Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-16T03:21:13Z

EricAlstrom: /* GDP */

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:It would still make no case for any causal relationship between same-sex marriage, atheism etc. and performance at the Olympics. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:54, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

Agree with Greg. Thirtieth Olympiad is too obscure for a generation that regards 3 month old music as outdated. Better call it the 2012 Olympics. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:26, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

== This page is preposterous ==

I can't believe that nearly everything you have to say about this year's Olympic games revolves around your overweening obsession with homosexuality and atheism. Even conservatives--well, normal conservatives--would want more substantive information. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 19:51, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:That's not enough to qualify as trying to improve this page. Are you saying there's no correlation, or are you indirectly registering an objection to this project's campaign against homosexuality and atheism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 20:25, 15 July 2012 (EDT)
::In my opinion, the way to improve this page would be to delete all the content and start over. I understand that the project is against homosexuality and atheism. But that doesn't mean those things have to be the main focus of ''every'' article. And yes, I ''am'' saying that there is no known correlation between same-sex marriage, homosexuality or atheism and Olympics success, and even if one were demonstrated, it would not establish causality, which is clearly what you are after. [[User:CasparRH|CasparRH]] 21:20, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Ideas do have consequences on productivity, achievement, happiness, etc. A high percentage of successful [[NFL]] quarterbacks are devout [[Christians]]. Why?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== Where is the UK... ==

...in the expected medals section? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:02, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Whoops, I had it listed as Great Britain. Which I should have known better than to do - I lived in London for a couple years, and got yelled at every time I got the terms wrong... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:18, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

== GDP ==

If GDP "may be a fair proxy" in relation to how many medals a country will win then why is the main part of the article all about how atheism and gay marriage are going to have such an influence over the results? --[[User:QuentinQ|QuentinQ]] 21:04, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

:I wanted to have a start point for comparisons and trend-spotting. It is my hypothesis that homosexuality and atheism have nothing to do with a country's athletic performance, and the table is my first step in testing. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:21, 15 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-16T03:18:20Z

EricAlstrom: /* Where is the UK... */

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-16T03:17:07Z

EricAlstrom:

The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948. The Olympic Games have pagan origins. The torch relay was first used for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin

Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.

[[Conservapedia]] predicts and analyzes underachievement by nations, or particular sports fielded by a nation, due to:

== Nations that have implemented [[same-sex marriage]] ==

===[[Argentina]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Argentina's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 3 || 1 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 2 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 0 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| July 22, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total || 17 || 23 || 26 || 66
|}

===[[Belgium]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Belgium's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 5 || 5 || 5 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 1 || 5 || 2 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp (host) || 14 || 11 || 11 || 36
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 3 || 7 || 3 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 2 || 0 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 2 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 0 || 1 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 1 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 1 || 1 || 2 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 2 || 2 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| January 30, 2003 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 1 || 1 || 0 || 2
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 37 !! 51 !! 51 !! 139
|}

===[[Canada]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Canada's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| ''1896 Athens'' || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 0 || 1 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 3 || 3 || 10 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 3 || 2 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 3 || 3 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 0 || 3 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 4 || 4 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 8 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 1 || 3 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 1 || 2 || 0 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 3 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal (host) || 0 || 5 || 6 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || colspan=4|''did not compete''
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 10 || 18 || 16 || 44
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 3 || 2 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 7 || 4 || 7 || 18
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 3 || 11 || 8 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 3 || 3 || 8 || 14
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 3 || 6 || 3 || 12
|-
|align=left| July 20, 2005 || colspan=4|''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 3 || 9 || 6 || 18
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
!| Total || 58 || 94 || 108 || 260
|}

===[[Denmark]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Denmark's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || 1 || 2 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 1 || 3 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 1 || 6 || 5 || 12
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 3 || 9 || 1 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 2 || 5 || 2 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || 3 || 1 || 2 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 7 || 8 || 20
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 1 || 2 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 1 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 1 || 4 || 3 || 8
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 1 || 0 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 1 || 0 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 2 || 1 || 2 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 3 || 3 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 1 || 1 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 1 || 1 || 4 || 6
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 1 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 2 || 3 || 1 || 6
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 2 || 0 || 6 || 8
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 2 || 2 || 3 || 7
|-
|align=left| June 15, 2012 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 41 !! 63 !! 66 !! 170
|}

===[[Iceland]]===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+Iceland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || colspan=4| ''Did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1956 Melbourne/Stockholm || 0 ||1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 0 || 0 || 1 || 1
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 0 || 1 || 0 || 1
|-
|align=left| June 27, 2010 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 0 !! 2 !! 2 !! 4
|}

===[[Netherlands]]<ref> Although part of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, [[Aruba]] competes separately at the Olympic Games. Same-sex marriage is not legal in Aruba, although marriages performed in the European mainland Netherlands are recognized per the Kingdom's requirements. Additionally, the territories of Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic Flag following the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition of their Olympic Committee, have the same regulations as Aruba with regards to same-sex marriage. Since citizens of these territories are also Dutch citizens, they are also eligible to compete for Team Netherlands. Therefore, they may have won some of the Dutch medals. In all three territories, the population is heavily Catholic and there is large opposition to same-sex marriage in spite of the Kingdom's requirements. </ref>===

{| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed" border="1"
|+The Netherland's Olympic medals in the Summer Games
|-
! scope="col" | Year and location
! scope="col" | Gold
! scope="col" | Silver
! scope="col" | Bronze
! scope="col" | Total
|- ||- |-
|align=left| 1896 Athens || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1900 Paris || 0 || 1 || 3 || 4
|-
|align=left| 1904 St. Louis || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1908 London || 0 || 0 || 2 || 2
|-
|align=left| 1912 Stockholm || 0 || 0 || 3 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1920 Antwerp || 4 || 2 || 5 || 11
|-
|align=left| 1924 Paris || 4 || 1 || 5 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1928 Amsterdam (host) || 6 || 9 || 4 || 19
|-
|align=left| 1932 Los Angeles || 2 || 5 || 0 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1936 Berlin || 6 || 4 || 7 || 17
|-
|align=left| 1948 London || 5 || 2 || 9 || 16
|-
|align=left| 1952 Helsinki || 0 || 5 || 0 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1956 Stockholm/Melbourne || colspan=4| ''did not participate''
|-
|align=left| 1960 Rome || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1964 Tokyo || 2 || 4 || 4 || 10
|-
|align=left| 1968 Mexico City || 3 || 3 || 1 || 7
|-
|align=left| 1972 Munich || 3 || 1 || 1 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1976 Montreal || 0 || 2 || 3 || 5
|-
|align=left| 1980 Moscow || 0 || 1 || 2 || 3
|-
|align=left| 1984 Los Angeles || 5 || 2 || 6 || 13
|-
|align=left| 1988 Seoul || 2 || 2 || 5 || 9
|-
|align=left| 1992 Barcelona || 2 || 6 || 7 || 15
|-
|align=left| 1996 Atlanta || 4 || 5 || 10 || 19
|-
|align=left| 2000 Sydney || 12 || 9 || 4 || 25
|-
|align=left| April 1, 2001 || colspan=4| ''Same-sex marriage legalized''
|-
|align=left| 2004 Athens || 4 || 9 || 9 || 22
|-
|align=left| 2008 Beijing || 7 || 5 || 4 || 16
|-
|align=left| 2012 Summer Olympics|2012 London || ? || ? || ? || ?
|-
! Total !! 71 !! 79 !! 96 !! 246
|}

===[[Norway]]===
===[[Portugal]]===
===[[South Africa]]===
===[[Spain]]===
===[[Sweden]]===

Underachievement by nations allowing same sex marriage will be particularly evident.<ref>In the [[United States]], 44 out of 50 states prohibit same-sex marriage (Washington, D.C. also permits same-sex marriage), and 8 additional states permit civil unions. Two states (including Washington, which had previously recognized civil unions) have declared same-sex marriage legal, but implementation is postponed until after voter referendums on the laws in November 2012. Additionally, in [[Mexico]], same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a federal district roughly equivalent to Washington, DC, as well as in the state of Quintana Roo. </ref>

== Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==

*[[Britain]]
*[[France]]
*[[Australia]]<ref> Since the 2001 Australians have increasingly answered "no religion" in the official census. The growing numbers of those answering "no religion" has coincided with fewer people self-identifying as Christian: [http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/636F496B2B943F12CA2573D200109DA9?opendocument Year Book Australia, 2008]</ref>

Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is usually non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in rowing, where teamwork is paramount.

Also, since Great Britain is the host nation, it may receive a boost in performance in spite of its increasingly atheistic nature. One should be careful to account for this when comparing Britain's performance this year to that in previous Olympic Games.

== Winners ==

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Athlete
!Achievement
!Religion, or Atheist?
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|-
|}

==Expected Medals==

While there are many factors that contribute to a countries success in the Olympics (population, proximity host country, culture), [[Gross Domestic Product]] may be a fair proxy. Below is how the Olympic medals would be awarded if each country earned medals in proportion to their GDP.

{| class="wikitable sortable collapsible collapsed"
|-
!Country
!Expected Medals
|-
|Afghanistan
|0.2
|-
|Albania
|0.2
|-
|Andorra
|0.1
|-
|Antigua and Barbuda
|0
|-
|Angola
|1.2
|-
|Algeria
|2.3
|-
|Argentina
|5.3
|-
|Armenia
|0.1
|-
|Aruba
|0
|-
|Australia
|16.2
|-
|Austria
|5.4
|-
|Azerbaijan
|0.7
|-
|Bahamas
|0.1
|-
|Bangladesh
|1.4
|-
|Barbados
|0
|-
|Burundi
|0
|-
|Belgium
|6.7
|-
|Belize
|0
|-
|Benin
|0.1
|-
|Bermuda
|0.1
|-
|Bhutan
|0
|-
|Bolivia
|0.3
|-
|Bosnia-Herzegovina
|0.2
|-
|Bahrain
|0.3
|-
|Botswana
|0.2
|-
|Belarus
|0.8
|-
|Brazil
|29.9
|-
|Virgin Islands
|0
|-
|Bulgaria
|0.7
|-
|Burkina Faso
|0.1
|-
|Cameroon
|0.3
|-
|Cambodia
|0.2
|-
|Canada
|22.6
|-
|Cayman Islands
|0
|-
|Central African Republic
|0
|-
|Chad
|0.1
|-
|Chile
|3
|-
|China
|98.8
|-
|Taiwan
|7.2
|-
|Colombia
|4.1
|-
|Comoros
|0
|-
|Cape Verde
|0
|-
|Congo
|0.2
|-
|Cook Islands
|0
|-
|Costa Rica
|0.5
|-
|Cote-d´lvoire
|0.3
|-
|Croatia
|0.9
|-
|Cuba
|0.9
|-
|Cyprus
|0.4
|-
|Czech Republic
|2.8
|-
|Denmark
|4.4
|-
|Djibouti
|0
|-
|Dominica
|0
|-
|Dominican Republic
|0.7
|-
|Ecuador
|0.8
|-
|Egypt
|3.1
|-
|El Salvador
|0.3
|-
|Equatorial Guinea
|0.2
|-
|Eritrea
|0
|-
|Estonia
|0.3
|-
|Ethiopia
|0.4
|-
|Fiji
|0
|-
|Finland
|3.4
|-
|France
|39.8
|-
|Gabon
|0.2
|-
|Gambia
|0
|-
|Germany
|47
|-
|Ghana
|0.4
|-
|United Kingdom
|32.4
|-
|Guinea-Bissau
|0
|-
|Georgia
|0.2
|-
|Greece
|4.3
|-
|Grenada
|0
|-
|Guam
|0
|-
|Guatemala
|0.6
|-
|Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Guyana
|0
|-
|Haiti
|0.1
|-
|Honduras
|0.2
|-
|Hong Kong
|3.2
|-
|Hungary
|1.8
|-
|Iceland
|0.2
|-
|India
|24.7
|-
|Indonesia
|10.1
|-
|Iran
|4.7
|-
|Iraq
|1.2
|-
|Ireland
|3
|-
|Italy
|29.5
|-
|Israel
|3.1
|-
|Jamaica
|0.2
|-
|Japan
|78.2
|-
|Jordan
|0.4
|-
|Kazakhstan
|2.3
|-
|Kyrgyzstan
|0.1
|-
|Kenya
|0.4
|-
|South Korea
|14.8
|-
|North Korea
|0.4
|-
|Kuwait
|2
|-
|Laos
|0.1
|-
|Latvia
|0.4
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Lebanon
|0.5
|-
|Lesotho
|0
|-
|Libya
|0.9
|-
|Lichtenstein
|0.1
|-
|Luxembourg
|0.8
|-
|Macedonia
|0.1
|-
|Madagascar
|0.1
|-
|Malawi
|0.1
|-
|Malaysia
|3.3
|-
|Moldova
|0.1
|-
|Marshall Islands
|0
|-
|Maldives
|0
|-
|Malta
|0.1
|-
|Mali
|0.1
|-
|Mauritania
|0.2
|-
|Mauritius
|0.1
|-
|Mexico
|16.2
|-
|Micronesia
|0
|-
|Monaco
|0.1
|-
|Montenegro
|0.1
|-
|Mongolia
|0.1
|-
|Morocco
|1.3
|-
|Mozambique
|0.1
|-
|Myanmar
|0.7
|-
|Namibia
|0.2
|-
|Nepal
|0.2
|-
|Netherlands
|11.2
|-
|New Zealand
|1.8
|-
|Nicaragua
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Niger
|0.1
|-
|Norway
|5.9
|-
|Oman
|0.7
|-
|Pakistan
|2.4
|-
|Palau
|0
|-
|Panama
|0.4
|-
|Papua New Guinea
|0.1
|-
|Paraguay
|0.3
|-
|Peru
|2.3
|-
|Philippines
|2.9
|-
|Poland
|6.7
|-
|Portugal
|3.3
|-
|Puerto Rico
|1.4
|-
|Qatar
|1.4
|-
|Romania
|2.3
|-
|Rwanda
|0.1
|-
|Saint Lucia
|0
|-
|Saint Kitts and Nevis
|0
|-
|Samoa
|0
|-
|San Marino
|0
|-
|Saudi Arabia
|6.2
|-
|Seychelles
|0
|-
|Sierra Leone
|0
|-
|Senegal
|0.2
|-
|Slovenia
|0.7
|-
|Solomon Islands
|0
|-
|South Africa
|5.2
|-
|Sri Lanka
|0.7
|-
|Slovakia
|1.3
|-
|Swaziland
|0.1
|-
|Serbia
|0.6
|-
|Singapore
|3
|-
|Spain
|20.2
|-
|Sudan
|0.9
|-
|Suriname
|0
|-
|Syria
|0.8
|-
|Sweden
|6.6
|-
|Switzerland
|7.6
|-
|Tanzania
|0.3
|-
|Tonga
|0
|-
|Thailand
|4.6
|-
|Togo
|0
|-
|Trinidad and Tobago
|0.3
|-
|Tajikistan
|0.1
|-
|Timor-Leste
|0
|-
|Turkmenistan
|0.3
|-
|Tunisia
|0.6
|-
|Turkey
|10.5
|-
|Tuvalu
|0
|-
|Uganda
|0.2
|-
|Ukraine
|2
|-
|United Arab Emirates
|4.3
|-
|United States
|209
|-
|Uruguay
|0.6
|-
|Uzbekistan
|0.6
|-
|Vanuatu
|0
|-
|Venezuela
|5.6
|-
|Vietnam
|1.5
|-
|Yemen
|0.4
|-
|Zambia
|0.2
|-
|Zimbabwe
|0.1
|-
|}

== See also ==

*[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}
[[Category:Olympics]]

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-09T02:45:43Z

EricAlstrom: /* Math'd -- Gay marriage */

== "1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S." ==

Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, "Countries with a record of supporting young athletes"/"Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork" or "Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment"/"Countries where fitness is held as an important value"? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::There is nothing "rhetorical" about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow "taught a lesson" by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

== Euro 2012 ==
Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)

:::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
Also, if Spain and Italy are both "very liberal", that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be "very liberal!" [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.
Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia.
As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist.
Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==

Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=econ_honproj&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]

Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]

In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]

Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]

Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have "fat and sassy" atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism

I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term.

Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not.

Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again!

Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)
=== No doubt Bible believers achieve more gold medals than atheists all other things being equal ===

In a study listed in Who's Who in Who's Who, it took 5,000 Presbyterian ministers to produce one child listed in Who's Who. Among lawyers the ratio was 5,000 to 1; dentists 2,500 to 1. But for every seven Christian missionary families from the United States, one of their children would be listed in Who's Who.[http://www.wentworthbaptist.ca/old/sermontexts/Leaving%20the%20past%20behind_Phil%203.1-14_071230.htm] See also: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and health]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:33, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Do you have a link to that actual study? One in seven seems high. How big is this "Who's Who" list and how many missionary families are there in the USA?
::::Come on, everybody knows the formula to winning the gold. Preparation and conceive, believe and achieve! :) Doubters have a harder time believing than believers! Atheists are pessimists and have higher rates of depression. See: [[Atheism and depression]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Bible believers who are realists and optimists are more upbeat and win more gold medals. Plus, conservative Bible believing Protestants with the Protestant work ethic, are more able to outwork atheists and achieve more gold medals. Secular Europe is filled lazy doubters who love socialism. Lazy people are less likely to win gold medals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:08, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::yeah, that's good, really I just want to see how the study explains it
::::::::We know that per capita GDP increases Olympic medals. Therefore, when the shortsighted measures holding together the [http://www.care2.com/causes/euro-zone-crisis-banks-lower-rates-but-confidence-stays-low.html troubled Eurozone economy] stop working, they will win less gold medals than countries which were more prudent. The lazy secular Europeans should have listened to the Bible about hard work and not getting heavy into debt. The gold medal counts of secular Europe are going to be lower than they needed to be in 2016. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 10:24, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
http://www.gfmag.com/tools/global-database/economic-data/10394-public-debt-by-country.html#axzz1zqxAoMmm
:::::::::I think it is self explanatory that those who have faith will have the discipline and the belief to achieve something extraordinary--[[User:OconnorM|OconnorM]] 12:46, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I do know that post 1950 the USA became more secular and United States became less financially prudent. Socialism and communism do not have great track records over the long term and atheists have tended to like these systems more. Countries which adopted a Protestant work ethic have benefited and even those with a legacy of a Protestant work ethic culture have benefited.[http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/economics-religion-research] The Bible also mentions sharpening the axe (Ecclesiastes 10:10), good stewardship of resources and orderliness. [http://www.openbible.info/topics/orderliness] No doubt the legacy of Protestantism in the country of Germany (birth place of Protestantism), helped to create the efficiency and orderliness that their society is known for. Athletes who train more efficiently using the best methods and get better nutrition, gain more medals. See also: [[Christianity and science]]. Christianity has one of the highest rates of creationism in the world and despite Darwinist persecution of creationists and intelligent design proponents (see: [[Expelled]]) manages to be leader in technological innovation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:48, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

== One fair way to analyze ==

In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==

Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Baseball being removed from list ==

Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] "They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016" AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

== Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==

While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and "Nancy boys" lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well.
:::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.
::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and "nancy boys" is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984.
::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::There's a legal precedent - "He Who Asserts Must Prove"... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual "marriages" [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::Birth rates, already covered above: "A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]
:::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre.
:::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
[[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no "Nancy boy" and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]
{{clear}}
:::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===

We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates.

We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality having more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality.

Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. Of course, you would have to do statistical analysis to examine the relationship between societies accepting homosexuality and their suicide rates so you do not count other factors which cause suicides.

Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html "Adversity quotient"] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
It takes time to develop winning programs and I am guessing they knew in advance they were going to host the Olympics. 09:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:Caribbeans have low suicide rates.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate] They must be pretty mentally tough and not worry. :) Mental toughness increases performance. Hey mon, don't worry, be happy! Hey mon, I think I am going to kick back on a Caribbean beach and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTW0ifgY9zc&playnext=1&list=PLAA6853EB17004E8E listen to Caribbean music] while conservative, Bible believing families (which don't approve of homosexuality) keep winning more gold medals per family because they have more kids and have more mental toughness! :) And remember, conservative Bible believers with the Protestant work ethic, work harder to win gold medals than lazy, liberal, obese homosexuals with knee problems on welfare! See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::HAHAHA they do talk funny
:::: That may be so, [[User:Conservative]], but you are still miscorrelating. A conservative Canadian family wouldn't be made liberal by the legalization of same-sex marriage. If anything, the decline in medals should come ''before'' the legalization of same sex-marriage, since liberalization would come ''before'' the legalization of same-sex marriage. So, perhaps a better study would be looking at a country's attitudes towards homosexuality over time (both before and after legalization of same-sex marriage) and try to correlate that. But I honestly doubt the actual act of legalizing same-sex marriage has a magic wand effect. Which is why the evidence shows you are wrong even though your logic may be perfectly correct. It's only your conclusion that's flawed. Liberalization and shift in views on homosexuality take time to occur. They don't happen overnight upon legalization of same-sex marriage. There would only be evidence of what you're saying if it was a magical overnight shift. And it's not. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 16:16, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== More evidence that homosexuality leads to lower medal counts and Bible believing enables more medals to be won ===

Homosexuals have higher suicide rates than the general population (see: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]]). Historically, Christians have faced a lot of persecution, but they don't commit suicide. They know that God wants Christians to be strong and not commit suicide and the Bible has many verses about being courageous plus the Bible is against suicide. Bible believers are more mentally tough than homosexuals. Mental toughness increases athletic performance. Therefore, Bible believers, all other things remaining equal, are able to win more Olympic medals than homosexuals. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:52, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

=== Math'd -- Gay marriage ===

A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.

For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a "Pro-Gay" state. No marriage or civil unions, an "Anti-Gay" state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Medals
! Actual Medals
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 29.8
| 45
| 15.2
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 42.2
| 27
| -15.2
|-
| Total
| 72.0
| 72
| 0
|}

If we look just at Gold Medals...

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! State Type
! Expected Golds
! Actual Golds
! Over/Under
|-
| Pro-Gay
| 8.3
| 14
| 5.7
|-
| Anti-Gay
| 11.7
| 6
| -5.7
|-
| Total
| 20.0
| 20
| 0
|}
(Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)

As you can see, "Pro-Gay" states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, "Anti-Gay" states underperform by 36%.

The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - "Pro-Gay" outperformes %69%, while "Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.

In conclusion, do I think "imposing" gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.

2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.

3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
:::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
::::You still haven't shown me that the homosexual population can clear Olympic hurdles as well as the heterosexual population. See: [[Homosexuality and obesity]] and [[Lesbianism and obesity]]. Are you saying that overweight people are better hurdlers? If so, I have a hard time believing this. Also, nations with bigger populations earn more medals. How does homosexuality promote procreation? After all, God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:37, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::And kudos to you, User:Conservative. You once again can't resist bringing up us evil fat people as your argument. And lo and behold, it's even completely off-topic to the above comments. Color me surprised... '''''NOT!''''' [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 13:38, 6 July 2012 (EDT)
:::::: [[User:Conservative]], you make valid points, but you are confusing two statistical populations. There is the homosexual population, and if your statistics are correct, they should perform worse. Let's assume that you're right for the purpose of this discussion. However, that would only effect athletes who are homosexual themselves, not entire countries. Legalizing same-sex marriage won't magically make the entire population into homosexuals. So you should be looking at the sexual orientation of the athletes themselves if you want to prove your point. Whether the country/state legalizes same-sex marriage is irrelevant to your point, one way or the other. I'd be interested in seeing your new study which focuses on the athletes themselves and not on the whole country. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 13:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)

Conservative, you said that legalizing gay marriage leads to a country under-performing in the Olympics. I showed that the evidence does not support that, at least in America. I didn't say fat gays make good hurdlers. But, the Olympics usually doesn't draw athletes from the 'out-of-shape' population... [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:45, 8 July 2012 (EDT)

== Expected Medals ==

Hello all,
I think it would be fun to track "expected vs actuals" with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a "per capita" basis, or a "per GDP" basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

:I think ranking on a "per GDP" basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Added info re same-sex marriage ==

I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as "Independent Olympic Participants" under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)

== Joke sports ==

I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are "sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals". The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:I realize that the U.S. wins many of these "joke" medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

:::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.
:::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a "joke". [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==

Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?

Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278

Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: ""Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now."[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]

== Move page ==

Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
:::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)
::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name "Games of the XXX Olympiad". (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)

== Tables for medals ==

I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-04T17:43:33Z

EricAlstrom: /* Expected Medals */

2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-04T17:40:08Z

EricAlstrom:

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-02T21:09:55Z

EricAlstrom: /* Expected Medals */ new section

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-02T20:47:12Z

EricAlstrom: /* Math'd -- Gay marriage */

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-02T20:15:30Z

EricAlstrom: /* Math'd -- Gay marriage */

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-02T20:14:18Z

EricAlstrom: /* Math'd -- Gay marriage */

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-02T20:13:46Z

EricAlstrom: /* Math'd -- Gay marriage */

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-02T19:51:38Z

EricAlstrom: fix transposed digits

Talk:2012 Summer Olympics

2012-07-02T19:49:38Z

EricAlstrom: /* Math'd -- Gay marriage */ new section

FairTax

2012-06-29T18:08:26Z

EricAlstrom: /* Supporters and Opponents */

[[Image:FairTaxRally.jpg|thumb|350px|A pro FairTax rally in Florida]]
The '''FairTax''' is a tax proposal that would replace all federal [[income tax]]es — including corporate, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, [[Social Security]], [[Medicare]], and self employment taxes — with a federal national retail [[sales tax]] on personal consumption. The tax would be paid on the purchase of all new goods and services, and would be collected at the final point of sale.<ref> Americans For Fair Taxation, “About the FairTax,” http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main</ref> Thus, instead of taxing "income", the FairTax would tax spending. This is known as a [[consumption tax]] — a method for taxing income on the back end, when the money is spent, rather than when it is earned.

A consumption tax would have a positive effect on [[Savings rate|savings]] and [[investment]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112492381500022421.html| title=A Consumption Tax| work=The Wall Street Journal| last=Auerbach| first=Alan J| date=2005-08-25| accessdate=2008-02-05}}</ref> Supporters state the plan would ease tax compliance, increase economic growth, have incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and increase U.S. competitiveness in [[Trading|international trade]].<ref>{{cite book| first=Neal| last=Boortz| coauthors=Linder, John| year=2006| title=The FairTax Book| edition=Paperback| publisher=Regan Books| isbn=0-06-087549-6}}</ref> The rate for the FairTax as proposed under current legislation is 23 percent of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes).<ref> "Embedded Taxes Change Fair Tax Analysis",http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-51569</ref> This would be equivalent to a 30 percent traditional sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total). Although some critics say it would be higher to be revenue neutral (take in the same amount as the current system).<ref> http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html</ref> The effective tax rate for a family household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates.

The proposal includes monthly payments to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or 'prebate', of tax on purchases up to the [[poverty level]]. The rebate is meant to eliminate the taxation of household [[necessities]] and make the plan progressive. Used goods, [[exports]], and intermediate business transactions would not be taxed, nor would savings, investments, or [[education]] tuition expenses as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption). The tax is voluntary to the extent that individual consumers can choose when to increase or decrease their product buying, unlike now, when income taxes are [[Withholding|withheld]] from the paychecks of most workers.

==Proposal==
If passed, the Fair Tax would accomplish the following:<ref> American For Fair Taxation, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main</ref>

* Abolish the [[Internal Revenue Service]] (IRS).
* Abolish personal and business [[income tax]]es and replace it with a national retail sales tax.
* Repeal of the [[16th Amendment]] through companion legislation.
* Provide each worker a monthly prebate, equal to the tax on "poverty level" income.<ref> Just how fair is the ‘Fair Tax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref>
* Close many loopholes under the current system.
* Enable retirees to receive their full pension, untaxed, until they spend it.
* Enable workers to keep their entire paycheck, untaxed, until they spend it. 
* Proponents believe the removal of the above will save 265 billion dollars a year in compliance costs under the current tax system,<ref>http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#neutral</ref> and be more practical than the current system, which includes over 60,000 pages of tax code.<ref> 67,204-Page Code Confounds Taxpayers, Yet Congress Sits By, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-03-edit_N.htm?csp=34 </ref>

==History==

===1994-2005===
[[Image:FairTax vs. Tax Code 2.jpg‎ |thumb|300px|Congressman [[John Linder]], one of the strongest proponents for the FairTax, illustrates the size of the current tax system vs the FairTax method]]
The origins of the FairTax began with a group of businessmen from Houston, Texas, who initially financed what has become the political advocacy group Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) or FairTax.org, which has grown into a large grassroots tax reform movement.<ref> Just how fair is the ‘FairTax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref>. The Chairman of AFFT, Leo Linbeck, stated that Americans have to pressure the government to come up with a better way of taxation, he said, “It is painfully obvious that [[Washington, D.C.]] insiders so closely linked with the status quo cannot be trusted to overturn the corrupt system of federal taxation. This effort will have to be driven by the American people<ref>Americans For Fair Taxation http://boortz.com/nuze/200510/10132005.html</ref>." The organization hired experts to look into an idea for a better tax system, they spent 23 million dollars in coming up with the idea of the Fair Tax. Their findings were combined into a book, “The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS,” which Linbeck co-authored with Republican Congressman John Linder<ref> “The Fair Tax Book”,2005, http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1/102-3275846-3467353?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184106196&sr=1-1</ref>.

The FairTax became popular among free market [[conservative]]s, [[libertarian]]s, and some economists in recent years. The complication and wasted bureaucracy of the [[Internal Revenue Service]], government pressure on citizens to reveal information and records, and the loopholes in the current tax system created the incentive to look for a new way of taxation in the United States. Some [[Democrats]] also sought a tax system that would rid them current income tax, which they claim to be discriminate.

In the last 20 years the [[United States]] tax system has been changed over 14,000 times, this has led to an abundance of complexities which lead to its being an inefficient system. In 2003, United States Senator [[Saxby Chambliss]], a [[Republican]], and Senator [[Zell Miller]] a Democrat; introduced a by-partisan version of the Fair Tax. Although the bill had some support in the [[Senate]], it eventually lost in a 50-50. Senator [[Sam Brownback]] later stated the challenges of tax reform, “When you take (the tax code) on straight on, you take on every lobbyist,"

===2005-2007===

Former Federal Reserve Chairman, [[Alan Greenspan]], called for a federal sales tax to replace the broken income tax in 2005. "Since the exemplary 1986 reform, the tax code has drifted back to be overly complicated and burdened by higher marginal rates and by many special provisions that have undesirably narrowed the tax base," Greenspan stated at a Presidential Advisory counsel<ref>Greenspan: "Consumption Tax COuld Help Economy",http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref>.

