yet. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:33, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: Often the fine print is less compelling than the newspaper headlines:

::::::The fossil was '''apparently''' unearthed in 1983 '''by private collectors''' who split and eventually '''sold''' two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: the lesser part (herein plate B) was restored and in the process partly '''fabricated to make it look more complete'''. This was eventually purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by one of us who '''recognized the fabrication'''.[http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0005723] (emphasis added)

::::: I've already wasted too much time on this "apparent" finding that is associated with a hoax.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:20, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:::::: Prove that it's a hoax, please. --[[User:Samjames|Samjames]] 22:21, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

::::::: No, Sam, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim of validity. Ten years ago National Geographic claimed to have a fossil that proved that birds descended from dinosaurs. It was a hoax too. All it takes is full examination by an independent laboratory and dating of the material itself. But that could ruin the joy of [[deceit]], couldn't it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:59, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

: I noticed that the above quote, taken from the published article, is ended immediately before a rather important point:

::The fossil was apparently unearthed in 1983 by private collectors who split and eventually sold two parts of the skeleton on separate plates: the lesser part (herein plate B) was restored and in the process partly fabricated to make it look more complete. This was eventually purchased for a private museum in Wyoming, and then described by one of us who recognized the fabrication [1]. ''The more complete part (plate A; Figs. 1–2) has just come to light, and it now belongs to the Natural History Museum of the University of Oslo (Norway). When made available for study, plate A was immediately recognizable as the complete complementary and '''unaltered counterpart''' of plate B.'' (emphasis mine)

: Furthermore, radiographs effectively proving plate A is unaltered are shown directly below the paragraph this is mentioned. Often the fine print is less compelling than the quote mines.--[[User:JackMurphy|Jack Murphy]] 23:35, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

:: Your additional quote does not change mine in the slightest, and your additional quote is not persuasive. Two fossils were sold at an undisclosed, but presumably very high, price by someone who claimed they were authentic. The first of the pair is a proven fraud. The second of the pair is thus likely fraudulent also. The authors in your quote neither explain in detail how they concluded otherwise (no description of dating, no details about the "radiograph" techniques used) nor make the sample available for fully independent analysis by critics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:41, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

:::I think Andy is right here. Notice Jack, how your quote is written in that passive voice: "When made available for study (by who and what methods?) plate A was immediately recognizable (by who?) as the complete complementary...." The paper does not specify who or what methods.

:::Now I am not saying it ''is'' a fake, just that Andy's original quote is more significant than yours. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 11:35, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

::::I thought I should point out references# 20-21 of the paper for the dating description, the authors did not perform the dating and therefore did not include it in the paper. I believe that 40Ar/39Ar was used as a dating method. As for who determined the validity of the fossil, it was the authors of the paper. They explained that through the use of CT scans and some other methods they were able to validate the fossil, although no claim of to the age other than what they referenced above. A point, the paper specifies that the first fossil had part of it fabricated to enhance the existing fossil; the researchers did differentiate between the fabricated parts and the true fossil. Another point, details of the techniques used are in the methods section of the paper including the instrument models. Since no mention was made of deviation from standard use of the instruments then it is inferred that the researchers used the standard operating guidelines provided for by the instrument manufacture. This by the way is very common in scientific literature, there is no need to duplicate the instruction manual of the instrument unless you are using it outside of normal operating specs.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 15:17, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

::::: The [[Piltdown Man]] evolutionist fraud was promoted and taught for 40 years. That wasn't the last evolutionary fraud either.

::::: All the "researchers" need do is provide the sample for full analysis by the other side before making grandiose claims. That apparently has not been done, and possible reasons why are obvious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:08, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, thank you, ''Professor'' for your contribution, which only re-states the fallacies and self-serving nature of scientists. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:14, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

:All scientists are self-serving now? Could you make it any more obvious that you're a parodist? [[User:GeorgC|GeorgC]] 18:50, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

::Certainly not in the minds of liberal trolls, GeorgC, where anything not found on Kos, HuffPo or other hate sites is labeled as conservative parody. We just had a discussion about that, on Andy's page, by the way. None of us here have actually seen real parody, but we do see lots of liberal vandalism and lies, which isn't at all parody, even though your fellow vandal site members would like people to believe it is. Bye now, enjoy your summer and do try to play outside instead of sitting at the computer all day.....kids need outdoor play! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 18:59, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