In 2005 congress created a bill to enact the FairTax (H.R. 25; Senate Bill 1943), it had the support of more then 54 co-sponsors, and both Senate and House minority leaders [[Dennis Hassert]] and [[Tom DeLay]]<ref>“The FairTax: A Trogan Horse For America,” Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm#fn1</ref>. Although the bill received the most support ever for any fundamental tax reform bill, it failed to pass. After the elections of 2004, Georgia Republican Congressman, [[John Linder]], reintroduced the FairTax on the first day of the 109th congress<ref> “Linder Reintroduces FairTax Legislation”, http://www.johnlinder.com/News_Details.asp?NewsID=128</ref>. Congressman Linder stated before congress, “The time is ripe for fundamental tax and a completely new Federal tax regime. I am pleased to reintroduce my Fair Tax proposal today reform, and look forward to the Congress creating a fairer, simpler tax system that advances our core goals of lower taxes and more freedom for our citizens."<ref> “Linder Reintroduces FairTax Legislation”, http://www.johnlinder.com/News_Details.asp?NewsID=128</ref>.”

In 2007 support for the FairTax bill grew to include 60 co-sponsors<ref>FairTax Gains Support, http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20070508/record-sixty-co-sponsors-for-fairtax-bill-hr-25/</ref>.

One of the most outspoken supporters of the Fair Tax is Republican presidential candidate, [[Mike Huckabee]]. Huckabee has said that the Fair Tax would "put the IRS out of business, but put Americans in business<ref> Massachusetts For Mike Huckabee, http://massachusettsforhuckabee.blogspot.com/search/label/Tax%20Plan</ref>." 

== Supporters and Opponents==

[[Image:Fairtaxb.jpg|right|thumb|200px| A FairTax bus during a rally at the 2007 [[Republican]] [[Iowa Straw Poll]].]]
Most of the support for the FairTax comes from the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Libertarian]]s. A significant number of [[Conservative]]s want Republican presidential candidates to support the FairTax, including one Indiana group called ‘Hoosiers for Fair Taxation’<ref>”FairTax Supporters Vent Frustration”, June 2007, http://www.theindychannel.com/news/13651607/detail.html</ref>. <ref>”FairTaxer's continue to “flex their muscles”, July 2007, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_feature</ref>. Nevertheless, while the number of the members of Congress who have signed on to the proposal has been growing, it still lacks popular support to be close to passage. Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate [[Mike Huckabee]] made passage of a national sales tax a part of his platform during his recent bid for office. Former Federal Reserve chief [[Alan Greenspan]] also exhibited support for the FairTax in a recent interview.<ref>Greenspan: Consumption Tax could Help Economy, Fox News, March 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref>

Of the 2008 Democrat presidential candidates, only Mike Gravel supported the plan. [[Rudy Giuliani]], a one time candidate for President on the Republican side, was hesitant and did not support it.<ref> “Giuliani Jeered For Opposing Flat Tax”, Associated Press, July 2007, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/07/ap3891710.html</ref>: "I don't think a Fair Tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates<ref> “Giuliani Jeered For Opposing Flat Tax”, Associated Press, July 2007, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/07/ap3891710.html</ref>

Former Republican governor of [[New Mexico]] and current [[Libertarian Party]] candiate for president [[Gary Johnson]] (who also sought the GOP nomination in 2012 before switching parties) is also a supporter of the FairTax. He has said that while there is no such thing as a "good tax", the FairTax is the "best of the worst". He acknowledges that the FairTax is not perfect, but feels it is the best option at the moment.

[[Mitt Romney]] wrote in his 2010 book, ''No Apology: The Case for American Greatness'', "One challenge with the fair tax is that the very rich would see their taxes go down--a lot. If Bill Gates makes about a billion dollars a year on his investments, for example, his current taxes would be at least $200 million. Let’s say he spends $50 million on himself and his family every year--which is a huge sum and I doubt he spends that much, but let’s use it for illustration: Under the fair tax, Bill Gates would pay “only” about $17 million in taxes--his tax bill would thus drop from $200 million to $17 million. The Wall Street Journal found that the enormous amount saved by the wealthiest under the fair tax would be made up by a higher tax burden on the middle class."

William Gale, of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, has suggested that a pseudo-consumption tax could be implemented under the current American income tax system. In this, all citizens would have an [[Individual Retirement Account]], but one with no restrictions and limitations, into which all income is deposited. A citizen would essentially use this is a check-writing bank account, with funds only being taxed when they are withdrawn (consumed) to make purchases. This system would approximate the FairTax, but without rebates.

==Criticism==

*Critics contend that the FairTax would have Constitutional issues.

*The FairTax would still have tax evasion. Purchases made overseas, although subject to the tax and collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, would be difficult to track and therefore cheating might occur, much as it does now under the current system.

*A greater dependence on second-hand goods might occur, since they are exempt, and therefore alter the spending habits of the U.S. consumer.

*There is no cap on the rate that might be imposed by Congress. Just as current income tax rates change, the initial rate of 23% may be changed over time as Congress desires. However, since there is one rate, it would be difficult to engage in [[class warfare]] and pit one economic group against another — Congress would raise or lower the rate on everyone. Every citizen has an interest in keeping the rate low.

*It is argued that the FairTax would benefit the high income earners at the expense of the middle class.

*Many claim that due to the nature of politics, enactment of the FairTax with preserve all or part of the existing income tax, resulting in the federal government having two means of taxation.

*Like an income tax, a sales tax has its own implications with regard to personal privacy rights.

==External Links==

*[http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer Americans for Fair Taxation]
*[http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html FactCheck.org]
 

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Taxation]]
[[Category: Economics]]

FairTax

2012-06-29T18:08:07Z

EricAlstrom: /* Supporters and Opponents */

[[Image:FairTaxRally.jpg|thumb|350px|A pro FairTax rally in Florida]]
The '''FairTax''' is a tax proposal that would replace all federal [[income tax]]es — including corporate, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, [[Social Security]], [[Medicare]], and self employment taxes — with a federal national retail [[sales tax]] on personal consumption. The tax would be paid on the purchase of all new goods and services, and would be collected at the final point of sale.<ref> Americans For Fair Taxation, “About the FairTax,” http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main</ref> Thus, instead of taxing "income", the FairTax would tax spending. This is known as a [[consumption tax]] — a method for taxing income on the back end, when the money is spent, rather than when it is earned.

A consumption tax would have a positive effect on [[Savings rate|savings]] and [[investment]].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112492381500022421.html| title=A Consumption Tax| work=The Wall Street Journal| last=Auerbach| first=Alan J| date=2005-08-25| accessdate=2008-02-05}}</ref> Supporters state the plan would ease tax compliance, increase economic growth, have incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and increase U.S. competitiveness in [[Trading|international trade]].<ref>{{cite book| first=Neal| last=Boortz| coauthors=Linder, John| year=2006| title=The FairTax Book| edition=Paperback| publisher=Regan Books| isbn=0-06-087549-6}}</ref> The rate for the FairTax as proposed under current legislation is 23 percent of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes).<ref> "Embedded Taxes Change Fair Tax Analysis",http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/wb/xp-51569</ref> This would be equivalent to a 30 percent traditional sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total). Although some critics say it would be higher to be revenue neutral (take in the same amount as the current system).<ref> http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html</ref> The effective tax rate for a family household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebates.

The proposal includes monthly payments to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or 'prebate', of tax on purchases up to the [[poverty level]]. The rebate is meant to eliminate the taxation of household [[necessities]] and make the plan progressive. Used goods, [[exports]], and intermediate business transactions would not be taxed, nor would savings, investments, or [[education]] tuition expenses as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption). The tax is voluntary to the extent that individual consumers can choose when to increase or decrease their product buying, unlike now, when income taxes are [[Withholding|withheld]] from the paychecks of most workers.

==Proposal==
If passed, the Fair Tax would accomplish the following:<ref> American For Fair Taxation, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main</ref>

* Abolish the [[Internal Revenue Service]] (IRS).
* Abolish personal and business [[income tax]]es and replace it with a national retail sales tax.
* Repeal of the [[16th Amendment]] through companion legislation.
* Provide each worker a monthly prebate, equal to the tax on "poverty level" income.<ref> Just how fair is the ‘Fair Tax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref>
* Close many loopholes under the current system.
* Enable retirees to receive their full pension, untaxed, until they spend it.
* Enable workers to keep their entire paycheck, untaxed, until they spend it. 
* Proponents believe the removal of the above will save 265 billion dollars a year in compliance costs under the current tax system,<ref>http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_fairtax_four#neutral</ref> and be more practical than the current system, which includes over 60,000 pages of tax code.<ref> 67,204-Page Code Confounds Taxpayers, Yet Congress Sits By, USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2007-04-03-edit_N.htm?csp=34 </ref>

==History==

===1994-2005===
[[Image:FairTax vs. Tax Code 2.jpg‎ |thumb|300px|Congressman [[John Linder]], one of the strongest proponents for the FairTax, illustrates the size of the current tax system vs the FairTax method]]
The origins of the FairTax began with a group of businessmen from Houston, Texas, who initially financed what has become the political advocacy group Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) or FairTax.org, which has grown into a large grassroots tax reform movement.<ref> Just how fair is the ‘FairTax’ CNN Money, September 2005, http://money.cnn.com/2005/09/06/pf/taxes/consumptiontax_0510/</ref>. The Chairman of AFFT, Leo Linbeck, stated that Americans have to pressure the government to come up with a better way of taxation, he said, “It is painfully obvious that [[Washington, D.C.]] insiders so closely linked with the status quo cannot be trusted to overturn the corrupt system of federal taxation. This effort will have to be driven by the American people<ref>Americans For Fair Taxation http://boortz.com/nuze/200510/10132005.html</ref>." The organization hired experts to look into an idea for a better tax system, they spent 23 million dollars in coming up with the idea of the Fair Tax. Their findings were combined into a book, “The FairTax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS,” which Linbeck co-authored with Republican Congressman John Linder<ref> “The Fair Tax Book”,2005, http://www.amazon.com/Fair-Tax-Book-Saying-Goodbye/dp/0060875496/ref=sr_1_1/102-3275846-3467353?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184106196&sr=1-1</ref>.

The FairTax became popular among free market [[conservative]]s, [[libertarian]]s, and some economists in recent years. The complication and wasted bureaucracy of the [[Internal Revenue Service]], government pressure on citizens to reveal information and records, and the loopholes in the current tax system created the incentive to look for a new way of taxation in the United States. Some [[Democrats]] also sought a tax system that would rid them current income tax, which they claim to be discriminate.

In the last 20 years the [[United States]] tax system has been changed over 14,000 times, this has led to an abundance of complexities which lead to its being an inefficient system. In 2003, United States Senator [[Saxby Chambliss]], a [[Republican]], and Senator [[Zell Miller]] a Democrat; introduced a by-partisan version of the Fair Tax. Although the bill had some support in the [[Senate]], it eventually lost in a 50-50. Senator [[Sam Brownback]] later stated the challenges of tax reform, “When you take (the tax code) on straight on, you take on every lobbyist,"

===2005-2007===

Former Federal Reserve Chairman, [[Alan Greenspan]], called for a federal sales tax to replace the broken income tax in 2005. "Since the exemplary 1986 reform, the tax code has drifted back to be overly complicated and burdened by higher marginal rates and by many special provisions that have undesirably narrowed the tax base," Greenspan stated at a Presidential Advisory counsel<ref>Greenspan: "Consumption Tax COuld Help Economy",http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref>.

In 2005 congress created a bill to enact the FairTax (H.R. 25; Senate Bill 1943), it had the support of more then 54 co-sponsors, and both Senate and House minority leaders [[Dennis Hassert]] and [[Tom DeLay]]<ref>“The FairTax: A Trogan Horse For America,” Jews For Preservation of Firearms Ownership, http://www.jpfo.org/fairtax.htm#fn1</ref>. Although the bill received the most support ever for any fundamental tax reform bill, it failed to pass. After the elections of 2004, Georgia Republican Congressman, [[John Linder]], reintroduced the FairTax on the first day of the 109th congress<ref> “Linder Reintroduces FairTax Legislation”, http://www.johnlinder.com/News_Details.asp?NewsID=128</ref>. Congressman Linder stated before congress, “The time is ripe for fundamental tax and a completely new Federal tax regime. I am pleased to reintroduce my Fair Tax proposal today reform, and look forward to the Congress creating a fairer, simpler tax system that advances our core goals of lower taxes and more freedom for our citizens."<ref> “Linder Reintroduces FairTax Legislation”, http://www.johnlinder.com/News_Details.asp?NewsID=128</ref>.”

In 2007 support for the FairTax bill grew to include 60 co-sponsors<ref>FairTax Gains Support, http://www.fairtaxblog.com/20070508/record-sixty-co-sponsors-for-fairtax-bill-hr-25/</ref>.

One of the most outspoken supporters of the Fair Tax is Republican presidential candidate, [[Mike Huckabee]]. Huckabee has said that the Fair Tax would "put the IRS out of business, but put Americans in business<ref> Massachusetts For Mike Huckabee, http://massachusettsforhuckabee.blogspot.com/search/label/Tax%20Plan</ref>." 

== Supporters and Opponents==

[[Image:Fairtaxb.jpg|right|thumb|200px| A FairTax bus during a rally at the 2007 [[Republican]] [[Iowa Straw Poll]].]]
Most of the support for the FairTax comes from the [[Republican Party]] and the [[Libertarian]]s. A significant number of [[Conservative]]s want Republican presidential candidates to support the FairTax, including one Indiana group called ‘Hoosiers for Fair Taxation’<ref>”FairTax Supporters Vent Frustration”, June 2007, http://www.theindychannel.com/news/13651607/detail.html</ref>. <ref>”FairTaxer's continue to “flex their muscles”, July 2007, http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_feature</ref>. Nevertheless, while the number of the members of Congress who have signed on to the proposal has been growing, it still lacks popular support to be close to passage. Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate [[Mike Huckabee]] made passage of a national sales tax a part of his platform during his recent bid for office. Former Federal Reserve chief [[Alan Greenspan]] also exhibited support for the FairTax in a recent interview.<ref>Greenspan: Consumption Tax could Help Economy, Fox News, March 2005, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,149298,00.html</ref>

Of the 2008 Democrat presidential candidates, only Mike Gravel supported the plan. [[Rudy Giuliani]], a one time candidate for President on the Republican side, was hesitant and did not support it.<ref> “Giuliani Jeered For Opposing Flat Tax”, Associated Press, July 2007, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/07/ap3891710.html</ref>: "I don't think a Fair Tax is realistic change for America. Our economy is dependent upon the way our tax system operates<ref> “Giuliani Jeered For Opposing Flat Tax”, Associated Press, July 2007, http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/07/ap3891710.html</ref>

Former Republican governor of [[New Mexico]] and current [[Libertarian Party]] candiate for president [[Gary Johnson]] (who also sought the GOP nomination in 2012 before switching parties) is also a supporter of the FairTax. He has said that while there is no such thing as a "good tax", the FairTax is the "best of the worst". He acknowledges that the FairTax is not perfect, but feels it is the best option at the moment.

[[Mitt Romney]] wrote in his 2010 book, ''No Apology: The Case for American Greatness'', "One challenge with the fair tax is that the very rich would see their taxes go down--a lot. If Bill Gates makes about a billion dollars a year on his investments, for example, his current taxes would be at least $200 million. Let’s say he spends $50 million on himself and his family every year--which is a huge sum and I doubt he spends that much, but let’s use it for illustration: Under the fair tax, Bill Gates would pay “only” about $17 million in taxes--his tax bill would thus drop from $200 million to $17 million. The Wall Street Journal found that the enormous amount saved by the wealthiest under the fair tax would be made up by a higher tax burden on the middle class."

William Gale, of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, has suggested that a pseudo-consumption tax could be implemented under the current American income tax system. In this, all citizens would have an [[Individual Retirement Account]], but one with no restrictions and limitations, into which all income is deposited. A citizen would essentially use this is a check-writing bank account, with funds only being taxed when they are withdrawn (consumed) to make purchases. This system would approximate the FairTax, but without rebates. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 14:08, 29 June 2012 (EDT)

==Criticism==

*Critics contend that the FairTax would have Constitutional issues.

*The FairTax would still have tax evasion. Purchases made overseas, although subject to the tax and collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, would be difficult to track and therefore cheating might occur, much as it does now under the current system.

*A greater dependence on second-hand goods might occur, since they are exempt, and therefore alter the spending habits of the U.S. consumer.

*There is no cap on the rate that might be imposed by Congress. Just as current income tax rates change, the initial rate of 23% may be changed over time as Congress desires. However, since there is one rate, it would be difficult to engage in [[class warfare]] and pit one economic group against another — Congress would raise or lower the rate on everyone. Every citizen has an interest in keeping the rate low.

*It is argued that the FairTax would benefit the high income earners at the expense of the middle class.

*Many claim that due to the nature of politics, enactment of the FairTax with preserve all or part of the existing income tax, resulting in the federal government having two means of taxation.

*Like an income tax, a sales tax has its own implications with regard to personal privacy rights.

==External Links==

*[http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer Americans for Fair Taxation]
*[http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/unspinning_the_fairtax.html FactCheck.org]
 

==References==
<references/>

[[Category: Taxation]]
[[Category: Economics]]

Democrat Party

2012-06-29T17:57:15Z

EricAlstrom:

'''Democrat Party''' is the grammatically correct term for the [[Democratic Party]]. The Party is not "democratic", and proper nouns like "Democrat" are not properly converted into adjectives by adding "ic" as a suffix. It is not the "Republicanic Party," or the "Libertarianic Party", or a "Smith-ic Wedding." Predictably, many Democrats dislike the term, perhaps because they prefer the false illusion that their party is somehow more "democratic" than other parties.

==History of usage==
"Democrat Party" has a long history of usage by critics of the Democratic Party --mostly Republicans but also third party leaders like [[Ralph Nader]].<ref>See "Transcript: Ralph Nader on 'Meet The Press' Sunday, May 7, 2000" at [http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/050800-03.htm]; "Presidential candidate Ralph Nader makes stop in Minnesota; sees little difference between Bush, Kerry," Oct 27, 2004, at [http://www.hometownsource.com/2004/October/27nader.html] </ref> The history has been traced by scholars and commentators to the early 20th century.<ref>including Feuerlicht (1957), Lyman (1958), Safire (1993), Sperber and Trittschuh (1962), Numberg (2005) and Hertzberg (2006).</ref> The earliest known use of the term, according to the ''Oxford English Dictionary'', was in Britain in 1890: "Whether a little farmer...is going to rule the Democrat Party in America."<ref>under "Democrat" 4 citing ''Spectator'' 15 Nov. 1890 p 676. </ref> The term was used by [[Herbert Hoover]] in 1932, and in the late 1930s by Republicans who used it to criticize Democratic big city machines run by powerful political bosses in what they considered undemocratic fashion. Republican leader [[Harold Stassen]] said in 1940, "I emphasized that the party controlled in large measure at that time by [Frank] Hague in New Jersey, [Tom] Pendergast in Missouri and Kelly-Nash in Chicago should not be called a 'Democratic Party.' It should be called the 'Democrat Party.'"<ref>Hertzberg (2006) citing Safire</ref>

The noun-as-adjective has been used by numerous Republican leaders since the 1940s and appears in most GOP national platforms since 1948.<ref>''National Party Platforms, 1840-1996'', editors Kirk H. Porter, and Donald Bruce Johnson, (1996).</ref> In 1947 the Republican leader Senator [[Robert A. Taft]] said, "Nor can we expect any other policy from any Democrat Party or any Democrat President under present day conditions. They can not possibly win an election solely through the support of the solid South, and yet their political strategists believe the Southern Democrat Party will not break away no matter how radical the allies imposed upon it."<ref>Robert Taft, ''The Papers of Robert A. Taft'', edited by Clarence E. Wunderlin, Jr., 2003, 3:313.</ref> President [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] used the term in his acceptance speech in 1952 and in partisan speeches to Republican groups.<ref>''Washington Post'', October 28, 1958, page A8.</ref> Ruth Walker notes how [[Joseph McCarthy]] repeatedly used the phrase "the Democrat Party," and critics argue that if McCarthy used the term in the 1950s then no one else should do so. <ref> Walker (2005).</ref>

==Current usage==
In recent decades, however, the Republican Party has made the phrase "Democrat Party" its preferred way of referring to its opposition. The Republican Party Web site makes extensive use of the term. <ref> See [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Democrat+Party&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=www.gop.com&as_rights=&safe=images] </ref> The White House since 2001 has often used the noun-as-adjective when referring to the opposition party, and President Bush has used it almost exclusively.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126757,00.html "Bush Courts Black Voters at Urban League"] AP July 23, 2004; [http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/1/212536/7288 List of 356 uses of Democrat as an adjective by President Bush]</ref> Likewise it is in common use by former House Majority Leader [[Tom DeLay]],<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92971,00.html "DeLay: Democratic Party Unfit to Lead"], [[Fox News]], July 26, 2003.</ref> House Minority Leader [[John Boehner]],<ref>[http://www.slate.com/id/2156949/fr/rss/ "Pelosi's Big Day"], [[Slate (magazine)|Slate]], January 4, 2007.</ref> Senator [[Chuck Grassley|Charles Grassley]],<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181052,00.html "Alito: No Person Is Above the Law"], [[Fox News]], January 9, 2006.</ref> Congressman [[Steve Buyer]]<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/18/transcripts/index7.html "Transcript: House debates articles of impeachment"], [[CNN]], December 18, 1998.</ref> and others. George W. Bush spoke the phrase "Democrat majority" in his [[2007 State of the Union Address]].<ref>[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html Official 2007 State of the Union Transcript]</ref> (The advance copy that was given to members of Congress read "Democrat''ic'' majority".)<ref name="Copeland">{{cite news | first=Libby |last=Copleand |title = President's Sin of Omission? (Dropped Syllable in Speech Riles Democrats) | date = 2007-01-25 | url = http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/24/AR2007012402469.html | publisher = [[The Washington Post]] | accessdate = 2007-03-31}}</ref> Bush joked about his leadership of the "Republic Party" the following month.<ref> Noam H. Levey [http://www.latimes.com/news/la-ex-bush3feb04,1,4457343.story?ctrack=1&cset=true "Bush reaches across Partisan divide"]; LA Times, February 4, 2007 </ref>

Aside from partisan usage, the term can also be found used in non-partisan media. [[Media Matters for America]] has documented the occasional use of "Democrat Party" by CNN, ''The New York Times'', ''The Wall Street Journal'', ''The Chicago Tribune'', and the Associated Press. Abroad the term is occasionally used by the [[BBC]].<ref>[[Media Matters for America]], August 16, 2006. [http://mediamatters.org/items/200608160005 "GOP strategists christen 'Democrat (sic) Party' -- and the media comply"] On BBC see [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4259291.stm], on ''[[USA Today]]'' see [http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-10-11-reid_x.htm]; on [[Fox News]] see [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,227961,00.html]</ref>

Some state and local Democratic organizations use the noun-as-adjective on their web pages in Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana.<ref>[http://www.jeffcodems.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=117&Itemid=2 ''Chair's Newsletter--March 31-April 11, 2006'']. Jefferson County Democratic Party. Retrieved 2007-01-26. [http://www.il-democrats.org/DeWitt/calendar.html ''DeWitt County Democrat Party'']. Retrieved 2007-01-25. Indiana. [http://democrat.whitleynet.org/ ''Whitley County Democrat Party'']. Retrieved 2007-01-25. [http://www.ksdp.org/node/3044] regarding "The Kansas House Democrat Caucus" and "The Democrat Leadership Team" in 2007. On Missouri see [http://missouridems.org/calendar/] for "February 15, 2007: Saline County Democrat Club" and "March 2, 2007: Missouri Democrat Days."</ref> Lyman (1958) noted that "Democrat party" is common local usage in Maryland. In Indiana numerous "Democrat clubs" have filed incorporation with the Secretary of State, indicating widespread non-controversial usage among local Democrats.<ref> In Indiana there are 34 incorporated groups with "Democrat" as part of their legal name) versus 226 that use "Democratic"). These seem to be active local clubs. (Brown County is the official county organization). Alphabetically the first few are as follows: 17th District Democrat Club, Inc.; Indianapolis, 17th Ward Democrat Club Inc.; Andrew Jackson Democrat Club Of Tippecanoe County; Bloomfield Democrat Incorp.; Brown County Democrat Central Committee Corporation; City Of Portage Democrat Club; Clark County Democrat Men's Club, Inc.; Clinton County Democrat Club Inc., etc. Source: [https://secure.in.gov/sos/bus_service/online_corps/name_search_results.aspx?search_name=democrat&search_type=exact&client_id=&search_mode=search&submit.x=0&submit.y=0]. </ref>
===Democrats using "Democrat" as adjective===
Although nationally prominent Democrats carefully avoid "Democrat party," they have started to use "Democrat" as an adjective, as in the phase, "not a Democrat or Republican problem." Thus Vice President-elect Joe Biden, speaking of the [[recession of 2008]], said "This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, we’ve got ourselves a problem." Likewise Rep. Charles Rangel in prepared remarks said regarding the recession of 2008, "This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, but an American problem."<ref>see [http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/tag/cnn-political-producer-alexander-marquardt/ Biden Statement of Dec. 2, 2008]; also see [http://waysandmeans.house.gov/News.asp?FormMode=release&ID=862 Rangel statement of Feb. 13. 2009] </ref>

Regarding the New Jersey budget crisis, "It’s not a Democrat or Republican problem," said Governor Jon Corzine.<ref>see [http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=corzines_choice June 20, 2008 interview.</ref>

President Obama used "Democrat" as an adjective parallel to "Republican" in formal remarks at the White House in 2009:
:[Executives] "understand that what makes an idea sound is not whether it's Democrat or Republican, but whether it makes good economic sense for their workers and companies."<ref> Barack Obama, "Remarks by the President on the Economy after Meeting with Business Leaders, January 28, 2009," [http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceos_at_the_white_house/ online]</ref>

==Issues of grammar==
Some believe that the use of the noun "Democrat" as an adjective is ungrammatical.<ref> Copperud (1980)</ref> Using a noun as a modifier of another noun is not grammatically incorrect in modern English in the formation of a compound noun, i.e. "shoe store," "school bus," "peace movement," "Senate election," etc. Americans commonly speak of "the Iraq war" rather than "the Iraqi war."<ref name=walker>Walker (2005); [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0812097203&id=efMpTxl3n2cC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=%22nouns+used+as+adjectives%22&sig=7SOy_ENpfdI1iBit9e4yF36KwGM ''Master the Basics: English''] by Jean Yatets, 1996, page 64.</ref>

In American history many parties were named by their opponents (Federalists, Loco-Focos, Know Nothings, Populists, Dixiecrats), including the Democrats themselves, as the Federalists in the 1790s used "Democratic Party" as a term of ridicule.<ref> Nunberg (2006); Safire, (1993), 176, 391-2, 595-6; Sperber and Trittschuh. 118-9, 150, 231-2. </ref>.

The use of "Democrat Party" could be part of a broader linguistic trend. As one linguist explained, "We're losing our inflections – the special endings we use to distinguish between adjectives and nouns, for instance. There's a tendency to modify a noun with another noun rather than an adjective. Some may speak of "the Ukraine election" rather than 'the Ukrainian election' or 'the election in Ukraine,' for instance. It's 'the Iraq war' rather than 'the Iraqi war,' to give another example."<ref>Walker (2005)</ref>

==Response==
Members of the Republican Party, from political commentators to President Bush himself, made especially extensive use of the term "Democrat Party" during the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections. In response to the growing use of the epithet in late 2006, a corresponding epithet for the Republican Party, the "Republic Party", began to circulate in liberal parts of the blogosphere; the previous Republican waves of usage had inspired the "Publican Party", but this failed to catch on.<ref>Feuerlicht, 1956</ref>

Democrats complained about the use of "Democrat" as an adjective in the 2007 State of the Union address by President Bush. "Like nails on a chalkboard," complained Clinton White House Chief of Staff John Podesta. Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed its usage to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans: "They have been doing it so long that they probably don't even realize they're doing it."<ref>Copeland </ref> On February 4, 2007, Bush joked in a speech to House Democrats, stating "Now look, my diction isn't all that good. I have been accused of occasionally mangling the English language. And so I appreciate you inviting the head of the Republic Party."<ref>''Washington Post'' Feb 4, 2007 at [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/03/AR2007020300701.html</ref> Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-[[NY]]) repeatedly invoked the phrase "The Republic Party" on the floor of the House in February 2007 while lambasting Congressional Republicans.<ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsqprEihjXg Youtube - Anthony Weiner Rips the "Republic Party"].</ref>

Another corresponding noun-as-adjective response has also begun to circulate on the Internet: "The Republicans Party."<ref> [http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1018-02.htm][http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/10/28/112436.php][http://www.ironweedfilms.com/node/525]</ref> Members of the Democratic Underground have proposed that "Republicon Party" be used as a counter to the Republican adoption of Democrat Party as a putdown.<ref>[http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3190412 Democratic Underground thread]</ref>

==Objections in the [[Lamestream media]]==
Complaints about the term "Democrat Party" can be found in the [[lamestream media]]. ''New Yorker Magazine'' commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be - a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly."<ref> Hertzberg (2006)</ref>

==References==
* Roy H. Copperud, ''American Usage and Style: The Consensus'' 1980, pages 101-102.
* Ignace Feuerlicht. "Democrat Party," , ''American Speech'', Vol. 32, No. 3 (Oct., 1957), pp. 228-231 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283%28195710%2932%3A3%3C228%3ADP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-0 online in JSTOR]
* Bryan A. Garner, ''A Dictionary of Modern American Usage'' 1998, p. 196.
* Hendrik Hertzberg. [http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060807ta_talk_hertzberg "The 'IC' Factor"] ''The New Yorker'', August 7, 2006.
* John Lyman, "Democrat Party," ''American Speech'', Vol. 33, No. 3 (October 1958), pp. 239-40 [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1283%28195810%2933%3A3%3C239%3ADP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-T in JSTOR] notes term as used by some Democrats in Maryland.
* ''Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage'', 1994, pp 328-29, page 667.
* Geoffrey Nunberg. [http://www-csli.stanford.edu/~nunberg/democrats.html "The Case for Democracy"] in "Fresh Air" commentary, January 19, 2005 (radio broadcast).
* Geoffrey Nunberg, ''Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show'' 2006.
* William Safire, ''Safire's New Political Dictionary'' (1993).
* Hans Sperber and Travis Trittschuh. ''American Political Terms: An Historical Dictionary'' (1962) pages 117-23.
* Walker, Ruth. [http://blogs.csmonitor.com/verbal_energy/2005/01/index.html "Republicans, Democrats, and the Afghan on the couch"] ''[[Christian Science Monitor]]'', January 27, 2005
* [http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904EFD61538F934A2575BC0A962948260 "Democrats Find Ally In Republican Camp"], ''UPI'', August 17, 1984.
* Democratic Underground http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3190412 March 31, 2007
====notes====
<references/>

[[category:Democratic Party]]

Democratic Party

2012-06-29T17:55:48Z

EricAlstrom:

{{AmericanPoliticalParty
| party_name=Democratic Party
| party_articletitle = Democratic Party (United States)
| party_logo = [[Image:democraticpartyusalogo.png|200px]]
| website = [http://www.democrats.org www.democrats.org]
| headquarters = 430 South Capitol Street SE [[Washington, D.C.]] 20003
| chairman = [[Tim Kaine]]
| houseleader = [[Nancy Pelosi]]
| senateleader = [[Harry Reid]]
| foundation = 1832
| ideology = range from extreme [[leftist]] to [[moderate]]
| fiscalpolicy = [[Socialist]]/[[Liberal]]
| socialpolicy = center-liberal/[[Hollywood values]]
| colors = Blue (unofficial)
| footnotes =
}}
The '''Democratic Party''', sometimes called the [[Democrat Party|Democrat Party]], is one of the two major political [[parties]] in the [[United States of America]]. In general it is [[pro-abortion]] ("pro-choice") and supports higher taxes, anti-gun policies, and a larger government, while the [[Republican Party]] is generally [[pro-life]] and supports lower taxes and small government. President [[Barack Obama]] and other Democrats are [[liberal]] / [[Progressive]] leftists.