== Democratic Congress considers honoring Bible "a waste of time" ==

[http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090522/pl_politico/22832] Notice that even though the bill's author is attempting to reach across the aisle on this one, he's being met with mockery and derision. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 08:35, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== North Korean Nuke ==

I often come to this website to get a conservative perspective on recent news, and was surprised to discover today that there is still nothing on the main page "news" section about North Korea's nuclear test. I think this was a very important event that requires some thorough coverage - I can already see the main stream media is downplaying the seriousness of Kim Jong Il's recklessness. [[User:RichardA|RichardA]] 22:34, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

==Problem creating new article==
I wanted to create an article on Sonia Sotomayor (who may be Obama's pick for the Supreme Court, according to [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090526/ap_on_go_su_co/us_obama_supreme_court reports this morning]), but I got an error. 
''Database Error: A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "". MySQL returned error "145: Table './cpwiki_media/searchindex' is marked as crashed and should be repaired (localhost)".'' 
Could someone look into it? Thanks. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 09:25, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

:Did you retry it? Often when I get errors, it is merely a temporary error, so to speak. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 13:02, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

::Thanks [[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]! I did re-try, but it wasn't working and I had to run to a homeschooling event. Looks like someone else has taken care of it, though, so it's all good. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 22:12, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

:::There is a link on [[User:CPWebmaster|Webmaster's]] page to email him, if you run into future problems. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:28, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

::::Thanks! I've made a note of it on my user page so I'll remember it if I have the problem again. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 23:02, 26 May 2009 (EDT)

== Car Dealerships ==

Regarding the "Partisan Car Dealership Closing" news item. Car Dealers are overwhelmingly Republican anyway, so it isn't much of a suprise that most of those being closed down are Republican. You can read more about it here: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/05/news-flash-car-dealers-are-republicans.html . It is a primarily left-leaning website, but I don't see anything wrong with his analysis. Its something that is worth looking at before jumping to conclusions. --[[User:MichaelJamesF|MichaelJamesF]] 09:22, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

:You know what is a surprise? My next new car will not be with Chrysler nor GM. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 22:16, 29 May 2009 (EDT)

Representative Thaddeus McCotter (R - MI) says nobody knows the reasons why certain dealerships were targeted, no answer was given to them, speculation grew.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:40, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

== Teenager Develops Simplified Bernoulli formula? ==

Does anyone have more details on this story? Would it be a worthwhile inclusion in the "achievements by teenagers" article? [http://fe2.story.media.sp1.yahoo.com/news/story/maple/us/afp/20090528/wl_mideast_afp/swedeneducationoffbeatiraq_20090528124323] --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 11:19, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

==Government using Eminent Domain to steal man's land==

Eminent Domain is one of the most hated of liberal Big Government vectors, and is [http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/29/flight.dispute/index.html being used again] to steal a Pennsylvania man's land]. It's a complex 9/11-related issue, no doubt, but theft of property by the Government is unconstitutional and reeks of jackbooted henchmen - it's clearly inappropriate. [[User:BHaines|BHaines]] 11:27, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

:Drew Carey, [http://reason.org/news/show/1002869.html has a great video on this] from reason.org. Eminent Domain used to be used by government only for direly needed projects like a school or police and fire stations, only when the property owners refused all reasonable offers to sell. Now since a [[SCOTUS]] ruling, supported by the retiring [[David Souter]], government is allowed to take any property it wants to, provided they can show whatever project the land is needed for will return greater taxes! National City, California, is another place where the local government is taking Eminent Domain abuse to new lows. [http://reason.tv/video/show/56.html]

:My own family is caught up in one such case, where our property (owned since 1940) was taken, then the government refused to pay for it, citing the costs of toxic contamination remediation they claimed we caused. $750,000 in legal fees, experts fees and three years later, after we and other property owners in the effected area proved the contamination was from the government's own land filling in 1944, during World War II, the government is still refusing to pay, disputing the facts that two judges said were correct.