Members of the Democratic Party are known as Democrats. In the 19th century -- when it supported [[slavery]] -- the party was sometimes called "The Democracy." There are Democrats who claim to be more [[conservative]] than typical liberals, called the "[[Blue Dogs]]" in [[Congress]], but they often behave like "lapdogs" for the [[liberal]] party leadership when there is a controversial vote.

In the doldrums after 2000, the party roared back with major gains in 2006, which it expanded in 2008 to sweep control of the national government, and leave the GOP in a state of confusion and decline. The GOP bounced back in 2009, with near-unanimous opposition to contentions Democratic policies, especially as stimulus spending and health care reform. Polls show Obama's popularity began to sink in the summer of 2009.

The Democrats currently control the White House and hold a slim majority in the Senate, but in the 2010 midterm elections, the Republican party won decisive control of the House of Representatives; suburbs and rural areas are still more likely to be in Republican hands.<ref>[http://www.multistate.com/Site.nsf/Elections2006PostMaps?OpenPage Multistate.com] Post-Election 2006 Maps</ref> Polls show 50% of voters identify themselves with the Democratic Party as opposed to 35% for the Republican Party.<ref>[http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=312 Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes: 1987-2007] Pew Research Center, 22 March 2007</ref> The Democratic-majority Congress currently has a 55% negative approval rating, with only 31% expressing approval.<ref> [http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html]</ref>

==Policies and criticism==
The views of individual Democrats sometimes diverge from the party's official stance as expressed in its national platform, however unlike the Republican party, the Democratic National Committee has not allowed dissenting opinions to share the podium on matters such as abortion at National Conventions. <ref>[http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php] , http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_03/005787.php, March 6, 2005</ref>

===Economic policy===
[[Image:Unemployment.jpg|thumb|241px|right|''Source: Bureau of Labor Statisitcs'' [http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2009/07/anti-stimulus-in-pictures-any-questions.html]]]
In the field of economic policy, Democrats tend to favor high progressive taxes, more regulation, and higher government spending.

The Democratic Party has historically had ties to [[labor union|organized labor]].<ref> http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/913wopoz.asp Paying Dues - The Democrats settle up with their union bosses, [[Weekly Standard]], July 25, 2007 </ref>

The [[National Education Association]],<ref>[http://www.nea.org/index.html National Education Association homepage]</ref> the largest union of public school teachers, is a backbone of the party, supplying the largest number of delegates to its national conventions.

Democrats typically state that they want to help low-income Americans, however they usually seek to accomplish this by increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

Since passage of the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, [[unemployment]] has increased from below 7% to slightly under 10%.

===Foreign and military policy===
According to its platform, the Democratic Party has the objective of strengthening America. Democratic national leadership has been accused of being ambivalent about terrorism<ref>[http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=22045 "Democrats, ACLU Outraged Over Traveler Terrorism Screening Program"] C. Johnson, Associated Press</ref> and insufficiently patriotic.<ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/01/smn.19.html CNN Saturday Morning News]Transcript: December 1, 2001 </ref> A poll conducted by [[Fox News]] released in October 2007 found that 1 in 5 Democrats – nearly 10 million voters – think the world will be better off if the [[United States]] were to lose the [[War in Iraq]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299374,00.html Nearly 1 in 5 Democrats Say World Will Be Better Off if U.S. Loses War], FOX News Poll, October 04, 2007.</ref> The poll found this sentiment 3 to 4 times higher among Democrats than among moderate, centrist, and Republican voters.

===Education===
An organization affiliated with the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] called the [[Progressive Policy Institute]] claims a long-standing opposition to school vouchers.<ref>21st Century Schools Project Bulletin: Special Edition [http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=110&subsecID=900001&contentID=250630 ''Putting Vouchers in Perspective''], PPI E-newsletter 2 July 2002</ref> Jonathan Alter of ''Newsweek'' warned that opposition to vouchers might alienate some traditional Democratic voting blocs:
:"Can wealthy white liberals - many of whom send their kids to private school - really say to poor parents: 'We can have choices, but you must not?'...This is a glaring hypocrisy sitting at the heart of the liberal opposition to targeted vouchers… Right now, Democrats are in a highly compromised position on education."<ref>[http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=newsLetter&sectionID=29&NLissueID=4&articleID=11&altCol=2 Center For Education Reform, Monthly Letter to Friends No. 75], Back to School 2002.</ref>

===Environment vs Labor===
Two other important coalition groups also find themselves in direct conflict with each other within the Democratic party coalition--[[Environmentalist]]s and Labor Unions. While environmentalists support efforts like clean air and alternative fuels, for example, this creates tension with the workers of American automobile manufactures whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies such as increasing regulations and high costs. Such policies can lead to cutbacks and layoffs. Balancing these issues is difficult because some sacrifices of interests must be made by both sides.

===Healthcare===
Democratic leaders have endorsed various [[Democratic Health Care Plans]]; the question in 2009 was whether a new trillion dollar plan could pass in a time of economic crisis. On March 21, 2010, [[ObamaCare]] was passed by Congress into federal law.

Many argue that there may be some advantages to a universal health care system. Democrats generally regard [[universal health care]] to be a priority because of the appeal to poorer voters without any kind of [[health insurance]].

===Gay Rights===
White Democratic leaders --but not blacks or Latinos--consistently favor measures such as the establishment of [[same-sex civil union]]s.{{citation needed}}

===Other Policies===
Democrats frequently support the minimum wage, workplace protections, the right of women to choose to have an [[abortion]], [[gun control]], gay marriage, and the separation of church and state.

==Religion==
In the United States, there is some correlation between religious and political affiliation, though people of all faiths and denominations can be found among the supporters of each of the main parties.

Historically [[Roman Catholic Church|Catholic]] voters have had a tendency to identify with the Democratic Party; in recent decades there has been little difference. However Catholic politicians are mostly Democrats, including Speaker of the House [[Nancy Pelosi]]. However, several general ideals of the Democratic Party's platform - most notably, the party's overall support for the legality of [[abortion]] - are contrary to the position of the [[Catholic Church]].

With regard to Protestants, members of [[Evangelical]] churches in recent years have voted about 70-80% Republican. However, the large majority of Democratic Party members are Protestants. One unusual feature of the Democratic Party, however, is that it draws substantial support both from committed African-American Protestants (most of whom are Baptists) and from secular and atheist voters. The strong opposition to [[homosexuality]] found among many Black Protestants contrasts strikingly with the support frequently shown by other Democrats for the [[homosexual agenda]]. One reason for this contrast could be the Democrats' strong support for minority rights.

Democrats also generally believe that religion should be separate from public life, and as such are typically supported by the ACLU. For example, in 1999 the Congress took up a bill to protect the display of the [[Ten Commandments]]. In the House of Representatives, over 3/4ths of the Democratic party members voted to remove the display.<ref>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/18/gun.rollcall/ten.commandments.html</ref>. The measure did not pass the Legislature, and as a result when Justice [[Roy Moore]] posted a [[Ten Commandments]] display in his courthouse, the ACLU was able to have the display removed.

==History==
[[File:Dem-leaders.jpg|thumb|300px|Clockwise from far left: presidents Carter, Kennedy, Clinton, Wilson, Johnson, Truman, Jackson, Roosevelt]]
===First Party System===
Democrats claim the [[Thomas Jefferson]] founded their party in 1793 at the start of the [[First Party System]]. The [[Democratic-Republican Party]] was a political party established during the 1790's under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and [[James Madison]]. It was generally called the Republican Party, but it had no relation to today's Republican Party, founded in 1854. By about 1816, the Federalist Party had broken up as a national organization. With its decline, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several groups. [[Andrew Jackson]] emerged as the candidate of one of these groups and was elected President in 1828.

===Origins===
Most historians regard Jackson's 1832 campaign organization as the beginning of today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself traces its origin to Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party.<ref>[[World Book]]</ref> A few Democratic-Republicans, such as [[John Quincy Adams]] and [[Henry Clay]], created the [[National Republican Party]]. Adams supporters called themselves National Republicans, antecedents of the Whig and later the Republican parties.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref>

The modern Democratic party was formed during 1828-34, under the national leadership of Jackson and Van Buren, with organizations in all the states comprised of local political leaders. This became the era of [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. The Jacksonians resembled the [[Jeffersonian Democracy|Jeffersonians]] especially in terms of anti-elite rhetoric of opposition to "aristocracy" (that is, wealthy old families), distrust of banks (and paper money), and faith in "the people." By his extensive use of federal [[Spoils system|patronage]], President Jackson removed old office-holders to make way for party loyalists. With the emergence of the Whig Party, the nation now had a new party system, the [[Second Party System]], which lasted until 1854.

The party held its first national convention in 1832 to choose a new running mate for Jackson; it nominated Martin Van Buren for vice president and endorsed the reelection of Jackson. Jackson easily defeated Clay in 1832. In the political realignment of 1828-32, some of Jackson's supporters from the election of 1828, especially businessmen and bankers, switched to the opposition Whig Party as Jackson crusaded against the [[Second Bank of the United States]]. The name "Democratic Party" became common by the mid-1830s.

== Jacksonian Democracy: 1832-1854 ==
[[image:donk1837.jpg|thumb|300px|1837 cartoon shows Democratic Party as donkey ]]
The new party dominated the [[Second Party System]] (as political scientists call it; historians call it "Jacksonian Democracy", 1832-54. After 1832, the Democratic Party drew support from a cross section of the country; every group was represented. However the vast majority of rich merchants, bankers and plantation owners were Whigs, as were most evangelical Protestants. The party was strongest among traditionalistic farmers, frontiersmen, unskilled workers, Irish Catholics, and local or state political leaders. It was weakest in [[New England]], where industrialization turned most factory workers and white collar workers into Whigs, but was dominant in all other regions. The key issues it promoted were opposition to elites and aristocrats, popular democracy (in terms of voting rights and access to government patronage jobs) and opposition to the [[Bank of the United States]] (Jackson vetoed its charter renewal in 1832). The policies were known as [[Jacksonian Democracy]]. [[Image:Jackson1832.jpg|thumb|300px|left]]

Banking and tariffs were the central domestic policy issues from 1828 to 1852. The Democrats favored the [[Mexican-American War]]; Whigs opposed it. Democrats attracted Catholic Irish and German immigrants and denounced anti-immigrant nativism. Both the Democrats and Whigs were divided on the issue of slavery.

In the 1830s the [[Loco-Focos]] in New York City were radically democratic, anti-monopoly, and proponents of [[laissez-faire]]. Their chief spokesman was writer [[William Leggett]]. At this time labor unions were few; some were loosely affiliated with the party.

The economy went sour in the late 1830s with Van Buren getting the blame; he lost reelection as president in 1840 to the Whig [[William Henry Harrison]]. The Democrats gained the White House back in 1844 with [[James K. Polk]]. He had a successful term, then retired. The Democratic National Committee was created in 1848 at the convention that nominated General [[Lewis Cass]], who lost to General [[Zachary Taylor]] of the Whigs. In state after state the Democrats gained small but permanent advantages over the Whigs, until by 1852 the Whig Party was fatally weakened by divisions regarding the issue of slavery and they soon vanished.

The Democratic party dominated the North from the 1840s to 1854. Northern Democrats opposed banks, criticized corporate practices, and preached the ideals of a free society. They called for rapid territorial expansion of the United States, saying that in territorial expansion lay a means for thwarting the pretensions of the [[Slave Power]].

[[Franklin Pierce]] of New Hampshire was elected president in 1852, followed by [[James Buchanan]] of Pennsylvania in 1856. They proved poor presidents who lost control of the slavery issue, and the party, as the nation broke apart and fought the [[American Civil War]].

==Third Party System: Civil War, Gilded Age: 1854-1896==
During the [[Third Party System]] (1854-1896) the Democrats became the minority in the face of the newly formed Republican Party, which controlled nearly all northern states by 1860, bringing a solid majority in the Electoral College. A powerful Republican issue was the allegation that northern Democrats, including "Doughfaces" like Pierce and Buchanan, and advocates of popular sovereignty like [[Stephen A. Douglas]] and [[Lewis Cass]], were accomplices to the [[Slave Power]]. The Republicans meant by Slave Power the conspiracy of slaveholders to seize control of the federal government and block the progress of liberty.

[[Image:DEM1860.JPG|200px|thumb|left|To vote for Douglas in Virginia, a man had to deposit the ticket in the official ballot box.]]
In 1860 the Democrats were unable to stop the election of Republican [[Abraham Lincoln]], even as they feared his election would lead to civil war. The party split in two. The northern wing nominated Douglas, and the southern wing nominated Vice President [[John C. Breckinridge]]. Douglas campaigned across the country and came in second in the popular vote, but carried only Missouri. Breckinridge carried 11 slave states.

The Republican Party was beginning a 50-year era of dominance (1858-1910). During the war, Northern Democrats divided into two factions, [[War Democrats]], who supported the military policies of President Lincoln, and [[Copperheads]], who strongly opposed them. Historian Kenneth Stampp has captured the Copperhead spirit in his depiction of Democratic Congressman [[Daniel W. Voorhees]] of Indiana:
<blockquote>There was an earthy quality in Voorhees, "the tall sycamore of the Wabash." On the stump his hot temper, passionate partisanship, and stirring eloquence made an irresistible appeal to the western Democracy. His bitter cries against protective tariffs and national banks, his intense race prejudice, his suspicion of the eastern Yankee, his devotion to personal liberty, his defense of the Constitution and state rights faithfully reflected the views of his constituents. Like other Jacksonian agrarians he resented the political and economic revolution then in progress. Voorhees idealized a way of life which he thought was being destroyed by the current rulers of his country. His bold protests against these dangerous trends made him the idol of the Democracy of the Wabash Valley.<ref>Stampp, 211.</ref></blockquote>

The Democrats lost consecutive presidential elections from 1860 through 1880 (but 1876 was in dispute); 1884 was their next victory. The Democrats were weakened by their record of opposition to the Civil War but nevertheless benefited from white Southerners' resentment of Reconstruction and consequent hostility to the Republican Party. The [[Redeemers]] gave the Democrats control of every Southern state; the disenfranchisement of black voters in most of the South took place 1890-1900. From 1880 to 1960 the "[[Solid South]]" voted Democratic in all presidential elections (except 1928). After 1900 the key election in southern states was the Democratic primary; victory in the that primary was "tantamount to election" because the GOP was so weak.

Though Republicans continued to control the White House until 1912 (except 1884 and 1892), the Democrats remained competitive in the states, especially in the mid-Atlantic and lower Midwest, and controlled the House of Representatives for most of that period. In the election of 1884, [[Grover Cleveland]], the conservative Democratic Governor of New York, won the presidency, a feat he repeated in 1892, having lost in the election of 1888.

[[Image:1893cleveland-typewriter.jpg|thumb|350px|Typewriters were new in 1893 and this Gillam cartoon from ''Puck'' shows that Cleveland can't get the Democratic "machine" to work as the keys (key politicians) won't respond to his efforts.]]

Cleveland was the leader of the [[Bourbon Democrats]], the conservative wing of the party. They represented business interests, supported banking and railroad goals, promoted capitalism, opposed imperialism and U.S. verseas expansion, opposed the annexation of [[Hawaii]], fought for the [[gold standard]], and opposed [[Bimetallism]]. They strongly supported reform movements such as [[Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act|Civil Service Reform]] and opposed corruption of city bosses, leading the fight against the [[Tweed Ring]]. The leading Bourbons included [[Samuel J. Tilden]], [[David Bennett Hill]] and [[William C. Whitney]] of New York, [[Arthur Pue Gorman]] of Maryland, [[Thomas F. Bayard]] of Delaware, [[William L. Wilson]] of West Virginia, [[John Griffin Carlisle]] of Kentucky, [[William F. Vilas]] of Wisconsin, [[J. Sterling Morton]] of Nebraska, [[John M. Palmer]] of Illinois, [[Horace Boies]] of Iowa, [[L.Q.C. Lamar]] of Mississippi, and railroad builder [[James J. Hill]] of Minnesota. A prominent intellectual was [[Woodrow Wilson]]. The Bourbons were in power when the [[Panic of 1893]] hit; it was a deep depression and they took the blame. A fierce struggle inside the party ensued, with catastrophic losses for both the Bourbon and agrarian factions in 1894, leading to the showdown in 1896.
[[Image:Dead-dem1880.jpg|thumb|550px|In 1880 when General Hancock (right) became the presidential nominee of the Democrats, Republican cartoonists showed the Democratic party history as a horror chamber featuring atrocities in the Civil War era; the donkey" shows the party as a coalition of the rear end of the South joned to the rear end of the North]]

===Ethnocultural voting: pietistic Republicans versus liturgical Democrats===
Religious lines were sharply drawn.<ref>Kleppner (1979).</ref> Methodists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Scandinavian Lutherans and other pietists and evangelicals in the North were tightly linked to the Republican Party. In sharp contrast, liturgical groups, especially the Catholics, Episcopalians, and German Lutherans, looked to the Democratic Party for protection from pietistic moralism, especially prohibition. Both parties cut across the class structure, with the Democrats more bottom-heavy.

Cultural issues, especially prohibition and foreign language schools became important because of the sharp religious divisions in the electorate. In the North, about 50% of the voters were pietistic or evangelical Protestants who believed the government should be used to reduce social sins, such as drinking. Liturgical churches (Roman Catholics, German Lutherans, Episcopalians) comprised over a quarter of the vote and wanted the government to stay out of the morality business. Prohibition debates and referenda heated up politics in most states over a period of decade, as national prohibition was finally passed in 1918 (and repealed in 1933), serving as a major issue in the North between the wet Democracy and the dry GOP.<ref>In the South the Democrats were mostly on the dry side. Kleppner (1979).</ref>

==The Bryan Movement==
[[Image:Mark Hanna 1896 election.jpg|thumb|290px|right|Democratic attack ad in 1896 against GOP National Chairman [[Mark Hanna]]; cartoon by Davenport depicts Hanna as a slave driver; from Hearst's ''New York Journal'']]
[[Grover Cleveland]] led the conservative, pro-business [[Bourbon Democrat]]s but as the [[Panic of 1893|depression of 1893]] deepened his enemies multiplied. The Panic of 1893 started in February 1893, a full month before Cleveland became president. Convinced that the [[Sherman Silver Purchase Act]], passed under the administration of [[Benjamin Harrison]], was largely responsible for the alarming drain on federal gold, President Cleveland called Congress into special session to urge its repeal. Congress consented, but only after bitter debate that divided the Democratic party into two hostile camps-the eastern "goldbugs" and the silver wing of the West and South that was to propel young [[William Jennings Bryan]] to the fore in 1896.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> At the 1896 convention the silverite-agrarian faction repudiated the president, and nominated the crusading orator [[William Jennings Bryan]] on a platform of inflation through "free" silver. The idea was that minting huge numbers of silver dollars would flood the economy with cash and end the depression. Eastern Democrats, unable to accept the party's free-silver platform and unwilling to support McKinley for his tariff views, nominated their own candidate, John M. Palmer of Illinois and called themselves the National, or Gold, Democrats.<ref>William DeGregorio, ''The Complete Book of U.S. Presidents'', Gramercy 1997</ref> The [[Gold Democrats]] attracted politicians and intellectuals (including [[Woodrow Wilson]] and [[Frederick Jackson Turner]]) who refused to vote Republican.

Bryan, an overnight sensation because of his phenomenal "Cross of Gold" speech, crusaded against the gold standard. Crisscrossing the Midwest and East by special train, he gave over 500 speeches to audiences in the millions. In St. Louis he gave 36 speeches to workingmen's audiences all over the city, all in one day. Most Democratic newspapers were hostile (except [[William Randolph Hearst]]'s ''New York Journal'') but Bryan seized control of the media by making the news every day, as he hurled thunderbolts against Eastern monied interests. The rural folk in South and Midwest were ecstatic, showing an enthusiasm never before seen. Ethnic Democrats, especially Germans, however, were alarmed and frightened by Bryan. The middle classes, businessmen, newspaper editors, factory workers, railroad workers, and prosperous farmers generally rejected Bryan's crusade. Bryan was overwhelmed by [[William McKinley]] in the most exciting race in national history.<ref> Refuting Bryan's charges, historians have discovered there was little coercion of workers.</ref> McKinley promised a return to prosperity based on the gold standard, support for industry, railroads and banks, and pluralism that would enable every group to move ahead. Bryan did however, win the hearts and minds of a majority of Democrats. The election of 1896 was a political realignment. The victory of the Republican Party marked the start of the "Progressive Era," from 1896 to 1932, in which the GOP usually was dominant.

==Fourth Party System: Bryan, Wilson, Progressivism: 1896-1932 ==
The [[Fourth Party System]] began with the 1896 election, a realignment during which the GOP controlled the presidency for 28 of 36 years. The GOP dominated most of the Northeast and Midwest, and half the West. Bryan, with a base in the South and Plains states, was strong enough to get the nomination in 1900 (losing to McKinley) and 1908 (losing to Taft). [[Theodore Roosevelt]] dominated the first decade of the century—and to the annoyance of Democrats "stole" the trust issue by crusading against trusts.

[[Image:Steal~trust.JPG|thumb|250px|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] steals the anti-trust issue from the Democrats, 1904]]

Anti-Bryan conservatives controlled the convention in 1904, but they faced a [[Theodore Roosevelt]] landslide. Bryan dropped his free silver and anti-imperialism rhetoric and supported mainstream progressive issues, such as the income tax, anti-trust, and direct election of Senators. He backed [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912, was rewarded with the State Department, then resigned in protest against Wilson's non-pacifistic policies in 1916. Northern Democrats were progressive on most issues, but generally opposed prohibition, were lukewarm regarding woman's suffrage, and were reluctant to undercut the "boss system" in the big cities.

Taking advantage of a deep split in the GOP, the Democrats took control of the House in 1910, and elected the intellectual reformer [[Woodrow Wilson]] in 1912 and 1916. Wilson successfully led Congress to a series of Progressive laws, including a reduced tariff, stronger antitrust laws, the [[Federal Reserve System]], hours-and-pay benefits for railroad workers, and outlawing of child labor (which was reversed by the Supreme Court). Furthermore, constitutional amendments for prohibition and woman suffrage were passed in his second term. In effect, Wilson laid to rest the issues of tariffs, money and antitrust that had dominated politics for 40 years. Wilson led the U.S. to victory in the World War, and turned his attention to foreign affairs. He wrote parts of the [[Versailles Treaty]], especially the new [[League of Nations]]. But in 1919 Wilson's political skills faltered, and suddenly everything turned sour. The Senate rejected Versailles and the League, a nationwide wave of strikes and violence caused unrest, and Wilson's health collapsed. The GOP came roaring back in a landslide in 1920, as [[Warren G. Harding]] defeated a Democratic ticket memorable for having [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] as the vice presidential nominee.

[[Image:D-Edge-Congress.JPG|thumb|300px|Before 1932 Republicans usually controlled Congress; after 1932 the Democrats usually were in control]]

At the 1924 Democratic National Convention, the big fight was over a resolution denouncing by name the [[Ku Klux Klan]]; it was pushed by New York governor [[Al Smith]] and Alabama Senator [[Oscar W. Underwood]] in order to embarrass the front-runner, [[William McAdoo]] of California. After furious debate, the resolution failed by just a single vote. The KKK faded away soon after, but the deep split in the party over cultural issues, especially Prohibition, facilitated Republican landslides in 1920, 1924 and 1928. However [[Al Smith]] did build a strong Catholic base in the big cities in 1928, and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]]'s election as Governor of New York that year brought a new leader to center stage.

== Fifth Party System: The New Deal ==
[[Image:509px-FDR in 1933.jpg|thumb|left|180px|President [[Franklin Delano Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)]]
The [[Wall Street Crash 1929|stock market crash of 1929]] and the ensuing [[Great Depression]] set the stage for a more progressive government and [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]] won a [[landslide victory]] in the [[U.S. presidential election, 1932|election of 1932]], campaigning on a platform of "Relief, Recovery, and Reform." This came to be termed "[[New Deal|The New Deal]]" after a phrase in his acceptance speech. The Democrats also swept to large majorities in both houses of Congress, and among state Governors. Roosevelt altered the nature of the Party, away from laissez-faire capitalism, and towards an ideology of economic regulation and insurance against hardship. Conservative Democrats were outraged; led by [[Al Smith]] they formed the [[American Liberty League]] in 1934 and counterattacked. They failed and either retired from politics or joined the GOP. A few of them, such as [[Dean Acheson]] found their way back to the Democratic Party.

After making gains in Congress in 1934 Roosevelt moved left and embarked on an ambitious legislative program called "The Second New Deal." It was characterized by building up labor unions, nationalizing welfare by the [[WPA]] (which 2 million employed unemployed men), setting up [[Social Security]] and raising taxes on business profits.<ref> In general the New Deal, 1933-40, did not raise taxes, except for the Social Security tax that went into effect in 1937.</ref>

Roosevelt's [[New Deal]] programs focused on job creation through public works projects as well as Social Security. In the name of "reform" it imposed strong regulations on the banking and financial system, transportation, communications, stock markets and labor-management relations.

Roosevelt successfully built up the "[[New Deal Coalition]]", a powerful coalition of voters and interest groups that supported liberalism. Key components included big city machines and labor unions. Key voter groups included traditional Democrats, white Southerners, Catholics, Jews, and liberals, as well as many blacks. This united voter base allowed Democrats to be elected to Congress and the presidency for much of the next 30 years.

After a sweeping landslide reelection in 1936--losing only Maine and Vermont--Roosevelt stunned the nation, and his party, by calling for legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court by five new members. A firestorm of opposition erupted, led by his own vice president [[John Nance Garner]]. Roosevelt was defeated by an alliance of Republicans and conservative Democrats, who formed a [[Conservative coalition]] that managed to block nearly all liberal legislation. (Only a minimum wage law got through.) Angry with the conservative wing of his own party, Roosevelt tried to destroy it. In 1938, he actively campaigned against five incumbent conservative Democratic senators; all five senators won re-election.

Under FDR, the Democratic Party became identified closely with modern liberalism, which included the promotion of social welfare, unions and regulation of the economy. Civil rights were not on the party agenda at this time.

==Truman to Kennedy: 1945-1963==
Harry Truman took over unexpectedly in 1945, and the rifts inside the party that Roosevelt had papered over began to emerge. Former Vice President [[Henry A. Wallace]] denounced Truman as a war-monger for his anti-Soviet programs, the [[Truman Doctrine]], [[Marshall Plan]], and [[NATO]]. By cooperating with internationalist Republicans, Truman succeeded in defeating isolationists on the right and pro-Soviets on the left to establish a [[Cold War]] program that lasted until the fall of Communism in 1991. Wallace supporters and fellow travelers of the far left were pushed out of the party and the CIO in 1946-48 by young anti-Communists like [[Hubert Humphrey]], [[Walter Reuther]], and [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]]. [[Hollywood]] emerged in the 1940s as an importance new base in the party, led by movie-star politicians such as [[Ronald Reagan]], who at this point in time strongly supported Roosevelt and Truman.<ref> Reagan became a conservative around 1960, saying the Democratic party had left him.</ref>

On the right the Republicans blasted Truman’s domestic policies. "Had Enough?" was the winning slogan as Republicans recaptured Congress in 1946. Many party leaders were ready to dump Truman, but they lacked an alternative. Truman counterattacked, pushing [[J. Strom Thurmond]] and his [[Dixiecrats]] out, and taking advantage of the splits inside the GOP. He was reelected in a stunning surprise. However all of Truman’s Fair Deal proposals, such as universal health care were defeated by the [[Conservative Coalition]] in Congress. His seizure of the steel industry was reversed by the Supreme Court.
In foreign policy, Europe was safe but troubles mounted in Asia. China fell to the Communists in 1949. Truman entered the [[Korean War]] without formal Congressional approval—the last time a president would ever do so. When the war turned to a stalemate in 1951 he fired General [[Douglas MacArthur]], a hero to conservatives. Republicans blasted Truman's failure to stop Communist gains in Asia. A series of petty scandals among friends and buddies of Truman further tarnished his image, allowing [[Dwight Eisenhower]] and the Republicans in 1952 to crusade against "Korea, Communism and Corruption." Truman dropped out of the presidential race early in 1952, leaving no obvious successor. The convention nominated [[Adlai Stevenson]] in 1952 and 1956, only to see him overwhelmed by two Eisenhower landslides.

[[Image:1952-32.jpg|thumb|480px|right|Stevenson and labor unions warn against a return of the Republican policies of Herbert Hoover in 1952 campaign poster]]

In Congress the powerful duo of House Speaker [[Sam Rayburn]] and Senate Majority leader [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] held the party together, often by compromising with Eisenhower. In 1958 the party made dramatic gains in the midterms and seemed to have a permanent lock on Congress. Indeed, Democrats had majorities in the House every election from 1930 to 1992 (except 1946 and 1952). Most southern Congressmen were conservative Democrats, however, and they usually worked with conservative Republicans. The result was a [[Conservative Coalition]] that blocked practically all liberal domestic legislation from 1937 to the 1970s, except for a brief spell 1964-65, when Johnson neutralized its power.

The nomination of [[John F. Kennedy]] in 1960 energized the Catholic population, which jammed motorcades and turned out in heavy numbers (over 80% voted for Kennedy), while also causing a backlash among white Protestants (over 70% of whom voted for Republican candidate [[Richard Nixon]]. Reaching beyond the traditional Irish, German, Italian and Polish Catholic ethnics, Viva Kennedy set out to mobilize the previously passive Latino vote, and it perhaps provided the margin of victory for Kennedy in Texas and New Mexico. Kennedy's victory reinvigorated the party. His youth, vigor and intelligence caught the popular imagination. In foreign policy he was strongly anti-Communist, and promptly launched an invasion of casto's Cuba; it failed badly. A few new programs like the Peace Corps harnessed idealism. In terms of legislation, Kennedy was stalemated by the [[Conservative Coalition]], and anyway his proposals were all cautious and incremental. In three years he was unable to pass any significant new legislation.

Kennedy's election did mark the coming of age of the Catholic component of the New Deal Coalition. After 1964 middle class Catholics started voting Republicans in the same proportion as their Protestant neighbors. Except for the Chicago of [[Richard J. Daley]], the last of the Democratic machines faded away. His involvement in Vietnam proved momentous, for his successor Lyndon Johnson decided to stay, and double the investment, and double the bet again and again until over 500,000 American soldiers were fighting in that small country.

==Civil Rights, Riots, War and collapse of the New Deal Coalition==
[[Image:LBJ-64.jpg|280px|left|thumb|President Lyndon Johnson ran for reelection in the shadow of Kennedy]]

The New Deal Coalition began to fracture as union and religious leaders demanded support for [[civil rights]], upsetting the party's traditional base of conservative Southern Democrats. After Harry Truman's platform showed support for civil rights and anti-segregation policies during the 1948 Democratic National Convention, many Southern Democratic delegates decided to split from the Party and formed the "[[Dixiecrats]]," led by [[South Carolina]] governor [[Strom Thurmond]] (who, as a Senator, would later join the Republican Party). Over the next few years, many conservative Democrats in the "[[Solid South]]" drifted away from the party. By 1940 most northern Blacks had shifted to the Democratic Party due to its New Deal relief programs and support for civil rights.

The party's dramatic reversal on civil rights issues culminated when Democratic President [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] signed into law the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]]. The new laws ended segregation and also ended the main argument Democrats had used to block Republican gains in the South (that is, only the Democrats could protect segregation). The South became competitive in presidential politics in the 1970s and 1980s, giving strong support to Republican Ronald Reagan and rejecting the liberal northern candidates. The Democrats responded by nominating Southerners (Carter in 1976 and 1980, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Gore in 2000). Few southern states were won by Democratic presidential candidates from the North (Humphrey in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Kerry in 2004). At the state and local level the Republicans made slow, steady gains, especially among upscale middle class whites and migrants from the North. By the 1990s the GOP was competitive at the state and local level throughout the South. The Democrats made gains in the west, converting California to a Democratic stronghold and gaining in fast-growing Arizona and Nevada. The Northeast became more and more a Democratic enclave, especially after 2006 when numerous Republican moderates were defeated for reelection. the Midwest remained a battleground. The Democrats made strong gains in Illinois, but slipped a little in Minnesota.
[[Image:Demfight1968.jpg|thumb|290px|By 1968 Democrats were bitterly fighting over Vietnam and the failures of the Great Society]]

==1968 to 1999==
The Democratic party split five ways in 1968 and became the minority party in presidential elections for decades; after 1964 they won a majority of the presidential vote only in 2008.

[[Image:Carter.jpg|thumb|right|180px|Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 and defeated in 1980.]]
In 1972, the Democrats nominated Sen. [[George McGovern]] (SD) as the presidential candidate on a platform which advocated, among other things, U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. McGovern's forces at the national convention ousted Mayor [[Richard J. Daley]] and the entire Chicago delegation, replacing them with insurgents led by [[Jesse Jackson]]. After it became know that McGovern's running mate, [[Thomas Eagleton]], had received electric shock therapy, McGovern said he supported Eagleton "1000%" but he was soon forced to drop him and find a new running mate. With his campaign stalled for several weeks McGovern finally selected [[Sargent Shriver]], a Kennedy-in-law who was close to Mayor Daley. On July 14, 1972, McGovern appointed his campaign manager, Jean Westwood as the first woman chair of the Democratic National Committee. McGovern was defeated in a landslide by incumbent [[Richard Nixon]], winning only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C. The [[Watergate affair]] of 1973-74 made corruption a central issue, especially after [[Gerald Ford]] pardoned Nixon in September 1974. The Democrats made major gains in the 1974 off-year elections.

In 1976, mistrust of the administration, complicated by a combination of economic recession and inflation, sometimes called ''[[stagflation]]'', led to Ford's narrow defeat in 1976 by [[Jimmy Carter]], a former governor of Georgia.

Carter represented the total outsider, who promised honesty in government. He had served as a naval officer, a farmer, a state senator, and a one-term governor. His only experience with federal politics was when he chaired the Democratic National Committee's congressional and gubernatorial elections in 1974. Some of Carter's major accomplishments consisted of the creation of a national energy policy and the consolidation of governmental agencies, resulting in two new cabinet departments, the [[United States Department of Energy]] and the [[United States Department of Education]]. Carter also successfully deregulated the trucking, airline, rail, finance, communications, and oil industries, bolstered the [[social security]] system, and appointed record numbers of women and minorities to significant government and judicial posts. He also enacted strong legislation on environmental protection, through the expansion of the [[National Park Service]] in [[Alaska]], creating 103 million new acres of land. In foreign affairs, Carter's accomplishments consisted of the [[Camp David Accords]], the [[Panama Canal Treaties]], the creation of full diplomatic relations with the [[People's Republic of China]], and the negotiation of the [[SALT II]] Treaty. In addition, he championed human rights throughout the world and used human rights as the center of his administration's foreign policy.

Even with all of these successes, Carter failed to implement a national health plan or to reform the tax system, as he had promised in his campaign. Inflation was also on the rise. Abroad, the Iranians held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days, and Carter's diplomatic and military rescue attempts failed. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan later that year weakened the perception Americans had of Carter. Even though he had already been defeated for re-election, Carter fortunately was able to negotiate the release of every American hostage. They were lifted out of Iran minutes after Reagan was inaugurated and Carter served as Reagan's emissary to greet them when they arrived in Germany. In 1980, Carter defeated liberal champion [[Edward Kennedy]] to gain renomination, but lost to conservative [[Ronald Reagan]] by a landslide. The Democrats lost 12 Senate seats, and for the first time since 1954, the Republicans controlled the Senate. The House, however, remained in Democratic hands.

===1980s: Battling Reaganism===
Instrumental in the election of Republican [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980, were Democrats who supported many conservative policies. Among legislators, one of the most prominent of these consevative Democrats was Georgia congressman and second chairman of the [[John Birch Society]], [[Larry McDonald]], who was a passenger on [[Korean Airlines Flight 007]] shot down by the Soviets near [[Moneron Island]] on Sept. 1, 1983. The "Reagan Democrats" were Democrats before the Reagan years, and afterward, but they voted for [[Ronald Reagan]] in 1980 and 1984 (and for [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1988), producing their landslide victories. They were mostly white ethnics in the Northeast who were attracted to Reagan's social conservatism on issues such as abortion, and to his strong foreign policy. They did not continue to vote Republican in 1992 or 1996, so the term fell into disuse except as a reference to the 1980s. The term is not used to describe southern whites who became permanent Republicans in presidential elections. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster analyzed white ethnic voters, largely unionized auto workers, in suburban Macomb County, Michigan, just north of Detroit. The county voted 63 percent for Kennedy in 1960 and 66 percent for Reagan in 1984. He concluded that Reagan Democrats no longer saw Democrats as champions of their middle class aspirations, but instead saw it as being a party working primarily for the benefit of others, especially African Americans and the very poor. Bill Clinton targeted the Reagan Democrats with considerable success in 1992 and 1996.

[[Image:Liberal1984.jpg|thumb|350px]] The failure to hold the Reagan Democrats and the white South led to the final collapse of the [[New Deal coalition]]. Reagan carried 49 states against former Vice President and Minnesota Senator [[Walter Mondale]], a New Deal stalwart, in 1984. Massachusetts Governor [[Michael Dukakis]], running not as a New Dealer but as an efficiency expert in public administration, lost by a landslide in 1988 to Vice President [[George H. W. Bush]].

In response to these landslide defeats, the [[Democratic Leadership Council]] was created. It worked to move the Party rightwards to the ideological center in order to recover some of the fundraising that had been lost to the Republicans due to corporate donors supporting Reagan. With the Party retaining left-of-center supporters as well as supporters holding moderate or conservative views on some issues, the Democrats became generally a "big tent" or "catch all party" with widespread appeal to most opponents of the Republicans.

===The South Becomes Republican===
In the century after the end of [[Reconstruction]] in 1877, the white South identified with Democratic Party. The Democrats' lock on power was so strong, the region was called the [[Solid South]]. The Republicans only controlled parts of the Appalachian mountains, but they sometimes did compete for statewide office in the border states. Before 1964, the southern Democrats saw their party as the defender of the southern way of life, which included a respect for states' rights and an appreciation for traditional southern values. They repeatedly warned against the aggressive designs of Northern liberals and Republicans, as well as civil rights activists whom they denounced as "outside agitators."

However, between 1964 and 2004, the Democratic Party's lock on the South was broken. The long-term cause had to do with the South becoming more like the rest of the nation. It could not long stand apart in terms of racial segregation. Modernization had brought factories, national businesses, and larger, more cosmopolitan cities to the South, as well as millions of migrants from the North and more opportunities for higher education. Meanwhile, the cotton and tobacco economy of the traditional rural South faded away, as former farmers commuted to factory jobs.

Integration and the civil rights movement caused enormous controversy in the white South, with many attacking it as a violation of states' rights. When segregation was outlawed by court order and by the Civil Rights acts of 1964 and 1965, a die-hard element resisted integration, led by Democratic governors [[Orval Faubus]] of Arkansas, [[Lester Maddox]] of Georgia, and, especially [[George Wallace]] of Alabama. These populist governors appealed to a less-educated, blue-collar electorate that on economic grounds favored the Democratic Party, but opposed desegregation. After 1965 most Southerners accepted integration (with the exception of public schools). Believing themselves betrayed by the Democratic Party, traditional white southerners joined the new middle-class and the Northern transplants in moving toward the Republican Party. Meanwhile, newly enfranchised Black voters began supporting Democratic candidates at the 80-90-percent levels, producing Democratic leaders such as [[Julian Bond]] and [[John Lewis]] of Georgia, and [[Barbara Jordan]] of Texas. Just as Martin Luther King had promised, integration had brought about a new day in Southern politics, freeing both blacks and whites from old hatreds and fears.

Using issues of cultural conservatism, especially opposition to abortion and homosexuality and support for school prayer, Republicans attracted strong majorities among evangelical Christians. They were nationwide, but strongest in the South; before to the 1980s they were largely apolitical. Exit polls in 2004 showed that Bush led Kerry by 70-30% among Southern whites, who comprised 71% of the voters. Kerry had a 90-9 lead among the 18% of Southern voters who were black. One third of the Southern voters said they were white evangelicals; they voted for Bush by 80-20.<ref> See the exit polls at [http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.3.html |date=[[2004-11-02]]|accessdate=2006-11-18]</ref>

===1990s===

In the 1990s the Democratic Party revived itself, in part by moving to the right on economic and social policy. President [[Bill Clinton]], who defeated the incumbent [[George H. W. Bush]] in 1992, implemented a balanced federal budget and [[welfare reform]] (cutting benefits and requiring many recipients to take jobs), traditionally conservative causes. Labor unions, which had been steadily losing membership since the 1960s, found they had also lost political clout inside the Democratic Party: Clinton enacted the [[NAFTA]] free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico over the strong objection of these labor unions, much to the disappointment of those on the left of the party. The [[Republican Party (United States)|Republican Party]] took control of both the House of Representatives and the United States Senate after the 1994 election. Clinton was impeached in 1998 and subsequently acquitted in 1999.

When the [[DLC]] attempted to move the Democratic agenda in favor of more centrist positions, prominent Democrats from both the centrist and conservative factions assumed leadership of the party and its direction. Some liberals and progressives felt alienated by the Democratic Party, which they felt had become unconcerned with the interests of the common people and left-wing issues in general. Some Democrats challenged the validity of such critiques, citing the Democratic role in pushing for progressive reforms.

==21st century==
===Election of 2000===
During the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats chose Vice President [[Al Gore]] to be the party's candidate for the presidency. Gore and [[George W. Bush]], the Republican candidate and son of former President George H.W. Bush, disagreed on a number of issues, including abortion, gun control, environmentalism, gay rights, tax cuts, foreign policy, public education, global warming, judicial appointments, and affirmative action. Nevertheless, Gore's affiliation with Clinton and the DLC caused critics—Green Party presidential candidate [[Ralph Nader]] in particular—to assert that Bush and Gore were too similar, especially on free trade, reductions in social welfare, and the death penalty. "We want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them," Nader's closest advisor said.<ref>Harry G. Levinem "Ralph Nader, Suicide Bomber." ''The Village Voice'' May 3, 2004 at [http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0418,levine,53179,1.html] </ref>

Gore won a popular plurality of over 500,000 votes over Bush, but lost in the electoral vote by four votes. In a close election anything can be decisive, but many angry Democrats blamed Nader's third-party spoiler role for Gore's defeat. Controversy plagued the election, and Gore largely dropped from politics for years; by 2005 however he was making speeches critical of Bush's foreign and environmental policies.

Despite Gore's close defeat, the Democrats gained five seats in the Senate (including the election of [[Hillary Clinton]] in New York), to turn a 55-45 Republican edge into a 50-50 split (with a Republican Vice President breaking a tie). However, when Republican Senator [[Jim Jeffords]] of Vermont decided in 2001 to become an independent and caucus with the Democrats, the majority status shifted along with the seat, including control of the floor (by the Majority Leader) and control of all committee chairmanships. However, the Republicans regained their Senate majority with gains in 2002 and 2004, leaving the Democrats with only 44 seats, the fewest since the 1920s.

===2001-2003===
In the aftermath of the [[9-11 Attacks]], the nation's focus was changed to issues of national security. All but one Democrat<ref> Representative [[Barbara Lee]] of Texas</ref> joined the Republicans to authorize President Bush to invade invasion of Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban. House leader [[Richard Gephardt]] and Senate leader [[Thomas Daschle]] pushed Democrats to vote for the [[USA PATRIOT Act]] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The Democrats were split over entering Iraq in 2003 and increasingly expressed concerns about both the justification and progress of the [[War on Terrorism]], as well as the domestic effects, including supposed threats to civil rights and civil liberties from the PATRIOT Act. Senator [[Russ Feingold]] was the only Senator to vote against the act; it received more resistance when it came up for renewal, but was renewed in 2006.

In the wake of the financial fraud scandal of the [[Enron Corporation]] and other corporations, Congressional Democrats pushed for a legal overhaul of business accounting with the intention of preventing further accounting fraud. This led to the bipartisan [[Sarbanes-Oxley Act]] in 2002. Economic issues did not work well in 2002, as the Democrats lost a few seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. They lost three seats in the Senate. While Democrats gained governorships in New Mexico (where [[Bill Richardson]] was elected), Arizona ([[Janet Napolitano]]) and Wyoming ([[Dave Freudenthal]]), other Democrats lost governorships in South Carolina ([[Jim Hodges]]), Alabama ([[Don Siegelman]]) and, for the first time in more than a century, Georgia ([[Roy Barnes]]). The election led to another round of soul searching about the party's narrowing base. The party's miseries mounted in 2003, when a voter recall unseated their unpopular governor of California, [[Gray Davis]], and replaced him which a charismatic liberal Republican [[Arnold Schwarzenegger]]. By the end of 2003 the four largest states had Republican governors: California, Texas, New York and Florida.

===Election of 2004===
The 2004 campaign began in late 2002, when Gore said he would not run again. [[Howard Dean]], former Governor of Vermont, an opponent of the war and a critic of the Democratic establishment, was the front-runner leading into the Democratic primaries. Dean had immense grassroots support, especially from the left wing of the party. Massachusetts Senator [[John Kerry]], a more centrist figure with heavy support from the [[Democratic Leadership Council]], was nominated because he was seen as more "electable" than Dean. Democrats moved to populist anti-business positions that denounced free trade and the [[NAFTA]] agreement. The party rhetoric attacked the Bush administration rather than propose alternative programs.

In the end, Kerry lost both the popular vote (by 3 million out of over 120 million votes cast) and the [[Electoral College]]. Republicans also gained four seats in the Senate and three seats in the House of Representatives, and for the first time since 1952, the Democratic leader of the Senate lost re-election. In the end, there were 3,660 Democratic state legislators across the nation to the Republicans' 3,557. Democrats gained governorships in Louisiana, New Hampshire and Montana. However, they lost the governorship of Missouri and a legislative majority in Georgia, which had long been a Democratic stronghold.

There were many reasons for the defeat. After the election most analysts concluded that Kerry was a poor campaigner.<ref>Evan Thomas and Staff of Newsweek,''Election 2004: How Bush Won and What You Can Expect in the Future''(2005)</ref> A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to Kerry called the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" undercut Kerry's use of his military past as a campaign strategy. Kerry was unable to reconcile his initial support of the [[Iraq War]] with his opposition to the war in 2004, or manage the deep split in the Democratic Party between those who favored and opposed the war. Republicans ran thousands of television commercials to argue that Kerry had flip-flopped on Iraq. When Kerry's home state of Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage, the issue split liberal and conservative Democrats and independents (Kerry publicly stated throughout his campaign that he opposed same sex marriage, but favored civil unions). Republicans exploited the same-sex marriage issue by promoting ballot initiatives in 11 states that brought conservatives to the polls in large numbers; all 11 initiatives passed. Some Democrats argued that flaws in vote-counting systems may also have played a role in Kerry's defeat in Ohio. Other factors include a healthy job market, a rising stock market, strong home sales, and low unemployment.

After the 2004 election, prominent Democrats began to rethink the party's direction, and a variety of strategies for moving forward were voiced. Some Democrats proposed moving towards the right; others demanded that the party move more to the left and become a stronger opposition party. . Rethinking the party's position on gun control became a matter of discussion, brought up by [[Howard Dean]], [[Bill Richardson]], [[Brian Schweitzer]] and other Democrats who had won governorships in states where Second Amendment rights were important to many voters.

===2005 - 2007===
These debates were reflected in the 2005 campaign for Chairman of the [[Democratic National Committee]], which [[Howard Dean]] won. He sought to move the Democratic strategy away from the establishment, and bolster support for the party's state organizations, even in Red states.

When the 109th Congress convened in 2005, [[Harry Reid]], the new Senate Minority Leader, tried to convince the Democratic Senators to vote more as a bloc on important issues; he forced the Republicans to abandon their push for privatization of Social Security. In 2005, the Democrats retained their governorships in Virginia and New Jersey, electing [[Tim Kaine]] and [[Jon Corzine]], respectively. However, the party lost the mayoral race in New York City, a Democratic stronghold, for the fourth straight time.

In 2006, with scandals involving Republican lobbyist [[Jack Abramoff]], as well as GOP House leader [[Tom DeLay]], Ohio GOP governor [[Bob Taft]] and others, the Democrats used the slogan "Culture of corruption." Negative public opinion on the war in Iraq, along with widespread dissatisfaction among conservatives over government spending, dragged President Bush's job approval ratings down to the lowest levels of his presidency. To win control the Democrats had to add 15 seats in the House (they added 30), and 6 in the Senate (they added 6).

The Democratic Party's electoral success has been attributed to running relatively conservative Democrats in close seats, such as the Senate races in Virginia, Pennsylvania and Montana. <ref> Dewan Shaila and Anne E. Kornblut, "In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right," ''New York Times,'' 2006-10-30; but compare Rick Perlstein, "Who deserves credit for the Democratic comeback?" ''The New Republic'' 2006-11-08]] at [https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=w061106&s=perlstein110806] </ref> Exit polling suggested that corruption was a key issue for many voters.<ref>CNN, "Corruption named as key issue by voters in exit polls," 2006-11-08 at [http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/] </ref>

In 2006 Democrats gained a majority of governorships and made gains in many state legislatures. No Democratic incumbent was defeated in any major race.
===2007-2010===
[[File:Obama_approval_index_december_22_2009.jpg‎|thumb|250px]]
House Democrats chose Rep. [[Nancy Pelosi]] of California for Speaker, the first woman ever, but rejected her choice for House Majority Leader, electing Steny Hoyer instead of John Murtha. Senate Democrats promoted Harry Reid to Majority Leader. Neither have been very effective.

The presidential campaign of 2008 featured a remarkable duel between Obama--the first major black candidate, and [[Hillary Clinton]], the first major woman contender. Obama won with his charismatic oratory and his highly efficient fund-raising and strong organization in the caucus states, while Clinton went downscale to pick up big majorities among poor whites and Hispanics. The contest between Obama and GOP nominee [[John McCain]] showed Obama being the clear favourite, with the vast majority of polls (with the exception of early September) depicting Obama as the clear favourite.

The [[Obama Administration]] got off to a fast start in 2009, especially in vigorous efforts to combat the [[Recession of 2008]] with heavy new stimulus spending, massive loans to banks, increased regulation, and deep intervention in the automobile industry. All those policies were begun by Bush, and had failed to reverse the decline of the economy in late 2008. Whether they will now succeed remains an open question, with the GOP now voting solidly against them and some conservatives like [[Rush Limbaugh]] hoping that the Democrats will fail badly and that the people will again turn to the Republican party. The Democratic Party is feeling the sting from the opposition and many Democrats are beginning to question their own leadership. Liberals are disenchanted with Obama's hawkish position on the [[Afghanistan War]]. The health care reform that consumed most of 2009 remains unsettled, as public opinion has turned against it. Environmentalists now seem resigned to the failure of a [[cap and trade]] program to reduce CO2 emissions. Most of all the recession drags on. The stimulus bill was passed quickly in Feb. 2009 over almost unanimous GOP opposition, but despite promises of "shovel ready" projects, most of the money has not been spent a year later and the economy remains in the doldrums.

The elections in Nov. 2009 in New Jersey and Virginia went badly for the Democrats, as the GOP gained both governorships and many local races, not to mention the Democrats' fifth straight loss for the mayoralty of New York City.

see [[2010 Midterm Elections]]

==Symbols==
The most common symbol for the party is the donkey, although the party itself never officially adopted this symbol.<ref>[http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/06/history_of_the.php History of the Democratic Donkey]. </ref> Some historians suggest the jackass was born 1828 when Jackson was sometimes called a jackass by his opponents as a play on his name. A political cartoon depicting Jackson riding and directing a donkey (representing the Democratic Party) was published in 1837. A political cartoon by [[Thomas Nast]] in an 1870 revived the donkey as a symbol for the Democratic Party. Cartoonists ever since have followed Nast and used the donkey to represent the Democrats, and the elephant to represent the Republicans.

In the early 20th century, the traditional symbol of the Democratic Party in many states was the rooster, as opposed to the Republican eagle.

There is no official color, but since election night 2000 blue has become the identification color of the Democratic Party for maps, while the red has become the color of the Republicans. Increasingly blue is used by Democrats for promotions (e.g BuyBlue, BlueFund) and by the party itself, which in 2006 unveiled the "Red to Blue Program" to support Democratic candidates running against Republican incumbents in the 2006 midterm election.

[[Jefferson-Jackson Day]] annual fundraising celebrations are held by local chapters of the Democratic Party.

The song "[[Happy Days Are Here Again]]" is the unofficial song of the Democratic Party. It was used prominently when Roosevelt was nominated for president at the 1932 Democratic National Convention and remains a sentimental favorite for Democrats today. During the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton]] era, the [[Fleetwood Mac]] song "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" became a popular song at Democratic events, reflecting the growing prominence of Baby Boomers in the party.

==Democratic Presidents==
* [[Andrew Jackson]] (1829-1837)
* [[Martin Van Buren]] (1837-1841)
* [[James K. Polk]] (1845-1849)
* [[Franklin Pierce]] (1853-1857)
* [[James Buchanan]] (1857-1861)
* [[Grover Cleveland]] (1885-1889) (1893-1897)
* [[Woodrow Wilson]] (1913-1921)
* [[Franklin Roosevelt]] (1933-1945)
* [[Harry S Truman]] (1945-1953)
* [[John F. Kennedy]] (1961-1963)
* [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] (1963-1969)
* [[Jimmy Carter]] (1977-1981)
* [[Bill Clinton]] (1993-2001)
* [[Barack Obama]] (2009 - Present)

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

==Bibliography==
===Current===
*Barone, Michael, and Grant Ujifusa, ''The Almanac of American Politics 2008: The Senators, the Representatives and the Governors: Their Records and Election Results, Their States and Districts'' (2007) covers all the live politicians with amazing detail. New edition every two years since 1975.
* Brownstein, Ronald. ''The Second Civil War: How Extreme Partisanship Has Paralyzed Washington and Polarized America''(2007)
* Crane, Michael. ''The Political Junkie Handbook: The Definitive Reference Books on Politics'' (2004) covers all the major issues explaining the parties' positions
*Sabato, Larry J. ''Divided States of America: The Slash and Burn Politics of the 2004 Presidential Election'' (2005).
*Sabato, Larry J. ed. ''The Sixth Year Itch: The Rise and Fall of the George W. Bush Presidency'' (1907), in-depth essays by scholars on key states in 2006
* Sabato, Larry J., and Howard R. Ernst eds. ''Political Parties and Elections'' (2007), 540pp; an encyclopedia with 450 entries by scholars; focus is 1945 to present
* Sabato, Larry J. and Bruce Larson. ''The Party's Just Begun: Shaping Political Parties for America's Future'' (2001) textbook.
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), long essays by specialists on each time period
* Shafer, Byron and Richard Johnston. ''The End of Southern Exceptionalism'' (2006), uses statistical election data & polls to argue GOP growth was primarily a response to economic change
===Historical===
* ''American National Biography'' (20 volumes, 1999) covers all politicians no longer alive; online and paper copies at many academic libraries.
* Jensen, Richard. ''Grass Roots Politics: Parties, Issues, and Voters, 1854-1983'' (1983) [http://www.questia.com/library/book/grass-roots-politics-parties-issues-and-voters-1854-1983-by-christopher-c-gibbs-richard-j-jensen-steven-l-piott.jsp online edition]; survey by conservative scholar, with primary sources
* Kennedy, David M. ''Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945'' (2001), synthesis by leading scholar; Pulitzer prize [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=52284041 online edition]
* Kleppner, Paul et al. ''The Evolution of American Electoral Systems'' (1983), essays by scholars (some of them conservatives), 1790s to 1980s.
* Kleppner, Paul. ''The Third Electoral System 1853-1892: Parties, Voters, and Political Cultures'' (1979), analysis of voting behavior, with emphasis on region, ethnicity, religion and class. [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24451028 online edition]
* Ling, Peter J. ''The Democratic Party: A Photographic History'' (2003).
* Patterson, James T. ''Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974'' (1997) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Grand-Expectations-United-1945-1974-History/dp/0195117972/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-2 excerpt and text search]
* Patterson, James T. ''Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush vs. Gore'' (2005) synthesis by leading scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Restless-Giant-United-Watergate-History/dp/0195305221/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211911625&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ritchie, Donald A. ''Electing FDR: The New Deal Campaign of 1932'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Electing-FDR-Campaign-Presidential-Elections/dp/0700615504/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784762&sr=8-2 excerpt and text search]
* Rutland, Robert Allen. ''The Democrats: From Jefferson to Clinton'' (1995).
* Shafer, Byron E. and Anthony J. Badger, eds. ''Contesting Democracy: Substance and Structure in American Political History, 1775-2000'' (2001), most recent collection of new essays by specialists on each time period:
**includes: "State Development in the Early Republic: 1775–1840" by Ronald P. Formisano; "The Nationalization and Racialization of American Politics: 1790–1840" by David Waldstreicher; "'To One or Another of These Parties Every Man Belongs;": 1820–1865 by Joel H. Silbey; "Change and Continuity in the Party Period: 1835–1885" by Michael F. Holt; "The Transformation of American Politics: 1865–1910" by Peter H. Argersinger; "Democracy, Republicanism, and Efficiency: 1885–1930" by Richard Jensen; "The Limits of Federal Power and Social Policy: 1910–1955" by Anthony J. Badger; "The Rise of Rights and Rights Consciousness: 1930–1980" by James T. Patterson, Brown University; and "Economic Growth, Issue Evolution, and Divided Government: 1955–2000" by Byron E. Shafer
* Schlisinger, Galbraith. ''Of the People: The 200 Year History of the Democratic Party'' (1992)
* Sundquist, James L. ''Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States'', (1983) [http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=29223022 online edition
* Wilentz, Sean. ''The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln'' (2005), detailed synthesis by a leading liberal scholar. [http://www.amazon.com/Rise-American-Democracy-Jefferson-Lincoln/dp/0393058204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195784940&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Witcover, Jules. ''Party of the People: A History of the Democrats'' (2003)
* Schlesinger, Arthur Meier, Jr. ed. ''History of American Presidential Elections, 1789-2000'' (various multivolume editions, latest is 2001). For each election includes a short history by a leading scholar and a selection of primary documents.

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

==External links==
*[http://www.democrats.org/ Democratic Party Official Site]
*[http://www.demconvention.com/assets/downloads/2008-Democratic-Platform-final.pdf 2008 Democratic Platform (pdf download)]

[[Category:United States Political Organizations]]
[[Category:United States Political Parties]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Progressive Era]]
[[Category:Gilded Age]]
[[Category:New Deal]]
[[Category:Reagan Era]]
[[Category:1960s]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Liberals]]
[[category:Jacksonian Democracy]]
[[Category:111th United States Congress]]

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-29T03:44:42Z

EricAlstrom: /* Brace yourself for the backlash Democrats: It's coming! */

'''[[ObamaCare]] is upheld by the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] (5-4) ''as a tax, not as a valid exercise of government power under the [[Commerce Clause]]'':

{{cquote|The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of [[Congress]]'s power under the [[Commerce Clause]]. ... In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes ...."}}

=Yes=

The Supreme Court did not say that Obamacare is a good piece of legislation, or that it is right for the country. It merely said it is legal, which is hard to deny. It may be job-killing, it may not solve our health care problems, but it doesn't violate the Constitution. [[User:Jpope14|Jpope14]] 11:55, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

As bad as this law is, SCOTUS was right to say that, as a ''tax'', it is constitutional. On a personal level, I'm glad for this ruling, because it will force Congress to act to repeal it; and given the fact that they have been ceding their power to the executive and legislative branch for the last 30 years, this would be a good time to retake some of it. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:14, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

==No==

"To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among
the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
1.8.3

Even if it was a tax it would mean those who have healthcare would be getting a deduction, therefore making taxes non uniform, in violation of Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States;"
1.8.1

Also, regardless of whether or not it is a tax, it is clearly in favor of those who purchase healthcare and is an attempt to force people to get healthcare, which is in violation of Article 1 Section 9 Clause 6, suggesting that individuals are also included (which they aren't because it is specifically stated earlier that individuals are not to be subject to regulatory clauses at all) in regulatory clauses which is clearly what the Obama admin believes:
"No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of
Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of
another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be
obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another."
1.9.6

:Interesting points, but couldn't your argument equally apply to mortgage interest deductions? Or the child care deduction? Or charitable giving? I'm inclinded to agree with you, but given that our tax system is so screwed up, this tax isn't that different. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:11, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:You are misreading the very portion of the law that you are citing. "Duties, Imposts, and Excises" shall be uniform. Taxes do not have to be uniform. For example, the more money I earn, the higher percentage of taxes I pay. Taxes have never been "uniform" because the law does not require them to be. [[User:Jpope14|Jpope14]] 15:58, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
::No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. 1.9.4. Also this isn't even a tax question, the tax code has not been changed at all. There was no raise in taxes and there was no deduction added for people who have healthcare, this is clearly nothing more than a penalty. Back when this was going through congress Obama laughed at the notion that it was a tax hike and said critics only said that to make it look like a commercial regulation was a tax, but now that its constitutionality has been questioned its a tax!?