:The project the government took the land for? Well due to economic conditions, it still hasn't started. The demand for high end condos and retail isn't what it was five years ago when they started the process. More troubling is, the land they took, was literally given to the developer, in anticipation of the higher property and retail tax revenues. So it isn't just a matter of Eminent Domain, but also one of government taking the land and giving it away to others. Government, knowing that most property owners are unable to expend the huge sums needed to dispute their actions, knowingly delay all legal actions in the hope desperate property owners will capitulate, take bargain basement "final offers" because they cannot afford to do otherwise. Look for this to happen more and more often as government seeks "economic recovery" by putting citizens to work. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 17:47, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

::Thanks for the link, TK. It was fascinating. Sorry to hear about your family's troubles. My family went through a similar ordeal when I was growing up, but not through Eminent Domain. In Texas, you can own land, but the mineral rights always belong to an oil company, which means that if they think oil is under your property, you have no right to keep them from bulldozing whatever's on the lot and drilling. My dad had saved up money to build a house outside of town, bought the tract of land, made up plans to start building, and then one day the entire lot was clear-cut by an oil company. Of course no one notified us; my dad just happened to drive by and noticed all of the trees gone and the soil all ripped up, burning carcasses of trees on the ground. We still own the land, but it's ugly and unusable, and we finally had to buy yet another lot to build on. [[User:JDWpianist|JDWpianist]] 08:47, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

== Evolution Video ==

I noticed the link to the video on the news sidebar of the main page. Being a man of open mind, I thought that when I viewed the video, I would get a comprehensive and unbiased argument against evolution. After all, debate can serve to strengthen a belief, as well.

However, when I began to watch the video, I began to take notes. Afterwards, I went back and did some research into the claims, drafting the notes into a point-by-point analysis of the man's arguments:
First point: Unable to re-create in lab.

Postulate: it has never been created or duplicated in a laboratory setting. Therefore, it cannot be real.

My analysis: Even ignoring the fact that evolution is a process that spans over multiple generations of genetic drift, selective mutation and natural selection and therefore negates any quick, meaningful testing; The absence of laboratory proof does not mean the absence of existence. Not all processes must go through a lab test before they exist, and a lab test is not the same as creating. If you are using this logic, then the Black Plague would never have existed, because it was never shown in a lab until long after it took it's toll on Europe.

But we knew it existed, because of it's observance and affects on the world around it. Evolution, in the same way, has been observed and it's affects are still with us. for a good example, take modern viruses, like the swine flu, for organisms that rapidly change to adapt to new conditions.

Second Point: Frauds and Hoaxes

Postulate: Because men find it necessary to falsify their reports, they are obviously without proof to stand on.

My analysis: The quote from Gould is on a popular bit of debate concerning embryo drawings done by Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist who released a series of embryo drawings in 1874. As other scientists have claimed, the embryo drawings are riddled with Haeckel's own designs, making them insubstantial.

This does not disprove the theory, as it is one man in 1874, working on limited evidence, and trying to make something repudiated. If the false work of one man could demean the honest work of hundreds of men, then theories would simply boil down to 'nuh-uh' arguments, open to speculation and ridicule on the base of flimsy evidence.

As for Gould 'disproving' evolution, all the man seeks to do is to replace false data with real data, which is why he's quoting against the use of the drawings in school text. If you look at his choice of study, you would find Gould to be one of the most ardent supporters of evolution and it's place in the school curriculum.

Third Point: Hitler and evolution.

Postulate: Hitler was bad. Hitler supported natural selection. Therefore, natural selection must be bad!

My analysis: The most slippery of arguments, because nearly every aspect of our life, culture, and beliefs can fall to this same fallacy. If a man supports using a theory to further his own ends, sadly, there is nothing we can do to stop that poisonous type of thinking.

However flawed his view on the matter, Hitler did believe in 'helping' natural selection along by being a decider on what genes were superior and what genes were inferior. Without a doubt, this line of thought led to one of the greatest atrocities the world has seen. But it does not mean natural selection is at fault. Even if someone were to correct him of his massive error, Hitler [and this is only my assumption] would find another way to justify the slaughter of millions of innocent people.

People routinely use a good cause or scientific theory to advance some sort of self-serving agenda. People who try to sell chelation as a cure all, those who use 'quantum physics' to try to explain away fallacies in theories, Televangelists who ask for money in the name of the lord, and use it for their own benefit.

I do not doubt that evolution is flawed. There are still gaps, unseen evidence and other pitfalls throughout the broad theory. The evidence that is there, however, serves a higher purpose than simple disprovement.