== Brace yourself for the backlash Democrats: It's coming! ==
[[File:Obama NapoleonBellyHandCrM.jpg|75px|right]]
'''All is not quiet on the [[ObamaCare]] front. ObamaCare may ultimately prove to be''' [[Barack Obama]]'s [[Waterloo]].[http://conservativetriumphs.blogspot.com/2012/06/all-is-not-quiet-on-obamacare-front.html]

If you think the ObamaCare battle is over [[Democratic Party|Democrats]], you are sadly mistaken. [[Conservative]]s have not yet begun to fight on this political front and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling may prove to be a [[pyrrhic victory]].

:This isn't really on topic...move to the talk page perhaps? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 22:22, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
::I created this web page. This is my mic! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:43, 28 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Fair enough [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:44, 28 June 2012 (EDT)

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-29T02:22:54Z

EricAlstrom: /* Brace yourself for the backlash Democrats: It's coming! */

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-28T19:14:26Z

EricAlstrom: /* Yes */

Debate: U.S. Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare: a proper ruling?

2012-06-28T19:11:28Z

EricAlstrom: /* No */

Talk:Natural-born citizen

2012-06-25T03:41:29Z

EricAlstrom: Question

== Question ==

I think this is an interesting debate, and I was wondering if I could get some thoughts. It seems that the prevailing opinion of this encyclopedia is that to be a natural-born citizen, both of your parents, at the time of your birth, cannot be citizens of another country. Is that correct? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 23:41, 24 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships

2012-06-15T12:43:46Z

EricAlstrom:

Can I create an "Evangelical Christians and immoral relationships" article to talk about Ted Haggard taking it up the bum from his meth dealer? Or is that not encyclopaedic enough?

When I first edited here I thought it had a lot of potential as a valuable resource for those fed up with liberal propaganda. Now it's just become an idiot's playground, full of nonsense and Andy's weird ideas about new conservative words and zombie Castros. Shame. --[[User:LiamCaldicott|LiamCaldicott]] 19:00, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Liam, what are your thoughts on the information I added relating to atheism websites? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:41, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
For an article called "Atheist leaders and immoral relationships", it is shockingly low on atheist leaders in immoral relationships. Are we all allowed to create articles like this and claim that the "leadership" of a group does something, as long as someone, ''somewhere'', practices that behavior?
On more of a style point, could you point out any significant difference between this article and [[Internet_atheism_and_polyamory]]? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 08:43, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Atheism, polyamory and other immoral relationships

2012-06-15T12:43:13Z

EricAlstrom:

Can I create an "Evangelical Christians and immoral relationships" article to talk about Ted Haggard taking it up the bum from his meth dealer? Or is that not encyclopaedic enough?

When I first edited here I thought it had a lot of potential as a valuable resource for those fed up with liberal propaganda. Now it's just become an idiot's playground, full of nonsense and Andy's weird ideas about new conservative words and zombie Castros. Shame. --[[User:LiamCaldicott|LiamCaldicott]] 19:00, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
:::Liam, what are your thoughts on the information I added relating to atheism websites? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:41, 14 June 2012 (EDT)
For an article called "Atheist leaders and immoral relationships", it is shockingly low on atheist leaders in immoral relationships. Are we all allowed to create articles like this and claim that the "leadership" of a group does something, as long as someone, ''somewhere'', practices that behavior?
On more of a style point, could you point out any significant difference between this article and [[Internet_atheism_and_polyamory]]?
[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 08:43, 15 June 2012 (EDT)

Chris Matthews

2012-06-14T20:36:36Z

EricAlstrom: Changed the wording slightly - he doens't imply "only" government creates jobs

[[Image:C matthews.jpg‎|right|thumb|200px|Chris Matthews]]
'''Christopher John Matthews''' is the [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] host of the talk show ''Hardball with Chris Matthews''. He has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a speechwriter for President [[Jimmy Carter]] and wrote Carter's infamous "malaise" speech. Despite his claim that he voted for [[George W. Bush]] in 2000, like all hosts and "journalists" on [[MSNBC]] he is a vocal opponent of the [[Republican Party]] and was vehemently opposed to the Bush Administration in particular throughout George W. Bush's presidency.

Matthews is a supporter of [[evolution]] and has referred to people who do not believe in [[Darwinism]] as troglodyte and Luddites.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/26/chris-matthews-disparages-creationists-troglodyte-luddites-video/</ref>. He has also referred to Catholics and Mormons as "cultists", meaning Matthews believes that the Catholic and Mormon religions are cults.<ref>http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/13/chris_matthews_gop_willing_to_outsource_election_to_a_mormon.html</ref>

Matthews has bizarrely criticized [[Michele Bachmann]], as in calling the more-learned Bachmann a "balloon head" and asking her, "has someone hypnotized you"?<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-to-michele-bachmann-has-someone-hypnotized-you/</ref> Matthews also engages in on-going, random attacks on [[Fox News Channel]] pundit [[Bill O'Reilly]], which have raised eyebrows in the broadcast community because they are interlaced into Matthews' broadcasts without context or explanation.

Matthews has also won a series of awards ranging from the [[David Brinkley]] Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism to the Gold Medal Award from the Pennsylvania Society.

Chris Matthews is well known as a strident supporter and follower of [[Barack Obama]]. In step with [[liberal values]], Matthews has [[double standard]]s and avoids criticizing Obama.<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/06/matthews-bashes-bush-holding-saudi-kings-hand-2005-ignores-obamas-bow Matthews Bashes Bush for Holding Saudi King's Hand in 2005, Ignores Obama's Bow to Same Man in 2009], ''[[Newsbusters]]'', February 6, 2011</ref> He is a fervent supporter of Obama's out-of-control spending policies, claiming that "the government creates jobs."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/08/07/matthews-everyone-knows-government-creates-jobs</ref>

Typical for leftist of his generation, he possesses an antipathy towards the U.S. military. In December 2009, when Obama announced a troop increase in Afghanistan at the [[United States Military Academy]] at West Point, Matthews referred to the academy as "the enemy camp."

Matthews has been known to slur his words on air due to a possible drinking problem.<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-wonders-if-chris-matthews-slurs-his-words-because-he-has-a-drinking-problem/</ref>

In 2010, Chris Matthews was recognized at the Media Research Center's twenty-third annual award ceremony for the year's worst reporting: "Best of Notable Quotables 2010."<ref>The Twenty-Third Annual Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting. [http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/bestof/2010/default.aspx Best of Notable Quotables 2010], mrc.org, Accessed December 27, 2010.
* John Nolte. [http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/11/02/michele-bachman-humiliates-chris-matthews-hows-that-leg-tingle-doing-tonight/ Michele Bachman Humiliates Chris Matthews: How’s That Leg Tingle Doing Tonight?], BigJournalism.com, November 2, 2010.
* Brad Wilmouth. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg Matthews: Obama Speech Caused 'Thrill Going Up My Leg'], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', February 13, 2008.</ref>

==Gaffes==
"My... I felt this thrill going up my leg" when Obama spoke. <ref>http://youtu.be/no9fpKVXxCc</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/chris-matthews/ What Liberals Say - Chris Matthews], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Matthews, Chris}}

[[category:Broadcasters|Matthews, Chris]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists|Matthews, Chris]]
[[Category:Democratic Party|Matthews, Chris]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

Chris Matthews

2012-06-14T20:34:17Z

EricAlstrom:

[[Image:C matthews.jpg‎|right|thumb|200px|Chris Matthews]]
'''Christopher John Matthews''' is the [[liberal]] [[Democratic Party|Democrat]] host of the talk show ''Hardball with Chris Matthews''. He has worked for four Democratic politicians. He was a speechwriter for President [[Jimmy Carter]] and wrote Carter's infamous "malaise" speech. Despite his claim that he voted for [[George W. Bush]] in 2000, like all hosts and "journalists" on [[MSNBC]] he is a vocal opponent of the [[Republican Party]] and was vehemently opposed to the Bush Administration in particular throughout George W. Bush's presidency.

Matthews is a supporter of [[evolution]] and has referred to people who do not believe in [[Darwinism]] as troglodyte and Luddites.<ref>http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/26/chris-matthews-disparages-creationists-troglodyte-luddites-video/</ref>. He has also referred to Catholics and Mormons as "cultists", meaning Matthews believes that the Catholic and Mormon religions are cults.<ref>http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/13/chris_matthews_gop_willing_to_outsource_election_to_a_mormon.html</ref>

Matthews has bizarrely criticized [[Michele Bachmann]], as in calling the more-learned Bachmann a "balloon head" and asking her, "has someone hypnotized you"?<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-to-michele-bachmann-has-someone-hypnotized-you/</ref> Matthews also engages in on-going, random attacks on [[Fox News Channel]] pundit [[Bill O'Reilly]], which have raised eyebrows in the broadcast community because they are interlaced into Matthews' broadcasts without context or explanation.

Matthews has also won a series of awards ranging from the [[David Brinkley]] Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism to the Gold Medal Award from the Pennsylvania Society.

Chris Matthews is well known as a strident supporter and follower of [[Barack Obama]]. In step with [[liberal values]], Matthews has [[double standard]]s and avoids criticizing Obama.<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/02/06/matthews-bashes-bush-holding-saudi-kings-hand-2005-ignores-obamas-bow Matthews Bashes Bush for Holding Saudi King's Hand in 2005, Ignores Obama's Bow to Same Man in 2009], ''[[Newsbusters]]'', February 6, 2011</ref> He is a fervent supporter of Obama's out-of-control spending policies, claiming that only "the government creates jobs."<ref>http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/08/07/matthews-everyone-knows-government-creates-jobs</ref>

Typical for leftist of his generation, he possesses an antipathy towards the U.S. military. In December 2009, when Obama announced a troop increase in Afghanistan at the [[United States Military Academy]] at West Point, Matthews referred to the academy as "the enemy camp."

Matthews has been known to slur his words on air due to a possible drinking problem.<ref>http://www.mediaite.com/online/glenn-beck-wonders-if-chris-matthews-slurs-his-words-because-he-has-a-drinking-problem/</ref>

In 2010, Chris Matthews was recognized at the Media Research Center's twenty-third annual award ceremony for the year's worst reporting: "Best of Notable Quotables 2010."<ref>The Twenty-Third Annual Awards for the Year's Worst Reporting. [http://www.mrc.org/notablequotables/bestof/2010/default.aspx Best of Notable Quotables 2010], mrc.org, Accessed December 27, 2010.
* John Nolte. [http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2010/11/02/michele-bachman-humiliates-chris-matthews-hows-that-leg-tingle-doing-tonight/ Michele Bachman Humiliates Chris Matthews: How’s That Leg Tingle Doing Tonight?], BigJournalism.com, November 2, 2010.
* Brad Wilmouth. [http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/02/13/matthews-obama-speech-caused-thrill-going-my-leg Matthews: Obama Speech Caused 'Thrill Going Up My Leg'], ''[[NewsBusters]]'', February 13, 2008.</ref>

==Gaffes==
"My... I felt this thrill going up my leg" when Obama spoke. <ref>http://youtu.be/no9fpKVXxCc</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/chris-matthews/ What Liberals Say - Chris Matthews], [[Accuracy In Media]]

==References==
<references/>

{{DEFAULTSORT: Matthews, Chris}}

[[category:Broadcasters|Matthews, Chris]]
[[Category:Liberal Activists|Matthews, Chris]]
[[Category:Democratic Party|Matthews, Chris]]
[[Category:Atheists]]

User talk:GregG/New Main Page

2012-06-12T22:36:51Z

EricAlstrom: Thoughts

== Thoughts ==

I love it! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 18:36, 12 June 2012 (EDT)

Agenda 21

2012-06-08T13:48:08Z

EricAlstrom:

'''Agenda 21''' is a [[United Nations]] program as a result of (UNCED)which was held in Rio de Janeiro introduced with goals relating to the world economy, the environment and education. Agenda 21 is most known for its aims at combating extreme deforestation and protecting fragile environments and maintaining biodiversity among them.

Many conservatives feel it interferes with community development at a local level and aims at abolishing [[private property]] worldwide.<ref>Conservative News and Views: [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/07/27/constitution/un-agenda-21-abolish-private-property/ "UN Agenda 21 – abolish private property"]</ref>

== External Links ==
* [http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/un_agenda_21_coming_to_a_neigh.html American Thinker explanation]

== References ==
<references/>

[[Category:United Nations]]

Natural-born citizen

2012-05-23T18:45:09Z

EricAlstrom: Mitt was not born in Mexico

'''Natural-born citizen''' is an individual of either sex who owes allegiance or fealty to a government of the country in which he or she was born, and whose parents were citizens of the same country at the time of that individual's birth.

==Meaning of the term==
''Natural-born citizen'' as a term of usage in the United States, evidently comes from the writings of [[Emmerich de Vatell]] (1714-1767), a Swiss philosopher and legal scholar who laid the foundations and concepts of modern law.

{{quotebox|''"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."''<ref>Vatell: CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.</ref>}}

[[Thomas Jefferson]] gave a further definition prior to the drafting of the [[United States Constitution]]: ''"A Natural subject is one born within the king's allegiance & still owing allegiance. No instance can be produced in the English law, nor can it admit the idea of a person's being a natural subject and yet not owing allegiance. An alien is the subject or citizen of a foreign power."''<ref>Notes by Jefferson, December, 1783, pertaining to letters written by Delegates to Congress</ref> John Jay, in a letter to [[George Washington]] while he served as president of the Constitutional Convention, went further with a pointed question: "Permit me to hint whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen."<ref>http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html</ref> The implication is that the President of the United States should have loyalty to no country other than his own, which is naturally-guaranteed by birth to two citizen parents.

==U.S. Constitution==
Jay apparently had some influence on Washington, for when the Convention ended and the new Constitution was ratified, only the qualifications for the office of president in [[United States Constitution:Article II|Article II]] had the term "natural-born"; the qualifications for Senator and Representative in Article I did not: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President...."

Because the Constitution fails to define the term "natural born Citizen", establishment of its precise meaning would fall to Congress or the courts. The only US law that has ever employed the exact term "natural born citizen" is the Naturalization Act of 1790:<ref>http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=227</ref>

{{quotebox|And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered natural born citizens: ''Provided,'' That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: ''Provided also,'' That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.}}

This law was passed by the First Congress, which counted among its members nearly half of the signers of the Constitution (and was signed into law by a president who was also a signer of the Constitution), so it may give some insight into the intention behind this provision. However, the 1790 act was repealed in 1795, and no subsequent law or court decision has clearly defined “natural born Citizen”.

Therefore, there is still discussion over exactly who meets the definition of a natural-born citizen. It is clear that someone who was not a citizen from birth, but acquired citizenship through naturalization, is not one. One view is that all others, meaning anyone who is a citizen from the moment of birth, are natural-born citizens. There are arguments that a third category exists, of those who are citizens from birth by law or status, but are not intended to be considered as natural born. The most common reasons given are that the birth did not take place within the US, or that one of the birth parents was not a US citizen. Precedents indicate that neither of these conditions will prevent someone from attaining the Presidency.

Presidential candidate [[John McCain]] was born to U.S. military parents stationed in the Panama Canal Zone, a territory within Panama which until 1978 was administered by the United States<ref>http://www.questia.com/library/encyclopedia/panama-canal-zone.jsp</ref>. The Senate passed a nonbinding resolution declaring that he was indeed a natural born citizen.<ref> [http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.110SRes511 S.Res.511]: ''A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen''; sponsors: Sen. [[Claire McCaskill]], Sen. [[Barack Obama]] ''et al.'' </ref>

Two presidents were born having a father who was not a citizen.
* [[Chester A. Arthur|Chester Arthur]] was born in the US (though rumored to have been born in Canada), but his father was at that time a citizen of the [[UK]].
* [[Barack Hussein Obama|Barack Obama]], who was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961. His father was a British national from Kenya who was at that time attended a university on a student visa.

Two potential candidates in the [[Presidential Election 2012]] were born having a father who was not a citizen.
* [[Marco Rubio]] was born in the US, but his parents were Cuban exiles who were not US citizens at the time.
* [[Bobby Jindal]] was born in the US, but his parents were Indian nationals at the time of his birth.

=="Scrubbing" of the term from the internet==
In the wake of the official release of President Obama's long-form birth certificate, editors have engaged in an edit war in Wikipedia in their article <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen</ref> on the subject, as key references to Vatell about the meaning of ''natural-born citizen'' were forcibly removed<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=293069</ref><ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=294221</ref>. Within a week, "sanitizing" of sorts took place on other online dictionaries and reference sites<ref>http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1477742/pg1</ref>, as each sought to push the idea that ''natural-born'' should refer to anyone born in the United States regardless of the immigration status of the parents.

==Notes==
{{reflist}}
*de Vatell, Emmerich. ''The Law of Nations''; T. & J.W. Johnson & Company, Philadelphia (1883)[http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel.htm]
*[http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/the-house-of-representatives-definition-of-natural-born-citizen-born-of-citizen-parents-in-the-us/ Personal blog which goes into detail on an 1896 case]

[[Category:Political Terms]]

Talk:Obama birth certificate controversy

2012-05-17T16:02:53Z

EricAlstrom: /* Image */

== Scope of Article ==

A start on this issue...

The plan is to have a complete article exploring the pros and cons about it, in this suggested layout:
:Introductory paragraph
:Explanation of the requirement in Article II Section 1 of the Constitution, and what the differences are between native-born, natural-born, and naturalized citizens;
:History of the issue as used during the 2008 campaign, including differences between Obama and McCain regarding these documents and places of birth;
:Detailed treatment of the Hawaiian short-form copy released by Obama's staff, including allegations that it may be a forgery;
:Detailed treatment of the recently-released Kenya certificate; including allegations that it may also be a forgery;
:The refusal of Obama to settle the matter by the release of the long-form document from Hawaii.
[[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:39, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

*During the 2008 presidential campaign, GOP nominee Sen. John McCain quickly released his birth certificate when liberal bloggers raised questions about his eligibility to be president. McCain was born at a military hospital in Panama.

*Obama likewise could put the matter to rest by releasing his actual birth certificate, which would show, among other things, '''the place of his birth and the doctor who performed the birth procedure'''. ''This information is not provided on the Certification of Live Birth''.

'''As it stands, Obama is the only president in history whose birthplace (hospital, home, clinic) is unknown to the public''' – a fact that would be stated on the actual birth certificate. ''Interestingly, his family has mentioned two different hospitals in Hawaii as the place of birth.''

Are you looking to remove from the main article some or most on this issue, and link to it here?
--[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 12:50, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
:Only if necessary. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:53, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

:Does anyone have links to the evidence handy? A references section seems like the next logical step here. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:18, 5 August 2009 (EDT)
::This story [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106018] details the fact that Stanley Dunham entered U of Washington 15 days after Obama was born; This one [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106016][http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105764] highlights the certificate from kenya, and whether or not it may be a forged copy of an Australian certificate; this one [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=105347] is about how the actual birth certificate used in Hawaii in 1961 looked like; there are other stories listed on these pages from WND; there are others throughout the net. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 13:26, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

:::More than sufficient, I think. Did you want to set up the references section? It's your project, after all. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 13:37, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

==Washington Post story==
This source [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050103224.html] highlights the problem against McCain in 2008. It should also be noted that several presidential candidates also had simialr problems; one was Barry Goldwater, who was born when Arizona was still a U.S. territory. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:55, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

==Kenya "certificate"==
This story [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106135] indicates that the Obama "birth certificate" recently highlighted by California attorney Orly Taitz as a genuine Kenyan record may be an altered or faked Australian document. Official birth record examples from Kenya were posted here as well for comparison. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:58, 6 August 2009 (EDT)

== Image ==

The image is ridiculous. It is destroying the credibility that conservapedia possesses with it's stupidity. I cannot stress how bad it is [[User:Sy20|Sy20]] 17:01, 2 March 2012 (EST)
:Oh,c'mon, it's an insightful picture. All those things are required to be eligible for president. Don't you remember how President Bush released his kindergarten records? </heavy, heavy sarcasm>

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2012-05-04T20:07:29Z

EricAlstrom: /* A mathematician's take */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these four alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2012-05-04T20:06:41Z

EricAlstrom: /* A mathematician's take */

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these three alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== AGW if true, would prove a young earth ==

If the earths systems were so unstable that a very very small amount of carbon released by humans could disrupt them, then they could not have lasted billions of years. --[[User:HHB|HHB]] 13:44, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

== Only 99% certain? ==

I see you have doubts about your chosen theory Ashafly. I would have thought a Bible believing Christian like yourself would have no doubts about the Creation account as told in Genesis. What contradictions in the Bible have convinced you to believe that the Biblical account may not be 100% true? [[User:EJamesW|EJamesW]] 15:29, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

:EJames, entries on a wiki are collaborative efforts. Also, this particularly entry does not utilize [[faith]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:55, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth

2012-05-04T16:26:53Z

EricAlstrom: /* A mathematician's take */ new section

'''''For older discussions, see the archives: [[Talk:Counterexamples to an Old Earth/Archive Index|Archive Index]].'''''

----



__TOC__
==Page moved==
Archive index also created.
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 00:49, 22 December 2011 (EST)

== Major earthquakes are doubling every 40 years? ==

This claim should come out because it's false. Proof that it's false can be found here:[http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/nndc/struts/form?t=101650&s=1&d=1]. For example between 1900 and 1909 there were 120 major earthquakes; between 2000 and 2009 there were 99. 100 years and no doubling - in fact, a 20% decrease. It doesn't help our case to make arguments that can be demonstrated to be false in 5 minutes. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 18:57, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:That database appears to depend in part on the amount of property damage, which would distort the results beyond recognition.

:Large earthquakes increased by 20% over the past decade, which fits almost perfectly the estimate of doubling every 40 years.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:03, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::They've doubled every 40 years if you only go back 40 years. If you go back 110 years they've stayed constant or decreased slightly. That database includes ALL major earthquakes; property damage is just one of the criteria you can search on. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:10, 23 October 2011 (EDT)
::Actually I'm wrong. They've increased by 80% in the last 30 years. They've only increased by 20% in the last 40 years. They've stayed constant over the last 110 years. Numbers fluctuate but is always about 100, +/-30, per decade. There is NO INCREASE in major earthquakes and we shouldn't be claiming there is, because we can easily be proven wrong. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 19:14, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::: The table in the cited reference shows an increase factor of 1.5-4 every 38 years, and recent trends confirm a substantial increase over the past few decades. The statement seems well-supported by the table and recent data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:56, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

::::Yes, but the cited reference contradicts its own cited reference, which is the USGS earthquake data (found in the NOAA database.) There has been a substantial increase per decade since 1980, a MINOR increase per decade since 1970 and no increase whatsoever since 1900. The 1970s had exceptionally low earthquake activity and the increase since then is a statistical phenomena known as regression to the mean; it's the same numbers trick that makes it appear that speed cameras placed at accident blackspots reduce accidents. Anyone can cherry-pick figures to prove anything, but the long-term increase simply isn't there. There were more severe earthquakes between 1900 and 1910 than between 2000 and 2010. --[[User:MandyC|MandyC]] 20:13, 23 October 2011 (EDT)

:::::However you decide to constrain the categorical cutoffs for statistical analysis, they are quite irrelevant to the discussion on the age of the Earth. One need only investigate the actual cause behind any earthquake (crustal strain accumulation) to realize that earthquake frequency in the 20th century is meaningless to this debate. You cannot extrapolate this trend into history, because 1) there is no statistically significant trend in the first place, and 2) there is no '''physical''' basis for doing so. Point number 2 is most pertinent. --[[User:RainyD|RainyD]] 01:07, 2 May 2012 (EDT)

Today the study ''[http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/12/1118525109.abstract Global risk of big earthquakes has not recently increased]'' was published: the authors show that the earthquakes of the last hundred years fit well into the model of a homogeneous Poisson process, i.e., there is no increase of the number of big quakes. ''Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past. '' [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 17:50, 20 December 2011 (EST)
:AugustO pulls out the heavy artillery: The Poisson distribution! The material on multiple regression and the Poisson distribution were my favorite parts of the last statistics course I took. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:08, 20 December 2011 (EST)

::AugustO, the article states, "The global rate of M≥8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004." Its conclusion that earthquakes have not been increasing based on its view that "no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events." They need to spend more time studying and learning from [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]. Of course there is a plausible mechanism: increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::Mr. Schlafly (Andy? What's the etiquette when user name = real name?), respectfully, I believe your short quotations from the abstract of the paper distort the context in which they were made. Here's the surrounding context:
{{cquote|We examine the timing of large (magnitude M ≥ 7) earthquakes from 1900 to the present, after removing local clustering related to aftershocks '''The global rate of M ≥ 8 earthquakes has been at a record high roughly since 2004''', but rates have been almost as high before, and the rate of smaller earthquakes is close to its historical average. Some features of the global catalog are improbable in retrospect, but so are some features of most random sequences—if the features are selected after looking at the data. For a variety of magnitude cutoffs and three statistical tests, the global catalog, with local clusters removed, is not distinguishable from a homogeneous Poisson process. Moreover, '''no plausible physical mechanism predicts real changes in the underlying global rate of large events.''' Together these facts suggest that the global risk of large earthquakes is no higher today than it has been in the past.}}
:::(your quotations emphasized). I believe their point is that it isn't enough to simply note that there have been more large earthquakes now than previously. In any random sequence there will always be some strange results, but we can't look at those anomalies in isolation. For example, if we flip a coin a thousand times and it's overall about 50-50, but the last 10 flips are all heads, we shouldn't immediately assume that the coin has recently become biased. Instead, we should consider the likelihood that chance alone could generate such a streak. I don't know enough about the math to evaluate their conclusion, but I think their premise is sound and I think you've mischaracterized it.--[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 01:04, 21 December 2011 (EST)

:@Conservative: just take another course on statistics and you may find out the distinction between the Poisson distribution and a Poisson process.
:@Aschlafly: ''increased disorder affects the Earth just as it affects everything else'' that's not a ''plausible physical mechanism'', that's a philosophical statement.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:08, 21 December 2011 (EST)

::Entropy is physics, not philosophy. If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 21 December 2011 (EST)
:::It also relates to the second law of Thermodynamics, which states that Entropy in a system must always increase. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 00:17, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::Actually no; it states that entropy in a CLOSED system cannot DECREASE. It doesn't have to increase; it can remain constant. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 17:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*If I ask you: ''"How does a grandfather clock work?"'' and you answer with ''"gravity"'', you are somewhat right. But your answer isn't helpful, as you aren't describing a mechanism, you only invoke a general principle. That's not enough, a ''plausible physical mechanism'' has to be described in a little more detail. The same holds for answering the question: ''"What is the reason for earthquakes to occur?"'' with ''"entropy"''.
*Even though the the laws of thermodynamics hold, you can observe places on Earth where the entropy locally decreases - even without the help of an intelligent agent: Look a sky - do you see clouds? They show that water isn't distributed uniformly throughout the atmosphere. And even though there is the tendency to get to such a uniform distribution, we don't get rid of clouds. Why? Because new clouds are created. How do these abnormalities arise? Because there is an energy gradient, provided by the Sun, powering the water cycle.
*The same is true for processes in the Earth: here, an energy gradient is given by the radioactive elements.
*without these effects, the increasing entropy wouldn't result in more and bigger quakes, but in less and smaller, as disequilibria would be resolved over time.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:09, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Are you saying that earthquakes are partly caused by radioactive decay? That's interesting. I thought convection currents were the main factor.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 10:24, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::Indeed. But what creates the convection currents? The heat from within the Earth, mainly caused by radioactive decay. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:31, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:::August, increasing disorder affects all processes. I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question. Earthquakes, regardless of their mechanism, reflect the truth that perpetual motion machines are impossible. The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:55, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::But earthquakes AREN'T increasing. They fluctuate from year to year but there just isn't a long-term increase. The trend is stable. --[[User:HarryPagett|HarryPagett]] 14:02, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::::Exactly. It doesn't seem very helpful to discuss ''how'' or ''why'' earthquakes are increasing in frequency before we determine ''whether'' or ''if'' they're increasing. And the paper cited by AugustO claims that there is no increase, despite recent appearances. So before we talk about radioactive decay or tectonics, we should decide if the study is to be trusted. If it is, there's little benefit to discussing mechanics. --[[User:JustinD|JustinD]] 16:34, 22 December 2011 (EST)
::::In addition, the other examples August listed were not closed systems; tectonics is a closed system. [[User:NickP|NickP]] 12:13, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::No, it's not. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:44, 22 December 2011 (EST)
:::::Let me clarify: We have a heat source at the center of the Earth, resulting mainly from decay of radioactive nuclei. We also have a heat sink at the surface (dissipation of energy due to earthquakes, volcano eruptions, a bit of radiation, etc.). Tectonics is caused by the temperature gradient inbetween, an open system. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:39, 22 December 2011 (EST)

*''August, increasing disorder affects all processes.'' As does gravity. This is a general principle, to get a ''physical mechanism'' you need to fill in some details.
*''I didn't see a response by you to my [[perpetual motion machine]] question.'' I thought my remarks on entropy were clear enough. But let's get back to your question: '''If you don't think increased disorder affects the [[Earth]], then please explain your view on whether [[perpetual motion machines]] are possible.''' Of course, increasing disorder affects the Earth, just not the way you imagine it. [[Perpetual motion machine]]s aren't possible. But an isolated system doesn't become more violent over time, it becomes more boring :-) All the models of things which were thought to be perpetual mobiles by their creators slowly grind to an halt, they don't disrupt themselves in quakes.
*''The corollary is that earthquakes must be increasing, just as disorder does for an attempt at a perpetual motion machine.'' '''That's not a corollary, that is just wrong, and won't become true just by repeating it like a mantra.''' For an earthquake to happen, you have first to built up tension in a place - and that means lowering the entropy locally, using energy. When the earthquake happens, the energy stored is freed, entropy rises again.
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:48, 22 December 2011 (EST)

:Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down. Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''. The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:47, 26 December 2011 (EST)

::*''Entropy '''''does''''' cause disruptions to mechanical systems, and not simply due to friction and slowing down.'' Well, if I throw a grenade into the aforementioned grandfather-clock, we get a fine example of such a disruption. But machines (and mechanism) are generally not halted that way.
::*''Your comment acknowledges that entropy exists and that perpetual motion machines are impossible, but then stops short of recognizing '''''why'''''.'' Do you expect me to know ''why'' the laws of thermodynamics hold?
::*''The [[Earth]]'s rapidly rotating system and other internal dynamics must be increasingly disrupted by entropy, and that does not necessarily mean merely slowing down in a mostly frictionless atmosphere.'' Who says so? The Earth is gradually slowing down, the heating through radioactive elements is declining (though ever so slowly, as the half-lives of the elements involved are so great). Why do you expect a more volatile behavior? Again, simply saying ''"entropy"'' isn't enough, you should describe a mechanism: the current model of continental plates driven by convection currents doesn't lead to such a conclusion.
::*Will you ever give us a similar mechanism explaining what you think is an increase in the rate of earthquakes? I doubt it. It's like the whole sad [[User_talk:Aschlafly/Archive49#New_namespace_for_the_CBP|ἰδού-affair]]: you may have convinced yourself that you gave satisfying answers to all question, when in fact those were only superficial - or plain wrong (I'm still waiting for a scholarly source which backs up your translation!)
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:40, 26 December 2011 (EST)

:::Perpetual motion machines are not impossibly simply because of friction, or dispersion of energy. Disorder increases and that is the fundamental reason that perpectual motion machines are impossible. Many of the finest systems imaginable eventually fail for reasons unrelated to energy dispersion or friction.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:04, 1 January 2012 (EST)

::::Please give some examples! ¨[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:40, 2 January 2012 (EST)

===Conclusion===
*There is no evidence for a doubling of earthquakes every 40 years.
*In fact, there is evidence that the rate of major earthquakes hasn't changed over the last hundred years.
*Aschlafly's proposed ''"mechanism"'' (increasing entropy) wouldn't result in an increase of major earthquakes, so even from this ''"model"'' we wouldn't expect to see such an increase.