Note that I did not deny any of the bad aspects. Yes, Haeckel's drawings were frauds. Yes, Hitler supported natural selection. But bad men do bad things with good causes, even the church. If we are to truly bring honesty into the debate, we must realize this and set it aside, leaving only the facts to speak the case.

I welcome any intelligent opposition to the claims above. -- [[User:CodyH|CodyH]] 11:28, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
::::Cody, you wrote: "The absence of laboratory proof does not mean the absence of existence." It is also true that the burden of proof is upon the claimant. There is no reason to believe in the evolutionary paradigm. I suggest you read the historian David Hackett Fischer's work entitled ''Historians' Fallacies : Toward a Logic of Historical Thought'' as he elaborates on using logic when weighing historical claims. [http://books.google.com/books?id=czE-AAAAIAAJ&dq=david+hacket+fisher+and+logic&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=XCYPGJCoM8&sig=8nDKvmxycvwaTQrfygJzShVV4P8&hl=en&ei=QqoiSuDvK5-qtgeG55WrBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:05, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
:::::conservative, which parts of the 'evolutionary paradigm' do you see no reason to believe in? Do you not accept that life-forms adapt over time, in response to their surroundings? Do you prefer to deny that species which are well-suited to their environment slowly come to supersede those that are poorly adapted? You attack the statement that "The absence of laboratory proof does not mean the absence of existence." Does this mean that you would also claim that, since there is no laboratory proof of an Intelligent Designer, there must be no reason to believe in the ID paradigm? In that case, which position ''do'' you take on this issue? In regard to the book linked to by your comment, could you elaborate upon how a critique of the methods used by historians is relevant to CodyH's discussion of a contemporary view on evolution? --[[User:TommyAtkins|TommyAtkins]] 19:46, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

== George Tiller ==

Any comments on the death of [[George Tiller]]? --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 16:42, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

Evil at the hand of man is always heinous, whether shooter or whether abortionist. We Christians condemn all senseless murders including the innocent in the womb. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:12, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

An interesting article to consider: http://www.latimes.com/la-na-hospice28jan28,0,4777090,full.story?coll=la-homepage-calendar-widget. Specifically this quote, "Dr. George R. Tiller specializes in terminating late-term pregnancies after the fetus has been diagnosed with a birth defect: a deformed heart, missing kidneys, Down's syndrome, anencephaly. He calls his work a "reproductive ministry," and he offers his patients many of the same services as the hospice. Tiller encourages parents to hold, dress and photograph their aborted children, whom he delivers stillborn but intact. His staff takes ink-prints of tiny feet and hands; he brings in a chaplain for baptisms. Letters from grateful patients line the clinic's walls." [[User:PeterAS|PeterAS]] 01:26, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:birth defect: a deformed heart, missing kidneys, Down's syndrome, anencephaly is no justification for playing God, who lives and who dies. I don't think his craziness is wiki worthy.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 01:36, 1 June 2009 (EDT)
::Some people [[George Tiller|disagree]] about his "wikiworthiness." --[[User:AdmiralNelson|AdmiralNelson]] 09:20, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Most won't be surprised at the shopped item from the L.A. Times about Dr. Tiller. Most of his abortions were done under a loophole, he was investigated many times for telling women to claim they were "depressed". A undisputed fact is he performed over 60,000 (Sixty Thousand!) late-term abortions over the years. For that alone he was notable. [http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=011008&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=5592010&referralPlaylistId=playlist] --[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 01:40, 2 June 2009 (EDT)

== Titanic survivor ==

The last titanic survivor, Millvina Dean, died, age 97.[[User:Cholchester1221|Cholchester1221]] 16:57, 31 May 2009 (EDT)

An American story, I'll look into it further. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:13, 31 May 2009 (EDT)
:Um... she was born in Britain to British parents, grew up in Britain, survived the sinking of a British ship, left the US less than a month after arriving, and while only three months old, lived the rest of her life in Britain, and died in Britain. It is certainly a noteworthy story, and worthy of coverage by any encyclopedia, but it's hardly an American story.--[[User:TommyAtkins|TommyAtkins]] 08:45, 1 June 2009 (EDT)

==GM filed for Chapter 11==
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090601/ap_on_bi_ge/us_automakers Hate to use an AP story, but that's all I found] [[User:JY23|JY23]] 10:14, 1 June 2009 (EDT)