I alerted Aschlafly to these points (in my answer above) at his talk-page and he [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=947978&oldid=947963 is aware of this comment] ;-)

Now, I'll outcomment this ''"counterexample"''. Please keep in mind that deleting ''false'' information is not an act of censorship!

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 10:00, 26 December 2011 (EST)

[[User:ScottDG]] reverted my edit, stating: ''Open your mind, August. Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me.'' I don't think that this is enough to justify the reversion of a well-substantiated edit. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 12:08, 26 December 2011 (EST)
:Is it just me or do "Open your mind" and "Aschlafly says so, that's good enough for me" seem to be a bit on the contradictory side? In any case well done for getting that incorrect claim out of the article, and let's hope it stays out. --[[User:Uxbridge|Uxbridge]] 13:49, 26 December 2011 (EST)

== Rates ==

I find it interesting to note that some of the attempts to disprove the Old Earth theory are based upon assuming that the rate by which various factors change are constant. This does seem troubling when a core element of a number of articles ([[Old Earth]], [[Age of the Earth]], etc) is an attack on the assumption that radioactive decay rates have been constant.

Just a few examples include: There's the assumption that the moon is receding from the Earth at a constant rate, that human intelligence has declined at a constant rate, that the rate of the decline of biodiversity on Earth has been constant, and that the rate at which land has fallen into the oceans has been constant. This does somewhat undermine the points this article is trying to make. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 11:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)

== Dog Races ==

Dog races are somewhat artificial creations: a garden which isn't tended to runs to seed, a building not kept in shape becomes a ruin. Nothing of this is an example of an Old Earth, just for relatively recent neglect. That should be obvious.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:53, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== too many repeated removals of certain entries are being done; discuss first on talk page ==

The problem aren't the removals: these are generally discussed here on the talk-page. The real problem is the unilateral reinsertion of debunked examples without any discussion.

[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 09:56, 11 January 2012 (EST)

== Historical Counterexamples ==

''The oldest direct evidence of life -- written documents, clothing, remnants of civilizations, tree rings, etc. -- is no older than about 3000 B.C.''

*There are tree rings which are older than 3000 B.C (see [[dendrochronology]]) - I think that for the [[bristlecone pine]]s you will find a fully anchored chronology of 8,500 years - going back to 6000 B.C.
*There are many reports about older clothing, woven textiles are date to be from 6000 B.C. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/1993/07/13/science/site-in-turkey-yields-oldest-cloth-ever-found.html?pagewanted=all NYTimes 1993: Site in Turkey Yields Oldest Cloth ever Found]</ref>
*And there are other older remnants of civilizations, i.e. [[Lascaux]]

But of course you can claim that these things can't be dated probably, as no one of the contemporaries has ''written'' about them: this reduces your point to:

''The oldest written documents are no older than about 3000 B.C.''

I'll change the page accordingly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 16:55, 29 January 2012 (EST)

:These claims that you cite are far from persuasive and even reinforce the underlying point: the oldest direct evidence of life is consistent with an Young Earth, not an Old Earth. Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, and at any rate even it admitted that "no other piece of prehistoric cloth produced earlier than 6000 to 6500 B.C. had been found anywhere in the world."--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:14, 29 January 2012 (EST)

::''Note that the NY Times had to run a correction on its story, '' That is misleading (at least), as the correction had nothing to do with the content of the article, but the illustration:
{{cquote|'''Correction:''''' July 19, 1993, Monday An artist's rendering in Science Times on Tuesday, showing the weaving method believed to have been used in the earliest known piece of cloth, depicted the pattern incorrectly. The pairs of weft, or horizontal, strands probably wound around each other as well as around the warp, or vertical, strands.}}
::Older clothing has been found, made from leather of fur. I just gave this example of woven cloth, which contradicts your statement in the article. Please change the article accordingly, as it is protected. Thanks.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:22, 30 January 2012 (EST)

:::I'm not aware of any "Old Earth" finds of '''''any''''' clothing, and your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 02:41, 30 January 2012 (EST)

'' your recent statement lacks sufficient detail or citation'' - as does your statement in the article, BTW! Could you add some? And have a look [http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2002/03/21/excavations-eastern-europe-reveal-ancient-human-lifestyles here]. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:49, 30 January 2012 (EST)

== References ==
<references />

== Earth's magnetic field ==

Mr. Schlafly, you wrote: "The magnetism of the Earth is vanishing so quickly that it will disappear in 1,500 to 2,000 years". I don't see how this contradicts the scientists' hypothesis that the Earth is billions of years old, since they think that the magnetic field regularly reverses itself [http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/ link source]. I think the readers would benefit from a clarification of this point. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:43, 27 April 2012 (EDT)
:Agreed. The article you cited, Mr. Schlafly, states that ''"this could imply a reversal of the Earth's magnetic fields"''.
{| class="collapsible collapsed" style="border:1px dashed Gainsboro;margin:+.1em;width:20%"
|-
! style="border:1px solid lightgray;margin:+.1em;text-align:center;padding:+.2em" | [[user:Brenden|Brenden]].
|-
| style="padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |
*[[Special:Contributions/Brenden|Contribs]]
*[[user talk:Brenden|talk]]
*[[Special:Log&user=Brenden|log]]
|} 14:00, 27 April 2012 (EDT)

::If magnetic fields would reverse themselves over thousands of years, then that is even more evidence for a young earth. Scientists think that many species, from turtles to birds, rely on a constant magnetic field to find their way.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:09, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::What precludes the possibility that the population changes over time as the magnetic field slowly changes to adapt to the new magnetic field? [[User:GregG|GregG]] 20:18, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::Scientists claim that a moderate magnetic field is essential for many species to find their way around. If that magnetic field disappears, then those species go extinct. They wouldn't exist today. It's that simple.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:41, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::I'm no evolutionist, but Andy I think in this case you are severely underestimating nature's (God given) ability to adapt and find a way to survive.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 20:50, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::That "God given" ability requires a young Earth. Many, many species go extinct '''''every year''''' - something that is also downplayed by people who deny God's existence.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:16, 28 April 2012 (EDT)
:::::::And many more continue to thrive, despite changes to their environment. I am surprised that you underestimate God's creation, Mr. Schlafly.[[User:BruceDownUnder|BruceDownUnder]] 22:06, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

::::::::I don't underestimate God's creation. [[Entropy]] is part of it; the [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)|Book of Hebrews]], perhaps the most intellectual book in all of history, explains that God created the earth and the universe to wear out. See [[Book of Hebrews (Translated)#1:10-11]]. God presumably does not plan to spend eternity on this particular creation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 28 April 2012 (EDT)

== A mathematician's take ==

Hello,
I find this to be an interesting article, but I must take issue with the following claim:

<blockquote>
If each of 43 counterexamples has merely a 10% chance of being valid -- an underestimate -- then the probability that the Earth is billions of years old is only 1%.
</blockquote>

I understand what you are trying to do here (0.9^43=0.01). However, you a making the assumption that all these observations are independent, when in reality, they are likely highly positively correlated. Instead of calculating Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B), you should be doing Pr(A and B)=Pr(A)*Pr(B|A).

For example, in this article, I count four entries in the "Geology" section that talk about the persistency of bodies of water. Under your math, these three alone indicate that there is only a 65% chance of an old earth. However, these three are likely to be highly, or even perfectly, correlated. If we assume they are all perfectly correlated (which they are not, but just for illustration), then there is a 90% chance of an old earth.

Another way of looking at it is from the other perspective. Let's say Radiocarbon dating and universe expansion calculations point to an old earth, and only have a 1% of being true. Under your math, their is only a 98% chance of a young earth. However, that means there is only a 99% chance of the earth being young OR old, but since those two events completely specify the probability space, it should be a 100% chance. But, since we are wrongly assuming independence, our math is wrong.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad point you are trying to make here. The math, however, is flat wrong, and we shouldn't give a quantification for something we have no way of quantifying.

Just my two cents. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 12:26, 4 May 2012 (EDT)

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-16T19:55:58Z

EricAlstrom: How about this as a comprise for now?

[[File:Protesters of Occupy Knoxville oct 2011.jpg|thumb|250px|Protesters in Knoxville, Oct 2011.]]
Leftist protest '''Occupy Wall Street''' is an ongoing anti-capitalism rally, with beginnings as a small [[astroturfing]] campaign on September 17, 2011 in [[New York City]], that spread to various [[liberal]] cities and is causing thousands of arrests across the [[United States]].<ref name=SorosMoney>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/video-exposing-occupy-wall-street-was-organized-from-day-one-by-seiu-acorn-front-the-working-family-party-and-how-they-all-tie-to-the-obama-administration-dnc-democratic-socialists-of-america/ Video Exposing How 'Occupy Wall Street' Was Organized From Day One By SEIU/ACORN Fromt – The Working Family Party, And How They All Tie To The Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America Tides And George Soros], ''[[The Blaze]]'', October 7, 2011.</ref> The Occupy Wall Street protesters consist of radicals, anarchists, [[Nihilism|nihilists]], college students, hippies, special interest groups, [[labor unions]] and vendors. They dislike [[capitalism]], blame [[greed]], [[Wall Street]] and the [[banks]] for economic hardship, and have been seen spitting on U.S. Military personnel.<ref>[http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013 Occupy Boston Protesters Spit On Coast Guard Member], myfoxboston.com, October 13, 2011.</ref> The movement was inspired by the Arab Spring protests in Cairo that were organized by the [[Muslim Brotherhood]]. Egyptians camped out in Tahir Square until [[Hosni Mubarak]] resigned. Similar 'Occupy' demonstrations have spread to a dozen cities.

The sixties radical and icon of the Left [[Bill Ayers]], who was featured on a magazine cover while standing on the American flag,<ref>http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2001/No-Regrets/</ref> wrote concerning Occupy Wall Street, {{Cn}} {{cquote| Let’s overthrow American capitalism and the American way!!!}}

==Overview==
Occupy Wall Street is a protest attempting to counter the influence of the real grassroots movement, the [[Tea Party Movement]]. The protest proclaims that thousands of cities in [[America]] will join their cause and that it will spread internationally to hundreds of cities. Many misinformed people see the protests as a worthy cause, with some falsely relating it to the Tea Party.

Occupy Wall Street is neither worthy, nor is it similar to the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement is a collection of concerned citizens that care for future generations, fighting for austerity and an honest national government. Wall Street protesters are selfish, make silly demands, and have misguided rage toward job creators. Over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters have been arrested during its first month; after more than two years, zero arrests have been made in the Tea Party movement.

Unlike the Tea Party, [[Obama]] was quick to acknowledge Occupy Wall Street, offering it credibility and a share of frustration and support. Nancy Pelosi cried upon learning about the Tea Party; she offered her blessings to Occupy Wall Street. [[Rush Limbaugh]] argued that this protest was organized by the [[White House]] and Obama. [[Bill O'Reilly]] says the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are "far-left loons" and "anarchists."<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/10/09/wapos-wemple-really-disgraceful-oreilly-called-protesters-far-left-lo WaPo's Wemple: 'Really Disgraceful' That O'Reilly Called Protesters 'Far-Left Loons' and 'Anarchists'], ''[[Newsbusters]]'', October 8, 2011.</ref>.

Other reports indicate that sanitation is becoming a concern for Occupy Wall Street as the park where the protesters camp hasn't been cleaned since September 16 and [[Michael Bloomberg | Mayor Bloomberg]] indicates that the protests are costing NYC tourism dollars.

Despite criticism a majority of Americans are favorable towards the movement with 29% of those polled saying they are somewhat favorable and 25% saying they are very favorable. 10% rated the movement somewhat unfavorable and 13% rated the movement very unfavorable.<ref>[http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/] Times Poll of Current Views, Time, October 10, 2011</ref>

===Astroturfing===
Reports show that Wall Street protesters are being paid to march. Manufactured, professional designed protest signs indicate [[liberal]] money is influencing the protests.<ref>[http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street”], ''New American'', October 5, 2011.</ref> A re-branded [[ACORN]] is involved with the 'Occupy' protests.<ref name=SorosMoney/>

===Lack of Direction===
[[Conservative]]s mock the movement as Occupy Sesame Street, for its childishness. Conservatives know that it's the government devaluing our currency, weakening our economy and plundering money from the next generation -- Wall Street and the banks aren't to blame. Republicans [[Mitt Romney]] and [[Herman Cain]] have denounced the protests as [[class warfare]]. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/congressional-dems-rally-in-support-of-occupy-wall-street/#ixzz1aIny1Ke7 Congressional Dems rally in support of ‘Occupy Wall Street’], Daily Caller, October 6, 2011.</ref>

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to sign a petition in support of the protesters. President Obama said that the movement reflected "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works." <ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/186499-poll-finds-more-than-half-of-all-americans-aware-of-occupy-wall-street-protests?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed Poll finds majority of Americans aware of Occupy Wall Street protests], ''The Hill'', October 10, 2011.</ref>

==13 demands==
The content below is listed on the Occupy Wall Street website by an affiliated protester. OWS has made their intentions known that it is an unofficial post and they do not have an official list of demands. Per their website,

{{cquote|Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.}}

===Other Demands===
On September 21, 2011, an unofficial list of demands was posted on the Occupy Wall Street website from "the fifth communiqué."<ref>[http://occupywallst.org/article/a-message-from-occupied-wall-street-day-five/ A Message From Occupy Wall Street]</ref> The group claimed the following demands.
{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more wealth than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly eighty percent of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track.

Ending the modern gilded age is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly 15% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing.

Ending political corruption is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of Americans did not have work.

Ending joblessness is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of America lived in poverty.

Ending poverty is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly fifty million Americans were without health insurance.

Ending health-profiteering is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.

Ending war is our one demand.}}

==Liberal endorsement for Occupy Wall Street==

* [[Charlie Rangel]]
* [[Nancy Pelosi]]
* [[Barack Obama]]<ref>[http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-11/politics/30265829_1_wall-street-middle-class-republicans It's Official: Obama Has Embraced Occupy Wall Street], bussinessinsider.com, October 10, 2011.</ref>
* [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[Communist Party USA]]
* [[American Nazi Party]] <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements, Gateway Pundit, October 15, 2011]</ref>
* [[Al Gore]]<ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-gore-says-hes-cheering-on-the-occupy-wall-street-movement/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews Al Gore Says He's Cheering On The Occupy Wall Street Movement], ''The Blaze'', October 2011.</ref>
* [[Russel Simmons]]
* [[CNN]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[New York Times]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[Van Jones]]
* [[SEIU]]
* [[George Soros]]
* [[Bill Ayers]]
* [[ACORN]]
* [[Bernie Sanders]]
* [[Russ Feingold]]
* [[Rosanne Barr]]
* [[Susan Sarandon]]
* [[Kanye West]]
* [[Cornel West]]
* [[Noam Chomsky]]
* [[Alec Baldwin]]
* [[John Lewis]]
* [[Arianna Huffington]]
* [[Hugo Chavez]]
* [[Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream]]
* [[Barbara Lee]]
* [[Raúl Grijalva]]
* [[Keith Ellison]]
* [[Louise Slaughter]]
* [[Dennis Kucinich]]
* [[Peter DeFazio]]
* [[John Larson]]
* [[Christiane Amanpour]]
* [[Daily Kos]]
* [[MoveOn.org]]

==See also==
* [[One Nation]]
* [[Restore Sanity rally]]
* [[Save the American Dream rally]]
* [[Tea Party movement]]

==References==
<references/>

{{liberalism}}

==External links==
* [http://occupywallst.org/ OccupyWallSt.org]
* [http://www.breitbart.tv/sick-of-media-comparing-occupy-wall-street-to-tea-party-watch-this/ What is Occupy Wall Street? Fox News]
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049137/Occupy-Wall-Street-Violence-erupts-police-clash-protesters.html Occupy Wall Street Violence Erupts]

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]
[[Category:Anarchists]]

Talk:Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-16T19:49:26Z

EricAlstrom: /* Ayers quote */ new section

That list of demands does not appear to be an official list : http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

== Anarchism ==

I added the category for [[Anarchism]] but wondering if others feel the definition of anarchism on Conservapedia matches the demonstrations seen with [[Occupy Wall Street|OWS]]? These protests are anti-capitalist and anti-American, but are they currently seen as anarchists too? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 12:28, 12 October 2011 (EDT)
:You are correct. It is well documented that this is a mob of cretins and misfits. They earned the anarchism category. --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 13:21, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Demands ==

The very few "demands" that might resemble legitimate questions are discredited by skeptical accusations, or they are backed by some very extremist anti-American philosophies. Let's take a look at some of the ridiculous pro communist, anti-American demands made by socialists, anarchists and other extremist liberals who hate capitalism, are jealous of the Tea Party Movement, and/or getting paid to act as Wall Street protesters.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.}}

Beginning a protest "demand" list with an argument stating a convicted guilty person is "an innocent man" makes this occupation less credible. Capitol punishment exists to deter the crimes that result in its use. Ending capitol punishment, while seemingly good in its intention, would have negative consequences. For instance, ending capitol punishment might result in more crime - criminal acts that might otherwise be deterred if Capitol punishment was a considered form of justice.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.}}
I highly doubt the charges were "baseless." I don't know anyone who has been arrested for doing, very literally, nothing.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.}}
This is silly. Using the word "owned" suggests "half of the country's population" is literally enslaved without choice, and that someone who made something out of nothing but gained a lot of wealth in the process is evil. Demands like this suggest extreme positions are pushing this political spectacle in the form of a protest against Wall Street.

We can add '''Ending poverty is our one demand''' to the above, because it's redundant.

How do you go about ending "wealth inequality" or "poverty" anyway? Socialism? That's not gonna work; history has proven this. It won't happen.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.}}
I guarantee with 100% confidence that Yahoo board members didn't act in some conspiracy to block mass emails getting sent from occupywallst.org servers. For those who have ever worked in support for Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, etc., you would know that there is a process which low tier support teams follow to determine what server are sending Spam and then block those IP addresses from doing so. These processes to block Spammers include the number of email users reporting email from spammers. If enough Spam is reported from an IP address, and it has been determined that a crap ton of email is being send from a particular server, some tier 3 Yahoo! support dude sitting in a chair at his desk probably just clicked a button to block the site after all the flags indicated him to do so, per a standard support model process.

That being said, ending corporate censorship would be interesting, which would include [http://www.bing.com/search?q=Googlegate Google - a search engine that has been known to censor conservative websites]. Perhaps the liberal, anti-American protestors might want to rethink this one.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.}}

This is straight up anti-American ranting, and spreading disinformation. But it is in-line with the [[Conservative Dictionary Project (U)|liberal false redefinition of the United States]], so I'm not surprised liberals added it to their list of "demands." Imperialist nations would not invade a country to topple a bad regime, rebuild the country into a more free democracy, and then hand back all government and military control to the people of that country. Running with an argument to end something that does not exist discredits this political campaign to 'occupy wall street'.

{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.}}

America is not at war with the world. It a small group of Leftist extremists who have, in their idealist views, quote "declared war" on America.

The only thing I think of when this political campaign mentions "99%" is that this must be the percentage of people the protesters are shouting at.

God bless the United States of America. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 18:01, 12 October 2011 (EDT)

== Let’s overthrow American capitalism and the American way!!! ==

That wasn't Bill Ayers according to the link cited. The article is about ayers but has that comment thrown in "Those are the feelings of the far left who started to disrupt Wall Street on Saturday, September 17." The article makes no claims that that was said by Bill Ayers. Nor does that quote appear on his blog or anywhere(by him) as far as I can tell. Everything just seems to link back to the same story though most make no mention of Ayers at all. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 16:32, 15 October 2011 (EDT)
:I deleted the quote since it violates the first Conservapedia commandment and it was added back. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 01:31, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

== Ayers quote ==

Jpatt, I don't think anyone here would defend Bill Ayers, but you are attributing a quote to him that is not supported by the citation, unless I am misreading the citation. It may be that he thinks that (in fact, I'm pretty sure he does), but you're saying that he wrote that. And he simply did not. Why do you keep putting that back? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 16 October 2011 (EDT)

Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-16T15:27:08Z

EricAlstrom: Simply unsupported by the citation, or any evidence I could find. Please add proper citations, or it is a falsehood.

[[File:Protesters of Occupy Knoxville oct 2011.jpg|thumb|250px|Protesters in Knoxville, Oct 2011.]]
Leftist protest '''Occupy Wall Street''' is an ongoing anti-capitalism rally, with beginnings as a small [[astroturfing]] campaign on September 17, 2011 in [[New York City]], that spread to various [[liberal]] cities and is causing thousands of arrests across the [[United States]].<ref name=SorosMoney>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/video-exposing-occupy-wall-street-was-organized-from-day-one-by-seiu-acorn-front-the-working-family-party-and-how-they-all-tie-to-the-obama-administration-dnc-democratic-socialists-of-america/ Video Exposing How 'Occupy Wall Street' Was Organized From Day One By SEIU/ACORN Fromt – The Working Family Party, And How They All Tie To The Obama Administration, DNC, Democratic Socialists of America Tides And George Soros], ''[[The Blaze]]'', October 7, 2011.</ref> The Occupy Wall Street protesters consist of radicals, anarchists, [[Nihilism|nihilists]], college students, hippies, special interest groups, [[labor unions]] and vendors. They dislike [[capitalism]], blame [[greed]], [[Wall Street]] and the [[banks]] for economic hardship, and have been seen spitting on U.S. Military personnel.<ref>[http://www.myfoxboston.com/dpp/news/local/occupy-boston-protesters-spit-on-coast-guard-member-20111013 Occupy Boston Protesters Spit On Coast Guard Member], myfoxboston.com, October 13, 2011.</ref> The movement was inspired by the Arab Spring protests in Cairo that were organized by the [[Muslim Brotherhood]]. Egyptians camped out in Tahir Square until [[Hosni Mubarak]] resigned. Similar 'Occupy' demonstrations have spread to a dozen cities.

==Overview==
Occupy Wall Street is a protest attempting to counter the influence of the real grassroots movement, the [[Tea Party Movement]]. The protest proclaims that thousands of cities in [[America]] will join their cause and that it will spread internationally to hundreds of cities. Many misinformed people see the protests as a worthy cause, with some falsely relating it to the Tea Party.

Occupy Wall Street is neither worthy, nor is it similar to the Tea Party. The Tea Party movement is a collection of concerned citizens that care for future generations, fighting for austerity and an honest national government. Wall Street protesters are selfish, make silly demands, and have misguided rage toward job creators. Over 700 Occupy Wall Street protesters have been arrested during its first month; after more than two years, zero arrests have been made in the Tea Party movement.

Unlike the Tea Party, [[Obama]] was quick to acknowledge Occupy Wall Street, offering it credibility and a share of frustration and support. Nancy Pelosi cried upon learning about the Tea Party; she offered her blessings to Occupy Wall Street. [[Rush Limbaugh]] argued that this protest was organized by the [[White House]] and Obama. [[Bill O'Reilly]] says the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters are "far-left loons" and "anarchists."<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2011/10/09/wapos-wemple-really-disgraceful-oreilly-called-protesters-far-left-lo WaPo's Wemple: 'Really Disgraceful' That O'Reilly Called Protesters 'Far-Left Loons' and 'Anarchists'], ''[[Newsbusters]]'', October 8, 2011.</ref>.

Other reports indicate that sanitation is becoming a concern for Occupy Wall Street as the park where the protesters camp hasn't been cleaned since September 16 and [[Michael Bloomberg | Mayor Bloomberg]] indicates that the protests are costing NYC tourism dollars.

Despite criticism a majority of Americans are favorable towards the movement with 29% of those polled saying they are somewhat favorable and 25% saying they are very favorable. 10% rated the movement somewhat unfavorable and 13% rated the movement very unfavorable.<ref>[http://swampland.time.com/full-results-of-oct-9-10-2011-time-poll/] Times Poll of Current Views, Time, October 10, 2011</ref>

===Astroturfing===
Reports show that Wall Street protesters are being paid to march. Manufactured, professional designed protest signs indicate [[liberal]] money is influencing the protests.<ref>[http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street”], ''New American'', October 5, 2011.</ref> A re-branded [[ACORN]] is involved with the 'Occupy' protests.<ref name=SorosMoney/>

===Lack of Direction===
[[Conservative]]s mock the movement as Occupy Sesame Street, for its childishness. Conservatives know that it's the government devaluing our currency, weakening our economy and plundering money from the next generation -- Wall Street and the banks aren't to blame. Republicans [[Mitt Romney]] and [[Herman Cain]] have denounced the protests as [[class warfare]]. <ref>[http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/congressional-dems-rally-in-support-of-occupy-wall-street/#ixzz1aIny1Ke7 Congressional Dems rally in support of ‘Occupy Wall Street’], Daily Caller, October 6, 2011.</ref>

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to sign a petition in support of the protesters. President Obama said that the movement reflected "broad-based frustration about how our financial system works." <ref>[http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/186499-poll-finds-more-than-half-of-all-americans-aware-of-occupy-wall-street-protests?utm_campaign=briefingroom&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitterfeed Poll finds majority of Americans aware of Occupy Wall Street protests], ''The Hill'', October 10, 2011.</ref>

==13 demands==
The content below is listed on the Occupy Wall Street website by an affiliated protester. OWS has made their intentions known that it is an unofficial post and they do not have an official list of demands. Per their website,

{{cquote|Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

Demand four: Free college education.

Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America’s nuclear power plants.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the “Books.” World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the “Books.” And I don’t mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.}}

===Other Demands===
On September 21, 2011, an unofficial list of demands was posted on the Occupy Wall Street website from "the fifth communiqué."<ref>[http://occupywallst.org/article/a-message-from-occupied-wall-street-day-five/ A Message From Occupy Wall Street]</ref> The group claimed the following demands.
{{Cquote|On September 21st, 2011, Troy Davis, an innocent man, was murdered by the state of Georgia. Troy Davis was one of the 99 percent.

Ending capital punishment is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, the richest 400 Americans owned more wealth than half of the country's population.

Ending wealth inequality is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, four of our members were arrested on baseless charges.

Ending police intimidation is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, we determined that Yahoo lied about occupywallst.org being in spam filters.

Ending corporate censorship is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly eighty percent of Americans thought the country was on the wrong track.

Ending the modern gilded age is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly 15% of Americans approved of the job Congress was doing.

Ending political corruption is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of Americans did not have work.

Ending joblessness is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly one sixth of America lived in poverty.

Ending poverty is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, roughly fifty million Americans were without health insurance.

Ending health-profiteering is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America had military bases in around one hundred and thirty out of one hundred and sixty-five countries.

Ending American imperialism is our one demand.

On September 21st, 2011, America was at war with the world.

Ending war is our one demand.}}

==Liberal endorsement for Occupy Wall Street==

* [[Charlie Rangel]]
* [[Nancy Pelosi]]
* [[Barack Obama]]<ref>[http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-10-11/politics/30265829_1_wall-street-middle-class-republicans It's Official: Obama Has Embraced Occupy Wall Street], bussinessinsider.com, October 10, 2011.</ref>
* [[Debbie Wasserman Schultz]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[Communist Party USA]]
* [[American Nazi Party]] <ref>[http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/figures-nazi-party-throws-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/ Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements, Gateway Pundit, October 15, 2011]</ref>
* [[Al Gore]]<ref>[http://www.theblaze.com/stories/al-gore-says-hes-cheering-on-the-occupy-wall-street-movement/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews Al Gore Says He's Cheering On The Occupy Wall Street Movement], ''The Blaze'', October 2011.</ref>
* [[Russel Simmons]]
* [[CNN]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[New York Times]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[Van Jones]]
* [[SEIU]]
* [[George Soros]]
* [[Bill Ayers]]
* [[ACORN]]
* [[Bernie Sanders]]
* [[Russ Feingold]]
* [[Rosanne Barr]]
* [[Susan Sarandon]]
* [[Kanye West]]
* [[Cornel West]]
* [[Noam Chomsky]]
* [[Alec Baldwin]]
* [[John Lewis]]
* [[Arianna Huffington]]
* [[Hugo Chavez]]
* [[Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream]]
* [[Barbara Lee]]
* [[Raúl Grijalva]]
* [[Keith Ellison]]
* [[Louise Slaughter]]
* [[Dennis Kucinich]]
* [[Peter DeFazio]]
* [[John Larson]]
* [[Christiane Amanpour]]
* [[Daily Kos]]
* [[MoveOn.org]]

==See also==
* [[One Nation]]
* [[Restore Sanity rally]]
* [[Save the American Dream rally]]
* [[Tea Party movement]]

==References==
<references/>

{{liberalism}}

==External links==
* [http://occupywallst.org/ OccupyWallSt.org]
* [http://www.breitbart.tv/sick-of-media-comparing-occupy-wall-street-to-tea-party-watch-this/ What is Occupy Wall Street? Fox News]
* [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049137/Occupy-Wall-Street-Violence-erupts-police-clash-protesters.html Occupy Wall Street Violence Erupts]

[[Category:Liberalism]]
[[Category:Obama Presidency]]
[[Category:Activists]]
[[Category:Liberal Organizations]]
[[Category: Anti-American]]
[[Category:Anarchists]]

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-21T23:38:30Z

EricAlstrom: /* A mathematical approach */

== Fun ==
Even if you go into [[Kabbalah|Kabbalahistic]] or [[Numerology|numerological]] arguments (''the obvious answer is 666&permil;''), the whole thing is amusingly silly - so it's a nice break from more serious business like translating the Bible correctly. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:Nothing "amusing" about this. There is a correct answer - a specific percentage. What is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Unknown to all but god.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

:::The precise percentage may be unknown, but estimates are surely possible. For example, the percentage must be less than 100%, and more than 0%.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::The number I gave (80 at best/most optimistic, and up to 90 at most pessimistic/realistic) tends ot be the one ive seen the most. I am questioning the includion of the percentage of US church goers, as that only includes people in the states.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:30, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

::::Your insight about this is superb. I moved your edit higher in the table.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

To make my point clear:
*either you get your number by some juggling with numbers and verses (i.e., using numerologic methods). This always strikes me as silly
*or you pretend to know which criteria God uses to judge us - and then judge your fellow Christians against those: and that sounds downright blasphemous: 1 Samuel 16:7
::''for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.''
[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:59, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

===The "not-so-fun" part===
Anyone who rejects the free gift of salvation through Jesus Christ is doomed to hell. God is patient; people have plenty of chances and opportunities with which to accept Christ...but only while they're alive. After death is the judgement, and unfortunately there's going to be a huge percentage of people going there then going to Heaven. So, time to make the choice now. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Assuming that the person so doomed has been informed that such a gift is available. What happens to those who live the whole of their lives without hearing the Gospel? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::Same thing. Still judged because they still fall short of the standards of god--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 18:41, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::@AsherL, his page [http://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/1994-04-10-What-About-Those-Who-Never-Hear-The-Gospel/] could probably explain it better than I could. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::Thank you for the link to that page Karajou; having read it I am disturbed by the author's logic over whether God sees the unproselytized as being "basically innocent"...or "basically guilty" ''"When you look at the teeming masses of the world wholly apart from the gospel, the Bible or Christianity in general, are they innocent or guilty in the eyes of God?" '' 
::::I don't know about you but I'd rather be judged by my own actions rather than be "lumped in" with a bunch of people I have no control. Even though my own actions would send me to Hell at least I'm damned by my own hand, as it were, rather than as a general principle. 
::::But I rest assured that when God looks at me He sees Jesus, not because of anything ''I'' have done (or not done) but because of the free gift of Christ's precious blood which covers me and the whole of my stink. I think we don't actually ''know'' what happens to people so situated and should redouble our own efforts at proselytizing wherever we can and give liberally to Missions work whenever we can. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::How don't we know? Either you believe in Christ and go to heaven, or you go to hell. Purgatory, Limbo and the Virtuous pagan are not biblical.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:12, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::The page Karajou linked to says that the "default" of a person is "sinner" hence an unsaved person is sent to Hell since they do not have the covering that Christ gives freely. A person though who lives their lives in accordance to their own religious (read: other than Christian) tradition and is faithful to that tradition would have (probably) been a good Christian had they had been given the opportunity to become one. The accident of being born in the "wrong" country or wrong time shouldn't be counted against a person...again, I think God knows better '''''who''''' would have accepted Christ (had they heard the Gospel) and who would have rejected the free gift. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::That is dangerously close to the Liberal Christian concept that anybody is saved as long as they follow the religion they choose faithfully, and I really recommend you read the bible some more. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:24, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::Or ''what'', exactly? [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/Matthew%207:22-23/ Matthew 7:22/23] is the fate of Liberal Christians. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::Ah, I see! Well I certainly wouldn't want the '''action''' of believing the wrong thing to damn me. But notice how Jesus informs those folk: "I never knew you..." which would suggest that this couldn't be a thing that just ''happens'' (one doesn't believe sillier and sillier things and all of a sudden you end up "losing" your salvation). No, it ''tells us'' that Jesus knows those who are truly His and who're trying to get one over on the Lord, boasting over their own works. Nice try though, trying to scare me. [[User:AsherL|AsherL]] 19:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::I never said that was your fate, i was warning you that the statement "god knows who '''WOULD''' have been christian given the chance" is very close and pretty much Universalism-lite. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 19:42, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::So everyone who died before Jesus is in Hell? Including Adam, Moses, Joshua, David (well, everyone in the Old Testament) along with such figures as John the Baptist? Along with every human who goes through life without hearing of Jesus? Seems a bit unfair. And contrary to theological doctrine. This was postulated and refuted by Thomas Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church, in his' ''Summa Theologiae'' (c.1240); indeed he rejects this idea in Vol. 55, 52-55, as antithetical to the teachings of Christ's Harrowing of Hell. It's a long discredited concept in scholarly theology, and if true, would mean that over 99.99% (recurring) of humanity is in Hell for failing to worship a God ''they had never even heard of''. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:29, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::But ''you'' have heard of Jesus, so where do ''you'' stand in this? Do you reject Him or accept Him? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 20:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::I accept Him; that's quite evident. What I am saying is that there is a distinction (dating even further than Aquinas; we can find it in ''City of God'' Bk. 11 Ch.1 (c.410 AD) between (1) people who know about Jesus, yet willingly reject Him, and (2) people who never heard of Him in the first place. The citation of Matthew 7:22-23 (above) is precisely that - Jesus is not saying what will happen to those who have never heard of Him, He is explaining what will happen to those who heard of Him yet choose to reject Him. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:36, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::: the harrowing of hell isnt even biblical, And no, those who were jewish are a different case. a nd i dispute Thomas's authority because he isnt above the bible--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 20:50, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::: The Harrowing of Hell is referenced in: Matthew 12:40, Acts 2:31 and 2:27, and 1 Peter 3:19-20. It is indeed Biblical. On what basis do you state that Jews who died before Christ are granted entry into Heaven? What Scriptural verses are you using? And as for "Jews", that would necessarily exclude all Old Testament figures who died prior to the giving of the Mosaic Code in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. So are Adam and Noah in Hell for being neither Christian nor Jew? Lastly; I agree with you that Thomas Aquinas is not above the Bible, therefore his authority is questionable. But you are also not above the Bible; so logically, your authority is just as questionable as mine or Aquinas'. Forgive me, I don't wish this to be a divisive issue and I intend no disresepct whatsoever. I am simply pointing out that we must be mindful of the distinction between those who consciously reject Christ's gift, and those who are unaware of it in the first place. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 20:59, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::There isnt a distinction though. All who havent, whether they have heard or not, accepted christ go to hell. the bible is VERY specific about that. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:01, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::Forgive me Sean but you didn't answer the above questions. What parts of Scripture support your view that all non-Christians (regardless of whether or not they have heard of Him) go to Hell; what parts of Scripture support your assertion that Jews go to Heaven even though they are not Christians; and what about pre-Mosaic Code patriarchs? [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::::::::::::[http://www.esvbible.org/search/john+14%3A6/ John 14:6] Seems pretty specefic about that. As for the pre-christians jews, the fact they followed god would seem to prove. Why would god waste time telling them to do any of his laws if they couldnt go to heaven til around 33 AD anyways?--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:19, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::::::::::::::So using John 14:6, it seems that Jews do not go to Heaven as they have not accepted Christ. If we use the logic that they are worshipping the same Triune Godhead, thereby tacitly accepting Christ ''as a part of the Godhead'', then by that same logic it could be argued that ''all'' descendants of Abraham (including the Muslims, in their own eyes) go to Heaven, as they worship the same Godhead regardless of whether or not they accept Jesus. However, I don't intend to debate this ''ad nauseum'' as this is a peripheral issue and one which should not be divisive to Brothers in Christ. And of course, both our opinions are equally as valid, as no man (including us) is in authority above the Word of the Lord! Also I don't wish to clog up an official Talk Page. Perhaps we could continue our discussions privately via email? Blessings be with you, Sean. [[User:RexBanner|RexBanner]] 21:27, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

== JW view ==
@SeanS - Is it OK if I put that back in? After all, technically the JWs believe that only 144,000 will actually go to heaven. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 20:57, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:No, because that isnt the same as the rest going to hell. Theres a lot more JW then 144,000, and the deadline for heaven closed back in the early 1900's. The rest of the JW are going to go to, i think its like earth but better, but not heaven,. They certainly aren't going to hell. And that is one of the main reasons they are heretics.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 21:04, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::OK, fair point! I'll leave it then. --[[User:LesCoyle|LesCoyle]] 21:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
== Trying to look past the Rayleigh limit ==

In Pathology we use microscopes a lot. The magnification power of light microscopes has not improved in the last 200 years, the reason for this is light diffraction, a bit off the point of the metaphor. Anyways back on point, there is a limit to how small an object we can see with a microscope, a ribosome for instance cannot be satisfactorily observed, it's just too small, too far from reach; if you increase the curvature of the lens you can make the ribosome appear large enough to see, but when you've got it that large the light diffraction will scatter the image and make it impossible to resolve. So when you have an answer at hand there is no way to tell if it's right or not and when you have the means to tell if you've got the right answer you've got nothing to test it on. You're trying to see behind a veil to a matter that is God's alone. Hopefully that made some sense, yesterday was a long night in the lab :( --[[User:DrDean|DrDean]] 18:38, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Don't you have electron microscopes? Sure, you can't examine live specimens, but you can certainly see ribosomes--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:09, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Interesting ==

This reminds me of a short story by Philip Jose Farmer in which a hallucinating priest sees Hell and decides there is no justice in such a fate, and he takes it upon himself to try and replace every single damned soul. He spends the night running about the city trying to spare Hell's denizens as much pain as he can.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 18:23, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
:Perhaps the story is an attempt to downplay or deny [[Hell]]? Denying something doesn't change reality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:26, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
::I think it was just a commentary on martyrdom. The hallucination was just a hallucination, and I didn't see it as an allegorical statement (as in "religion is an illusion). I saw it as a touching, moving example of a man's commitment to good. Of course, I can't pretend to know a Catholic perspective better than a Catholic. --[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 02:40, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Lower limit ==

According to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html, only 33% of the worlds population identifies as Christian, so surely the percentage must be more than 67%? Unless we are talking US only here, in which case it could be lower (but I doubt it). --[[User:MaxB|MaxB]] 12:23, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

:Please edit as you think best.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:27, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::I suppose it depends on one's view of salvation.
::*If one is an Episcopalian, standards are far more lenient, and even non-Christians are seen as viable candidates for heaven. Calvinists, however, believe most people are predestined for Hell.
::*Mormons do not necessarily have a Hell, but (from what my Mormon friends have told me) several tiers of exaltation, the bottom two being one plane meant to teach wayward souls about God, and the Outer Darkness: reserved for the very worst apostates.
::*Catholicism has [[Limbo]] and [[Purgatory]] for those that don't quite deserve Hell, but don't deserve Heaven either (is Heaven capitalized?). And purgatory is often a step to Heaven.
::*Many Protestants believe that the only those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their lord and savior (in whatever fashion they might interpret this concept- [[Jack Chick]], for example, excludes Catholics and anyone else he doesn't like) can go to Heaven, and the rest go to Hell and sometimes eventually the "lake of fire" (I had a friend which said this was oblivion).
::Also, is this the percentage of people ''today'' that are headed for damnation, or people in general? The poster below me factors in the 100 billion people assumed to have ever lived on Earth. If that is so, then can it safely be assumed that everyone before Jesus Christ except for devout Jews are currently in Hell? What about uncontacted peoples?
::In which Christian cosmologies do Jews go to Heaven? Some seem to assume that being Jewish is as good as being Christian, while others see the Jews as totally damned. And if Jews go to Heaven, what about [[Samaritans]]?

::If we have a sufficiently dedicated mathematician among us, perhaps they can create an algorithm to generate estimates based on all of these unknowns.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::I picked my number based on total population ever mostly, and partially on current population, more or less, which leaves little in the way of low numbers. And yes, non-devout jews and non-contacts are in hell, per bible passages supporting this. And the lake of Fire is the "Second death", reserved for the rebellious angels and anybody not in christ after the end of the millennium. --[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 17:11, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hell is also a Muslim concept, although it is reserved for those that Allah judges to be truly wicked and is not necessarily for all eternity. [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::::I'm pretty sure this page was intended from a Christian perspective.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 17:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::::Well, I have added a Muslim perspective! [[User:KhalidM|KhalidM]] 17:20, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== A mathematical approach ==

Hello, 
I'm trying to approach this as a mathematician (they same way I approach everything), and I have a question. One estimate I've heard on the Earth's total cumulative population is around 100 billion, which seems a fairly reasonable assumption to me. However, perhaps 30-40% of these lives resulted in deaths before the age of one. Add to that, when you count abortions and miscarriages in the total population, it jumps up to around 200 billion (I can't seem to find that statistic right now ~ it could be off, but I'll go with it.) Figuring out how many Christians have ever lived is tricky, but an estimate can be made, so I have my numerator (maybe 20 billion, with a back-of-the-envelope calculation). However, what denominator should I use? I'm interested in hearing various theological opinions; should I use 100 billion, the amount that were born alive? Or 200 billion, the amount conceived? Or 60-70 billion, the amount that lived passed age one? I'm just ball-parking on my numbers and assumptions, so don't believe them too much, but I think in principle, my question remains. Thank you for your input, and God bless! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:29, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::: The 100 billion figure is the secular one - relying on counting back 50,000 years and not taking account of the [[Great Flood]]. To make such a calculation, we'd need to consider the date of the flood. If we assume this to be around 4000BC (Taken from [http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/lds/meridian/2003/deluge.html this website]) then the numbers start to look very different. 8 people went on the arc, so we need to look at the sum of a geometic series.

::: The current number of people is approaching 7 billion, which we'll use for simplicity. Therefore r^n=7 billion. The Sum of Geometric series is given by a(1-r^n)/(1-r) So the total number ever = -56bn/(1-r) where r is the ratio of increase from generation to generation. This method isn't perfect as it views generations as discrete, whereas 1 lineage might have 9 generations in the same time another has 7. Looking at some different values of r.. if we assume population doubles per generation, then we see 56bn have lived ever. If we assume they triple, 28bn have lived. If we assume they increase by 1.5, then 112bn have lived. Looking at tables of population for the documented period of the last couple of thousand years might allow us to decide a good value of r to work with. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:45, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::::I should be clear - I don't think this is a very good approach to the question at hand, but that if you take it, be sure to consider the flood and not use secularly-sourced figures. [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 18:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't mean to be offensive, but you kind of butchered the geometric series. For example, when you go from doubling to tripling, total population goes down? But using this, for 8*r^n = 7bn, with n=6000/25 (one generation every 25 years, over six years), we get an r=1.0895. Using this in the geometric series summation, we come to a cumulative population of 77bn. Even a slight increase in the more recent years will easily get you over 100bn Anyways, I don't think this model is great anyways, but whatever. We can quibble about exact number, but I think my question remains. If we're really trying to put a percentage on the number of souls in Hell, we need to consider our assumptions. And I think secular and biblical assumptions both generally assume the start of civilization (and, coincidentally, significant population growth) at around 4000BC, so cumulative populations should tend to converge.[[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:38, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

==Suggest a third or fourth==
I don't know if I can believe my own suggestion however God is merciful. All have fallen short but His love for us saves 3 out of 4 undeserving people. The prostitute and the taxpayer make it but the Pharisee already got his reward.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:16, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Could I please ask you to elaborate? Thank you--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

== Many important issues split about 50/50....global warming. ==

Why would a belief in global warming stop one from going to heaven? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 18:56, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:Maybe if you worship Al Gore/Lord Monckton?--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:02, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
::Because liberals go to Hell? [[User:BrentH|BrentH]] 19:03, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Hopefully I can get a serious answer from someone. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:06, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:I think it's meant as an example. 50/50 as in fifty percent righteous folks, fifty percent sinners. It's probably not the best example.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 19:07, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

::I didn't add belief in "global warming," but limiting energy does have very cruel effects on some of the neediest persons in the world, such as the elderly and billions in underdeveloped countries.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:15, 21 September 2011 (EDT)
:::Is energy being limited though? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:19, 21 September 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Mystery:What Percentage Go To Hell?

2011-09-21T20:29:44Z

EricAlstrom: /* A mathematical approach */ new section

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T00:19:48Z

EricAlstrom: /* Comment */

<center>'''Uhhh, this really isn't a debate. It's a poll. In response to [[User:Conservative]] pressuring the site owner to abandon established site policies and invoke [[mob rule]], please indicate your votes below.'''</center><center>''Note:User participation here will be exempt from the 90/10 rule, however there's no guarantee you may not suffer a reprisal block for participating. I will however do whatever I can to help if that were to happen.''</center>
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]

(To make the vote count accurate, I'm adding some votes that have been cast [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAschlafly&action=historysubmit&diff=895426&oldid=895420 elsewhere]. I invite anyone I've listed to add a comment by their name. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:11, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(I have removed those votes. If people want to add their names then they can do so themselves. It is highly presumptuous for you to add someone else's name to this list. They may not wish to take part in this vote at all. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

(Note also: Only actual signed votes by actual registered users carry any weight. Statements that some unidentified person has privately supported one's position by email carry no weight. Note also that sockpuppets are strictly forbidden at Conservapedia, and that "checkuser" is used to discover violations. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT))

==Yea==

#Yea. User:RobSmith's plans will not be good for this website. [[User:Bclough|Bclough]] 16:10, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Yea. I never had a problem with RobS until he went after [[User:Conservative]]. [[User:Conservative]] is the lifeblood of this site. Without him, CP dies. [[Essay: User:Conservative, what is best in life?|What is best in life?]] Getting rid of RobS. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 16:30, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

==Nay==

#I vote '''nay'''. RobS is trying to bring accountability to the site. There is something admirable in that, and it's a move in the right direction. [[User:KBarnett|—KBarnett ]] 14:56, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS should keep his rights. If anything, Conservative should lose his. [[User:JonS|JonS]] 15:00, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I can't see a reason why RobS should lose his rights, especially when there are others who seem to actively be harming the site through their actions.--[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 15:03, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Obvious '''nay''' for obvious reasons. We need to put an end to arbitrary block times and the constant history deletion of pages (such as the ''Community Portal'') at the very least. As long as the sysops have the right to do whatever they please (while subjecting regular users to rules that are much stricter than for example Wikipedia's policies), the community won't grow and will forever be a paradise for parodists. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:04, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I vote no. I haven't been around in quite some time, but I used to be a fairly active user (with block rights etc) and left in part because of some of the same issues RobS has addressed. I too believe these "reforms" are necessary for the site to move forward, and may return to active participation if something along these lines is enacted. --[[User:MarkGall|MarkGall]] 15:08, 31 July 2011 (EDT) (editing while traveling, please don't ban me for the IP change!) (PS: can some sysop fix the spelling of this page?)
#Obvious '''nay''', for all the reasons that have been discussed, by many people, here and elsewhere. --[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 15:18, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I'm not well versed in this discussion nor this site, but even after wading through the community portal, it's not clearly expressed what RobS has done incorrectly that violates the policy of the site. If anything, this seems more a grudge match, something in between a tit-for-tat and a vendetta. Is Conservapedia really at a point at which ideas for the site can't be discussed? [[User:IanR|IanR]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#As strong of a '''nay''' as one could possibly nay [[User:TerryB|TerryB]] 15:22, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay, in the strongest possible terms. If those in power are held to the rules that others must follow then a just society will always emerge. If, however, those in authority are allowed to run rampage unchecked, then [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=327929 this] is the inevitable result. Chaos, corruption and an organisation that can no longer function.--[[User:IeuanApGriffith|IeuanApGriffith]] 15:34, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. The only thing that will save this wiki as a conservative sight on the internet is Robs's proposals. Lose them and this wiki will go the way TK wanted. Rein in conservative and karajou and this project may JUST be saved. [[User:Davidspencer|Davidspencer]] 15:37, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#RobS is a reasonable fellow and is only trying to improve the wiki. He is the only sysop campaigning in the face of User:conservative's abusive habits of shutting down discussion by
#*locking talk pages (including his own)
#*deleting and using oversight on talk pages to remove criticism of him
#*blocking people that disagree with him
#:As a result of this, User:conservative has become quite upset at being called out and instead of changing his ways is lashing out at RobS- which normally works fine except that RobS is also a sysop and thus can unblock himself and restore commentary. Worst of all RobS is capable of committing the horrific crime of posting on User:conservative's talk page.
#:It is in Conservapedia's best interests to let Rob keep his rights and march by his side as he strives to improve the community and its interactions.--[[User:CamilleT|CamilleT]] 15:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. RobS is working to improve the site (while keeping its conservative POV), Conservative to protect his petty fiefdom. [[User:GuidoF|Guy]][[User_talk:GuidoF|message me]] 16:09, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This has gone too far. [[User:WesleyS|WesleyS]][[User Talk:WesleyS|Hello!]] 16:59, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. If Rob were to lose his rights it would be a victory for the parodists and the bullies. --[[User:JarradD|JarradD]] 17:14, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#There needs to be some sysop accountability. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Definitely not. RobS: Reasonable sysop who is trying to bring some accountability and respect. Conserative: An internet bully, who populates the site with substandard quote mined insults written in crude inelegant language. --[[User:Orsay|Orsay]] 17:54, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. I know I said I wouldn't edit this site again following its exploitation of recent events, but for this purpose I will briefly renege on that. RobSmith is the only sysop who is making a concerted effort to improve this site by implementing a set of coherent policies. His opponents are those who have most frequently abused their rights as sysops. Most notable among these is User: Conservative, whose numerous talk page comments and 'essays' are, if not parody, then a genuine cause for concern, and I would in all seriousness advise his fellow sysops to discretely speak with this user regarding this matter. The other vocal opponent of RobSmith is FergusE, who is very clearly a parodist here only to stir things up. [[User:WilliamB1|WilliamB1]] 18:41, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#I think it is wrong for one sysop to openly campaign against another, especially when it is based on the other only wanting to help the site. As conservatives we should expect accountability and transparency from those who run the site in the same way that we expect it of our government. The wielding of anonymous and unaccountable power is what one expects from Marxists. [[User:KarenWu|KarenWu]] 19:40, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. As far as I can see, Rob hasn't done anything to merit losing his Sysop rights. --[[User:MatthewQ|MatthewQ]] 19:53, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
#Nay. This site needs more like Rob. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:12, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

== Comment ==
[[User:Conservative]] brings a great deal of traffic and quality publicity to this site. In my opinion, that is too important to risk over a silly squabble. --[[User:FergusE|FergusE]] 20:15, 31 July 2011 (EDT)
:Running naked onto a baseball field brings a lot of attention, too. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 20:19, 31 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Should RobS lose his Sysop rights?

2011-08-01T00:12:56Z

EricAlstrom: /* Nay */

Minneapolis

2011-06-29T22:11:02Z

EricAlstrom:

'''Minneapolis''' is the largest city in the state of [[Minnesota]]. Along side the state capitol, [[St. Paul]], they are known as the [[Twin Cities]].

The [[Mary Tyler Moore show]] took place in Minneapolis.

Minneapolis was recently named by ''Forbes Magazine'' one of the top 5 cleanest cities in the world. <ref>[http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/16/worlds-cleanest-cities-biz-logistics-cx_rm_0416cleanest_slide_6.html?thisSpeed=22000]</ref>

In sports, Minneapolis is the home of the NBA's Minnesota Timberwolves, the MLB's [[Minnesota Twins]], and the NFL's [[Minnesota Vikings]].

== Reerences ==
<references/>

== Links ==
[http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/index.asp Official Site]

[[Category:Minnesota]]

Minnesota Twins

2011-06-29T22:10:07Z

EricAlstrom:

{{MLBTeam
|name=Minnesota Twins
|logo=MinnesotaTwins Logo.png
|text=#bc0033
|background=#042462
|location=Minneapolis, Minnesota
|year=1894
|colors=Blue, red, gray
|mascot=TC
|champs=3
|website=http://twins.mlb.com/
}}
The ''' Minnesota Twins ''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team in the [[American League]] Central Division. The Twins moved to [[Minnesota]] for the 1961 season, after leaving [[Washington, DC]], and abandoning their previous nickname, the Senators. They play in [[Minneapolis]], [[Minnesota]], currently in the newly built outdoor [[Target Field]]. One of the most famous and beloved players to play for the Twins was [[Kirby Puckett]].

'''World Series Titles:''' 3 (1924, 1987, 1991)

'''American League Pennants:''' 6 (1924, 1925, 1933, 1965, 1987, 1991)

'''Playoffs:''' 12 (1924, 1925, 1933, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1987, 1991, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010)
== Current Roster==
<nowiki>*Not on active roster</nowiki> 
<nowiki>**Not on 40 man roster</nowiki>
===Pitchers===
*30 - Scott Baker
*53 - Nick Blackburn
*31 - Alex Burnett
*28 - Jesse Crain
*52 - Brian Duensing
*63 - Armando Gabino
*54 - Matt Guerrier
*47 - Francisco Liriano
*37 - Ron Mahay
*50 - Jose Mijares
*17 - Pat Neshek
*48 - Carl Pavano
*60 - Jon Rauch
*59 - Kevin Slowey

===Catchers===
*41 - Drew Butera
*7 - [[Joe Mauer]]

===Infielders===
*32 - Brian Buscher
*12 - Alexi Casilla
*27 - J.J. Hardy
*23 - Brendan Harris
*1 - Orlando Hudson
*33 - Justin Morneau
*8 - Nick Punto
*25 - Jim Thome

===Outfielders===
*5 - [[Michael Cuddyer]]
*16 - Jason Kubel
*2 - Denard Span
*21 - [[Delmon Young]]

==Minor League Affiliates==
The minor league affiliates of the Twins are:
*AAA - Rochester Red Wings
*AA - New Britain Rock Cats
*A Adv. - Fort Myers Miracle
*A - Beloit Snappers
== External links ==
*[http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=min Official Team Website]
*[http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=min ESPN - Team News]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}
[[Category:Minnesota]]

Minnesota Twins

2011-06-29T22:08:40Z

EricAlstrom:

{{MLBTeam
|name=Minnesota Twins
|logo=MinnesotaTwins Logo.png
|text=#bc0033
|background=#042462
|location=Minneapolis, Minnesota
|year=1894
|colors=Blue, red, gray
|mascot=TC
|champs=3
|website=http://twins.mlb.com/
}}
The ''' Minnesota Twins ''' are a [[Major League Baseball]] team in the [[American League]] Central Division. The Twins moved to [[Minnesota]] for the 1961 season, after leaving [[Washington, DC]], and abandoning their previous nickname, the Senators. They play in [[Minneapolis]], [[Minnesota]], currently in the [[Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome]], but they will be moving to the new outdoor [[Target Field]] in 2010. One of the most famous and beloved players to play for the Twins was [[Kirby Puckett]].

'''World Series Titles:''' 3 (1924, 1987, 1991)

'''American League Pennants:''' 6 (1924, 1925, 1933, 1965, 1987, 1991)

'''Playoffs:''' 12 (1924, 1925, 1933, 1965, 1969, 1970, 1987, 1991, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010)
== Current Roster==
<nowiki>*Not on active roster</nowiki> 
<nowiki>**Not on 40 man roster</nowiki>
===Pitchers===
*30 - Scott Baker
*53 - Nick Blackburn
*31 - Alex Burnett
*28 - Jesse Crain
*52 - Brian Duensing
*63 - Armando Gabino
*54 - Matt Guerrier
*47 - Francisco Liriano
*37 - Ron Mahay
*50 - Jose Mijares
*17 - Pat Neshek
*48 - Carl Pavano
*60 - Jon Rauch
*59 - Kevin Slowey

===Catchers===
*41 - Drew Butera
*7 - [[Joe Mauer]]

===Infielders===
*32 - Brian Buscher
*12 - Alexi Casilla
*27 - J.J. Hardy
*23 - Brendan Harris
*1 - Orlando Hudson
*33 - Justin Morneau
*8 - Nick Punto
*25 - Jim Thome

===Outfielders===
*5 - [[Michael Cuddyer]]
*16 - Jason Kubel
*2 - Denard Span
*21 - [[Delmon Young]]

==Minor League Affiliates==
The minor league affiliates of the Twins are:
*AAA - Rochester Red Wings
*AA - New Britain Rock Cats
*A Adv. - Fort Myers Miracle
*A - Beloit Snappers
== External links ==
*[http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/index.jsp?c_id=min Official Team Website]
*[http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=min ESPN - Team News]

{{Nb_sl_mlb_american}}
[[Category:Minnesota]]

Subtraction

2011-06-29T22:05:32Z

EricAlstrom:

'''Subtraction''' is the [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[function]] which involves the decrease of a value, the [[minuend]], by another value, the [[subtrahend]], which yields a directly related linear decrease in the overall value, except in the case of a negative subtrahend, in which case the value increases.

==Subtraction as Negative Addition==
One problem with subtraction is that is is non-commutative, which excludes the operation from being considered in an abelian group. One way to circumvent this is to view all subtraction operations as additions of the negative. For example, 5 - 1 = 4 can not be commuted, as 1 - 5 = -4. However, if this equation is viewed a negative addition, i.e. 5 + (-1) = 4, it maintains commutativity, since (-1) + 5 = 4.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Subtraction

2011-06-29T22:05:09Z

EricAlstrom:

'''Subtraction''' is the [[mathematics|mathematical]] [[function]] which involves the decrease of a value, the [[minuend]], by another value, the [[subtrahend]], which yields a directly related linear decrease in the overall value, except in the case of a negative subtrahend, in which case the value increases.

==Subtraction as Negative Addition=-
One problem with subtraction is that is is non-commutative, which excludes the operation from being considered in an abelian group. One way to circumvent this is to view all subtraction operations as additions of the negative. For example, 5 - 1 = 4 can not be commuted, as 1 - 5 = -4. However, if this equation is viewed a negative addition, i.e. 5 + (-1) = 4, it maintains commutativity, since (-1) + 5 = 4.

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Inflation

2011-06-12T03:21:45Z

EricAlstrom:

In economics, '''inflation''' is a general rise in the price of goods and services in relation to purchasing power.

Prices tend to go up when demand from consumers exceeds the normal capacity of producers to supply goods and services. An [[supply and demand|excess supply of goods and services]] tends to put downward pressure on prices.

High inflation undermines the economy's ability to generate long-lasting growth and job creation. Consumers and investors may put off purchases because of uncertainty. High inflation erodes the value of incomes and savings. People on fixed incomes, including the elderly and poor are particularly vulnerable to inflation. Social Security payments are adjusted to inflation.

The common measure for consumers is the [[Consumer Price Index]] (CPI). Economists prefer a broader measure, the "implicit GDP deflator", which includes the prices of non-consumer items like highways and factories.

In the U.S. the inflation rate was near zero in 2009.
[[File:Cpi.jpg|Thumb|400px|CPI (Consumer Price Index) change from previous year]]

==Hyperinflation==
Hyperinflation is out of control inflation and has occurred when there is a massive imbalance between the supply and demand and a complete loss of confidence in the currency. It has occurred when prices are decontrolled by central governments, like in the collapse of the [[USSR]], where inflation reached over 1000% in some areas. <ref>[http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=152&Year=1995&Country=UA] Inflation Indicators Ukraine</Ref>

The worst episodes of hyperinflation historically have been in Germany in 1923 (after World War I), Hungary after World War II, and Zimbabwe in the late 2000s.

==Politics and inflation==

[[Bruce Bartlett]] wrote:
*Inflation is fundamentally a monetary phenomenon. The inflation of the 1970s came about primarily because Fed chairman [[Arthur Burns]] gunned the [[money supply]] to get [[Richard Nixon]] re-elected in 1972. He was followed by [[G. William Miller]], appointed by [[Jimmy Carter]]. Miller didn’t have a clue about [[monetary policy]] and only made the dismal inflation situation he inherited far worse. [http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200406140846.asp]

==Measures of inflation==
{{main|consumer price index}}

The most widely used measure of inflation is the [[consumer price index]] (CPI). It reflects changes in the price of a representative "basket" of goods and services sold:

* food
* housing
* transportation
* furniture
* clothing
* recreation
* other items

The inflation rate is expressed as a percentage increase in average prices over a year. For example, if the cost of the CPI "basket" rises from $100 one year ago to $102 today, the current inflation rate is 2 per cent. When the CPI rises, the purchasing power of the average consumer's dollar falls.<ref>
Wanniski, Jude. "Money and Tax Rates." In Wanniski. The Way the World Works. 1978.</ref>
==External links==
* [http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/ "Purchasing Power of Money in the United States from 1774 to 2008"], translates the value of a dollar in one year to the value today or any year
====references====
<references/>

==see also==
* [[Phillips curve]]

==References==
<References/>

== Sources ==

* [http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ Inflation converter by year]

[[category:economics]]

Power rule

2011-06-03T21:01:54Z

EricAlstrom:

The power rule allows one to calculate the derivative of a power of a function in terms of the derivative of the function itself. The power rule states that

<math> \frac{d}{dx} (x^n) = nx^{n-1} </math>

for all integers <math> n </math>. This rule is useful when combined with the [[chain rule]]. As an example we can compute the derivative of <math> f(x) = (\sin(x))^n</math> as

<math> f'(x) = \frac{d}{dx} (\sin(x))^n = n(\sin(x))^{n-1}\cos(x) </math>

===Proof===

The power rule is simple and elegant to prove with the definition of a derivative:

:<math>f'(x) = \lim_{h\rarr0} \frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}. </math>
Substituting <math> f(x) = x^n </math> gives
:<math>f'(x) = \lim_{h\rarr0} \frac{(x+h)^n-x^n}{h}.</math>
The two polynomials in the numerator can be factored out. It is left as a series, since n can be any integer.
:<math>f'(x) = \lim_{h\rarr0} \frac{((x+h) - x)( (x+h)^{n-1} + (x+h)^{n-2}x + (x+h)^{n-3}x^2 + \dots + (x+h)x^{n-2} + x^{n-1})}{h}. </math>
Then if the first factor is eliminated:
:<math>f'(x) = \lim_{h\rarr0} \frac{(h)( (x+h)^{n-1} + (x+h)^{n-2}x + (x+h)^{n-3}x^2\dots + (x+h)x^{n-2} + x^{n-1})}{h}. </math>
Now, the "h" can be eliminated. This is important, since the denominator cannot go to zero':
:<math>f'(x) = \lim_{h\rarr0} (x+h)^{n-1} + (x+h)^{n-2}x + (x+h)^{n-3}x^2\dots + (x+h)x^{n-2} + x^{n-1}. </math>
With no "h" in the denominator, the limit can be evaluated by letting h=0.
:<math>f'(x) = (x+0)^{n-1} + (x+0)^{n-2}x + (x+0)^{n-3}x^2\dots + (x+0)x^{n-2} + x^{n-1}. </math>:
:<math>f'(x) = x^{n-1} + x^{n-1} + x^{n-1}\dots + x^{n-1} + x^{n-1}. </math>
We see that there are ''n'' terms, so:
:<math>f'(x) = nx^{n-1}. </math>
QED

[[Category:Mathematics]]

Herman Cain

2011-06-03T20:30:28Z

EricAlstrom:

[[File:HCain4.jpg|right|250px|thumb|Herman Cain]]
'''Herman Cain''' (born December 13, 1945) is an American journalist, businessman, politician, and broadcaster. He is a prominent [[African American]] conservative.

Cain was born in [[Georgia]] and grew up there. He earned a bachelor's degree in Mathematics at Morehouse College in 1967, and a master's degree in computer science from Purdue University. He married his wife, Gloria, in 1968. They have two children.

Cain worked for the [[United States Navy]], then as a business analyst for the [[Coca-Cola Company]] and [[Pillsbury Company]] in 1977. While there, Cain moved to Pillsbury's [[Burger King]] division, eventually overseeing 400 Philadelphia franchises. He then moved to their Godfather's Pizza chain in 1986 and returned it to profitability. He then served on the National Restaurant Association board, becoming President and CEO in 1996.

Cain was a senior advisor to the 1996 [[Bob Dole|Dole]]/[[Jack Kemp|Kemp]] campaign for the Presidency. In 2004, he ran for the United States Senate in Georgia as a Republican, facing Congressmen Johnny Isakson and Mac Collins for the seat formerly held by [[Zell Miller]]. Collins got 20% of the vote, Cain got 26%, and Isakson avoided a runoff by getting 53%.<ref name="senate">[[Associated Press]] (July 21, 2004). [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,126389,00.html Ga. Dems Forced Into Senate Runoff.] ''[[Fox News]]''</ref>

''The Herman Cain Show'' radio program is based in Atlanta. Cain founded the leadership consulting company T*H*E New Voice, Inc. He has authored four books on leadership and self-empowerment, including ''Leadership is Common Sense'' and ''CEO of Self''.

==2012 Presidential Run==
Herman Cain officially announced his decision to enter the presidential race of 2012. He has a decent following courtesy of the [[Tea Party movement]], [[Op-Ed]] articles and a radio program through [[Conservative media]] outlets.

Cain is widely believed to have won the [[South Carolina]] debates, though the potential field of candidates was limited.<ref name="debate">[[CBS News]] [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504943_162-20060614-10391715.html How Herman Cain won the GOP debate.]'</ref>

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.hermancain.com/ Herman Cain: Official website]
*[http://www.newvoicefoundation.org/ T*H*E New Voice Foundation]
*[http://www.northstarwriters.com/ North Star Writers Group]
*[http://www.newvotersalliance.org/ New Voters Alliance]

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2011-05-06T00:00:41Z

EricAlstrom: /* No, But... */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused, are you trying to be funny? I sure hope so. When you bring words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" to bear, while taking one as YOUR side, it's, by definition, biased, and biased can never be balanced. Kurdt

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia. Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)

----

Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.

In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.

~Slif
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)

so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
----
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights. They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution. Oh, they locked that page from editing. Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore? This is any more "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.

NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.. oh that's the funniest of all the jokes i've read so fa... oh they're serious that's just sad.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

----
Conservapedia isn't meant to be fair and balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:51, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here. For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative. Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views. Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor. At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

: Yes, it does balance out Wikipedia. Which means that if someone were to read the articles on Creationism and Evolution on here, and then look up those same articles on Wikipedia, ''that'' would be fair and unbalanced. (Of course that assumes we have exactly the same amount of Conservative bias as Wikipedia has liberal bias, which frankly I don't think is true or even possible, but that's not the point). So yes, looking up the same thing on different sites which have different views is "fair and balanced" but any single one of those sites would not be. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:40, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

==The Wedge Document==
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Absolutely not==

This seems like as good a place to post this as any. I realize that many of you will not like my views, but in this world you need to communicate with those you disagree with.

My name is Max, and I am a homosexual pastor with the First Church Of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia. I have an honest connection with God, as well as with my partner. Time and again when I read your site, I find evidence that Conservapedia is not fair. At all.

Who are you to tell me that God doesn't love me or that I can't join him in the kingdom of Heaven? The only Earthly figure I would hear that from is Jesus Christ, and he said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Not a word. One thing Christ said was that all should love one another, not denounce each other. Instead of trying to focus on God and how better to worship him, you spend your time telling people that gays are immoral and unholy. I did not choose to become gay; I was raised in a tolerant Christian household where my parents understood who I was. I have been a lifelong Christian in the Deep South, where gays like me are persecuted. I have been driven out of churches after years as a churchgoer when it was found that I was gay, but I refuse to leave God.

You say that Wikipedia isn't fair, that it displays a bias, yet you, in article after article, denounce every conceivable group that isn't among you. Unlike you, I am tolerant. You call atheists, as a group, awful things, just because they don't believe in God. How can you possibly say you are more fair when anyone who is not a Christian is driven away from this site?

Another thing. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the miracle that a single cell evolved into what we are could have been the work of God? Instead, you take lies for truth.

Instead of instantly banning me as with so many others, are any here willing to honestly debate me? Or will you just call me a faggot and ban me? I know which Christ would do.

-MaxV

Kudos, Max, Kudos. I appreciate your tolerant views, as a liberal humanist and a human being. Thank you for being Christ- like, not just Christian. I agree with you that Conservapedia is not fair in the slightest; an easy example: look under the first paragraph of liberal and the first under conservative. It is blantly biased. I do not appreciate how negative this site is to people not of the Christian faith or have conservative views. But anyways. Once again, thank you Max.

-IContainMultitudes

:Well, seems like some people make Christianity whatever they want it to be. A homosexual pastor falls in the same category as Christian abortion supporters. You may take this as bias toward others not conservative. I care to think of it as we don't tolerate sin, we aren't inclusive of sin, we don't coexist with sin. God said it was wrong for man to be alone so he created a woman, not another man. My guess is a gay pastor has to pick and choose his beliefs aka [[Cafeteria Christian]]. I am not condemning your actions or beliefs but there is a judgement day that you will answer for. The rectum was designed for a reason. Procreation? No. Love? No again. Waste discharge. Any other use is just an abomination. Are you reading this vandal site members? The truth isn't fair.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::What Christ would tell you to do is exactly what he said to the adulterous woman in John 8: QUIT SINNING! You think He's going to tolerate sin? As a Christian pastor - or so you claim - you should know better than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Thankfully those of you spending any appreciable amount of time posting on such Earth-shatteringly important topics as why Obama is a Muslim and the like aren't posting on Wikipedia, a site people actually read and rely on. I appreciate your efforts to cordon yourselves off. Thank you. -- Mike H.

Just came across this looking for something else, but my answer to the question would be no, CP is not "fair and balanced" at least at in the sense that some hold WP to be, which, for instance, allows most any interpretation of the Bible to be treated as viable, as its basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and so Pontius Pilate could well be an editor. CP is evidenced to be an alternative to WP, which manifests a liberal bias. While WP is very useful in most topics, CP, despite some drawbacks, allows a distinction to be made between truth and falsehood in places where WP would hold all as equal.

As re your promotion of tolerance, as you are a homosexual pastor with a partner, you are obviously intolerant of the historical, and warranted position that leaves you guilty of fornication , and that of a most perverse sort. While arguments for such may be considered viable on WP, attempts to wrangle this out of the Bible inevitably negate its Divine authority, and renders God into an image more palatable to carnal men. In regard to such, see [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]], and may all find grace to repent and be truly born again and walk in newness of life.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:39, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==No==

Why is it so difficult to follow your own rules? Why is it so hard to simply let people say what they believe outside of mainspace? Is this an encyclopedia or a blog? This text was taken from a short-lived conversation I had with sysop Karajou over the email. I am not afraid of saying what I believe, and so long as I do not try to force my beliefs on others, you have no right to censor me based on your own rules. Unless you're all closet liberals or something. (Ostrich Syndrome is, after all, a very "liberal" disease to have, right?)

Subject: RE: Your behavior problem

Hey, first of all, thank you for emailing! That means a lot to me. I’ll start with the reason that I continued recreating my account using a privoxy. When I uploaded my opinions onto my userpage, I was not in violation of any Conservapedia Commandments. I was displaying liberal thoughts and negative feelings towards the site administration, but it was not in mainspace, it was on my personal page, where I can, by the site’s rules, voice my thoughts. I feel that Conservapedia is ruled through fear; your behavior as an administrator in this situation shows that you have no respect for your own rules or people that disagree with you, and since you have the level of power that you do, people are afraid of standing up to your persecution. I was blocked without violating the rules, and my only hope of appealing the block was nonexistent as I had no way of talking to anybody about the situation.

I apologize for violating the rules, but you must realize that a system of law means nothing if the lawmaker does not abide by it. I guarantee that you and I disagree on a great deal of topics, but that does not make one of us any more correct than the other. You and I are both human beings, and our brains are imperfect. Furthermore, for a site claiming to be Christian in nature, I see nothing Christ-like about it. It’s discriminatory and immature in the way it treats users, and I’ve never known it to spread anything but hatred and partisanship. What would Jesus do? For that matter, what would Buddha do? What would Muhammad do? The point of religion shouldn’t have to be war and hate. I would want to love people in the name of a higher power, not kill them.

I’ll respond to your points…

1) True, I should adhere to the subject matter. But Conservapedia claims to have no subject matter, and rather be a straight-forward encyclopedia without the Liberal bias of Wikipedia. For the record, I agree that Wikipedia has Liberal bias. I attempted to talk to the editors there about removing some of the essentially pornographic images on their vast library of sexuality pages, but I didn’t get anywhere…

2) I don’t want anybody to accept my beliefs. I want to get my opinion out there and show people multiple perspectives, something Conservapedia tries to… dare I say… censor. I disagree with CP, but that doesn’t make me right, it just gives me a different perspective. I want to explore the Conservative and Christian perspective, but all I got for that wish was hatred! Before the system failure a couple weeks ago, I was talking to a guy named Rod Weathers about it. I wished to explore the website’s point of view, since mine was so different. Instead of showing openness, he lashed out and attacked me for disagreeing, not even explaining his personal viewpoint to me. How is that any different than the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome, or the persecution of Zoroastrians by the Muslims? I am not trying to push Liberalism. I just want people to work together!

3) An encyclopedia based on free Wiki software is built around teamwork. Andrew Schlafly has even stressed the importance of that. If you don’t give people the voice they deserve regardless of what they think, you don’t have an encyclopedia built out of teamwork, you have a BLOG. It is a blog written and limited to a group of people who see eye to eye, and I know that isn’t what it intended to be.

4) I could call Conservatism a mental disorder as well, but I won’t because I know that both sides have valuable ideas to bounce off one another in contribution to a peaceful society. I believe in cooperation, and your attitude, your “behavior problem” as a person of power spreads hatred and discommunication. This doesn’t get anybody anywhere; when we make war with each other, we are pushing ourselves backwards! I don’t like Obama because he’s Liberal or Black or whatever else you hate him for. I like him because I believe he wants people to help each other out. Life is a struggle for anybody, and it’s too short to waste any time hating people. There’s no reason to strive to hurt other people or drag them down further for what they believe, just because you can’t see beyond black and white, so to speak. I’m really sorry for sounding so accusational! I’m trying my best to respect you, Karajou, I really am!

Everybody is going to hell. Islam extremists think that everybody who doesn’t agree with them is headed for eternal damnation. Christian extremists, such as the administration at CP, feel the same way about their beliefs. I understand that your faith is strong, but what makes it any more correct than anybody else’s? I feel that faith is believing in your heart that which cannot be proven empirically, and there are people of all religions who feel a strong connection to their faith as you do to yours. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true absolutely, and people who disagree with you are not going to hell automatically. To assert that you can decide what constitutes right and wrong is to assert that you are a God in your own right, and I just can’t bring myself to call that kind of behavior “Christian.”

I’m using a special program that randomly changes my IP address. I don’t know much about computers or the functioning of the internet, but this program isn’t really a proxy, and I don’t think there’s a thing you can do about it, to be honest. I came to Conservapedia as a sort of missionary, you could say. I’m not trying to impose my mindset on others. I just want to give the users of Conservapedia the freedom to think for themselves; I guess you could say that I’m trying to push Anti-Fascism, in a way. I know CP won’t change to my whims, and I don’t expect it to. But I believe that peace is always the better option, and that this site is an ironic joke, the exact opposite of what it set out to be, and I really want to help it get back on track with itself.

Thanks for your time, Karajou. I hope that you and I can sort this out soon! Best of luck to you.

Sincerely, Marvin

-----Original Message-----
From: (Karajou, real name censored for privacy reasons)
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:49 PM
To: hoeftfam@hutchtel.net
Subject: Your behavior problem

"Karajou, my voice will not be censored any longer. I want to respect you, and I wish you could respect me, but that will never be possible if you don't directly communicate with me. Please send me and email, or a message on CP if you don't want to disclose your email address. I am not demanding instant change or personal gratification; I merely want people to start working together instead of fighting. I will not make any mainspace edits if you will agree to give me a voice. Please do not ban me; I will find a way back on with the below message again and again. I would love to talk to you about this; I simply disagree with the direction that Conservapedia has taken, and I would like to help it become a positive resource again. Also, please don't label me using pejorative smears. Thank you."

This is what you wrote above your lengthy rant, and it ends with "please don't label me using pejorative smears". Your whole rant contains perjorative smears you used against the site, and you have a problem with a smear being labled against you?

Here's what I am going to say about this matter:

1. You do not have the right to enter Conservapedia, or any other website for that matter, and edit as you wish. If you think you can do that in the name of free speech, then find a Star Wars wiki and post articles on the American Civil War. Let's see how far you get.
2. You do not have the authority to tell anyone who is Christian to accept your beliefs, your views, and your ideas in the name of tolerance; you do not have the authority to demand that anyone within Conservapedia or the administration here must be tolerant of liberalism or anyone who pushes it. We have booted people off Conservapedia for this reason, and you are no different.
3. You do not have the right to come into Conservapedia and demand a voice. We are building an encyclopedia, not a town hall meeting place.
4. Conservapedia is a conservative website and resource; that is the direction that we will take it, and we will highlight exactly what is wrong with the rest of society when and where we see it. If this means showing off the mental disorder that liberalism really is, then so be it. That isn't hatred for our fellow human beings; it is telling them that what they are doing is wrong, and by so doing, we are warning them from ending up in a place called hell.

You came to Conservapedia of your own volition; no one invited you. And you expect us to change our ways to accomodate you? The pushing of your own ideas as expressed in your rant has identified you as the fascist, not us. Your further went out of your way to gain access to Conservapedia by using proxies and network sharing devices, one in Florida, the other in Prague. That is called lying and deceit. Do you think we should tolerate that as well? Do you think we should tolerate people who have every intention to be less-than-honest when they come into our website?

The answer is no. You are censored whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with that, call the nearest congressman.

Have a nice day.

[[User:MarvinST|MarvinST]]

Conservapedia isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:54, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

No. it's there in the title, CONSERVApedia. it's ok not to be balanced between liberals and conservatives, but you should never try to justify yourself if the sole goal of your cause is to support or propagate a decidedly polar idea or outlook--[[User:Flounder19|Flounder19]] 00:33, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

No. But I don't think there's any source that's truly fair and balanced. The vast majority of our members and editors are Conservatives. Of course it's going to have a Conservative bias for the same reason Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I don't think that's a problem, because if it were it would invalidate every single source of news and information in the world. But it is most definitely NOT fair and balanced. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:36, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:Telling the truth may not seem "fair" to those who wish to deceive, or are deceived themselves. But we don't follow the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced". We tell the truth, as well as we can. We also describe opposing points of view.

:It would be unfair to pretend that controversy does not exist, when actually people disagree sharply on all sorts of things. By presenting only one point of view, it's possible to give the impression that no other view exists. That would be deceptive, and yet it's the most common mode of argument.

:That is where we part company with Wikipedia. While professing to exalt a neutral approach to controversy, they began (around 2004-2006) to argue that describing opposing points of view gives '''support''' to these. They call this "undue weight" and "equal validity", as if describing something is the same as endorsing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

==No, But...==
If people followed the rules and principles of the site it could be, and could be a great resource for understanding the world from a conservative point of view. Sadly, the site founder ASchlafly, and the user named "conservative," among others, seem to have little regard for truth, and only want to make all Christians look good and all liberals look bad. Really, the truth is more complicated, and we must be honest with ourselves and others when we take a look at it; it is possible to do this while maintaining our faith, and this is what the best of conservatives have done and how Christians can carry out the best works and truly reach others.

It is sad because this site could be truly useful if people didn't look at the flaws in liberal arguments and then try to do the exact same thing or even worse. The fallacious and trivial arguments on this site are an embarrassment. I can't in good conscience tell my younger cousins in school to use this site as a resource in its current form. I hate to say it but Wikipedia, despite its flaws, is currently more reliable and more balanced. I wish there truly were an alternative that were more focused on truth and less on trying to deny the other side as much as possible.

I really can't tell if Schlafly and the other major editors mean what they say about truth in a tongue-in-cheek or satirical way. But the Bible does not teach us to see truth in such a cynical way. And the world does not teach us that progress is made without confronting our problems. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:48, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

: Amen. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

:::A brief comment: As far as "making liberals <big>'''look bad'''</big>", while I certainly understand that some people have health conditions such as thyroid conditions which contribute to weight problems, I certainly don't make obese and overweight atheists overeat or engage in other unhealthy habits such as "swilling beer" when [[PZ Myers|they already have a unsightly gut that could use some Slimfast instead]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:47, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Funny, and I'm not saying that PZ Myers doesn't deserve it - he's arrogant, confrontational, and disrespectful, and, yes, overweight. But that kind of attack belongs on a blog or an entertainment site, not an encyclopedia dedicated to conservative values. I don't consider that kind of gossip to be a conservative value. And it's not relevant to any kind of important truth. I don't mean to be too serious - I like a good sense of humor, and I want to contribute more on comedy and comedians (I've already added an entry on Nick DiPaolo). But that brand of humor seems like the territory of liberal blogs like Gawker and Perez Hilton, and seems to me a great example of Hollywood values. Thanks for your support, Joaquin. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 19:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I also wanted to add that the claim that I want to make "all liberals look bad" is certainly an extravagant claim. I am merely one person and there are certainly a very large amount of liberals in the world. There are only so many hours in a day and I certainly have other interests than supposedly trying to make all liberals look bad. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:10, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I do find it telling that you implied I made a fallacious argument somewhere, but failed to support that contention. Given you are advocating that others act in a more noble manner, your lack of holding yourself up to a high standard is very poor form. As a result, I see no compelling reason to further posts to this web page. But please feel free to engage in any [[last wordism]] that you may wish to engage in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I think conservative's first comment is the most apropos illustration of silliness of this site. KingHanksley: "I have some serious objections to how information is presented on this site". Conservative: "Atheists are fat". Touché , conservative - argument over. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?

2011-05-05T23:59:14Z

EricAlstrom: /* No, But... */

{{debate}}

Since Conservapedia has been called unbalanced, I thought it would be good to start a discussion on this topic here in order to get a more varied opinion.{{Unsigned|Foo}}
:Well, that sounds fair.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 08:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:It seems to be horribly biased toward protest-antism. --[[User:Luke-Jr|Luke-Jr]] 10:42, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

==Yes==

* I find this debate page to be rather humorous. Notice how many of the Yes responses are written by trolls to be intentionally inflammatory? Personally, I've found this type of stunt to be mostly a liberal preoccupation. You very seldom see conservatives pretend to be liberals to badmouth liberal ideology, but it appears to be a popular pastime among 'tolerant' liberal thinkers. ;-) [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 19:47, 25 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm confused, are you trying to be funny? I sure hope so. When you bring words like "Conservative" and "Liberal" to bear, while taking one as YOUR side, it's, by definition, biased, and biased can never be balanced. Kurdt

Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Wikipedia is anti-Christian and anti-American. We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out.
[[User:HarryPalms|HarryPalms]]
::How is saying that it's biased in the opposite way to something else evidence that it is "fair and balanced"? You seem to be admitting that it is in fact neither [[User:Silverfish|Silverfish]] 16:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

:How can Wikipedia have a liberal bias? Anyone can edit it and biased opinions are scrupulously edited out. Conservapedia is not based on the principles of balanced scrutiny or honesty like Wikipedia is; it is just a place where conservatives can blast their misinformed opinions at other conservatives. This is just like the pouty consevatives that run this country; if people dismiss their ridiculous anti-scientific, intolerant garbage, they whine about their critics being anti-Christian and go cry to the religious right. Can any one of you name even one example of Wikipedia being biased? (note that being secular and listening to opinions outside America is not bias!)

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''. Note: this unsigned opinion was provided by someone with common sense.

Obviously. This is an idea whose time has come. I, for one, am sick and tired of the liberal bias in the media and online in Wikipedia. This project is still young and the criticism and mockery of it by leftists in the blogosphere is getting old. I pledge as a new editor to do what I can to help make Conservapedia the premier online encyclopedia it is destined to become.

NOTE: The SHOUTER above me has commented in the wrong section so the opinion should be taken with a grain of salt. -- [[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 16:50, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

"We need for a new online encylodpaedia to balance that out."
Fair and balanced? You've just indirecly admitted that you're saying two wrongs make a right. You cannot create a neutral opinion by balancing one biased opinion with another. HarryPalms, you are a shining example of how this site is far more guilty of the crimes you attribute to Wikipedia.
Also, if you read many (if not all) of the articles on Conservapedia, their first remarks are in some way tied to Christianity. That is probably the greatest possible bias you could create. It doesn't help that most Conservapedia articles on things such as Evolution and the Big Bang focus mostly on destroying belief in accepted theories, instead of creating new ones. Hmm... destroying, but creating nothing. That sounds more like Satan than any Antichrist conspiracy theory I've heard so far. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 16:54, 14 April 2007 (EDT)User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]]

Conservapedia is fair; I have not read many articles, but I like what I have read. Wikipedia, on the other hand, makes you depressed whenever you read anything about Christians. Also, could you people sign your name? It is hard to see where one person's post begins and another ends. Thanks! [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]] 20:14, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

==No==

Conservapedia is not meant to be fair and balanced; its meant to be an alternative to wikipedia. Although an alternativeis necessary, its focus on being un-wikipedian greatly weakens its ability to grow.

The section named Economic Issues in the article on George W. Bush uses the example of Bush's economic success by stating, "For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well." So saying that a companies record profits brought in part due to record gas prices means that our economy is doing better? What about the fact that the Federal Reserve keeps raising interest rates to battle inflation and that people who purchased houses during the housing boom can't afford to keep their homes because of the rising interest rates? Or the fact that studies have shown that the gap between the upperclass and the lower class is growing while the middle class is being erroded away because of outsourcing? Or the fact that people in the U.S. continue to bury themselves in credit card debt and the lack of progress to ensure the future of Social Security. Also, there is growing concern over the over extension of credit that has been handed out, which is beginning to be considered comparable to what happened right before the stock market crash in 1929. Our economy is not doing any better and the United States keeps sticking thumbs in the holes of the dam instead of patching it up, if something isn't done soon, our country could suffer another economic crisis.

Also, in the article on the Patriot Act, it states that, "Despite the cries of liberal activist groups, such as the ACLU, there have not been any verified abuses of any of the provisions of the Patriot Act" What about all of the people being detained in Gitmo without the option of any sort of legal representation? Doesn't our constitution offer the right to a fair and speedy trial? Yet we have people being held in a military base in Cuba being robbed of those very rights because they aren't able to reach American soil to defend themselves in court. The Patriot Act is too powerful; what is going to stop a high ranking government official from abusing the Patriot Act in the future and throwing anyone they deem a "terrorist" or a "threat" into a military prison indefinately, just like Stalin did during the Great Purge?

There are many other articles that I've gone through that lean very heavily to the right, at some points going beyond conservative into ultra-conservative, and Bush Brand Conservative. And also, when did all conservatives become Christians? For a true balanced opinion there needs to be more imput from other conservatives from other religions and veiwpoints. Also, this site is heavily lacking compared to Wiki, for articles where Wiki has sufficient information this website has a 1 or 2 sentence summary. But thanks anyway for the entertaining reading this morning, I'll probably never return here unless I'm bored.

McCarthyism.........are you frightened yet?

{{unsigned|JesuswasaliberalJew}}

----

This is obviously a rebound to the free media of Wikipedia, and Conservatives are pissed off at Wiki because of it's librial articles.

For Example...

Here is a quote from the Conservapedia. "Sexual relations between the same sex is condemned in both Old and New Testaments. It is forbidden directly four times in the Bible." and "Studies have long indicated that homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems (suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse)."

Here is the Wikipedia description...

"Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same gender or to a sexual orientation."

If conservapedia wants to be known has a fair and balenced Encyclopedia then make sure your not showing bias to one side of the spectrum.

P.S The look of the site is very very very similar to Wikipedia

Fair and balanced? Don't make me laugh!

Consider this entry under '[[Islam]]':

"[[Islam]] is the second largest religion in the world, with over 1.4 billion followers, the number of Muslims is rapidly growing, mainly due to high birth rates in Muslim countries. Both Christian and Muslim sources agree that conversions to Christianity outnumber those to Islam"

The linked sources purporting to justfy that assertion are:

• on the Christian side, a website called 'World Christian Encyclopedia' — on a page fairly and objectively headed 'Muslim myths'

• on the Muslim side, an isolated Al Jezeera interview with one Sheikh Ahmad Al Katani, often jubilantly cited by Christian evangelists, which centres on Al Katani's statement that six milllion muslims convert to Christianity every year. This statement refers specifically to the situation in Africa and is given in the context of the speaker lamenting '''enforced Christianisation''' over a long period. As Al Katani says, "we are faced with the issue of taking advantage of circumstances, taking advantage of humanitarian needs, taking advantage of the lack of education for example, that these people (missionaries) use to take Muslims out of their religion".

This is followed by a section headed 'Ex-Muslims', which is nothing more than a plug for a linked anti-Islamic weblog.

Don't get me wrong. I'm going to enjoy Conservapedia. I have it bookmarked under 'Comedy'.

[[User:Bosatsu|Bosatsu]] 10:55, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

-------

I am a little concerned with the fact that conservapedia users, such as they may be, don't realize that if they feel something is biased in wikipedia that they too can change it. I find it a bit totalitarian that a number of entries on conservapedia are taken off and blocked, i.e. anything dealing with a sexual nature. While I agree that there are very biased articles in wikipedia, the beauty of the system is such that anyone can change an article. However, conservapedia deletes anything questionable.

Seems to me to be quite biased. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

My initial reaction to the question: "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!". Speaking seriously: No, it's not. It's anything but fair and balanced. Edits that try to balance articles are reverted and often called vandalism or inappropriate. The fact that quite a few controversial articles are simply locked and then edited to support the view of radical conservatives/creationists/people who take the Bible literally doesn't exactly help. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid: can you give any examples of controversial articles that are locked??!! --[[User:Jlovesu|Jlovesu]] 12:41, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:[[Theory of evolution]], [[Macroevolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Young Earth Creationism]]...are we seeing a pattern here, incidentally? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:(Arr, edit-sniped by Tsumetai! But I'll post it anyway since it also shows some diffs that removed attempts at balance) Sure thing: [[Theory of Evolution]], [[Second Law of Thermodynamics]], [[Faith]], and that's without even checking the current Protection Log. The respective reverts that happened during the locking process: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=16289&oldid=16283 Theory of Evolution], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Second_Law_of_Thermodynamics&diff=17856&oldid=17260 Second Law of Thermodynamics], [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Faith&diff=16062&oldid=15845 Faith]. Theory of Evolution effectively became [[User:Conservative|Conservative's]] article and quickly evolved (Ha!) into a lengthy rant against evolution and the scientific community. The Second Law of Thermodynamics currently states that it ''disproves evolution'', and the Faith article was linked to from the front page with the words [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Newsline&diff=12709&oldid=11938 "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept?"]. All articles are currently locked.
:::::- Oooh ooh... also [[Fox News]]
::It's worth noting that when this issue is raised with the admins, we're usually told that we can bring up any problems with the articles on their talk pages. Take a look at, say, the 2nd law talk page to see just how well that works. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

As long as articles like the [[homosexual agenda]] page, and the [[Theory of Evolution]] page, and the [[abortion]] page exist, it will not be fair & balanced. As long as I'm prevented from correcting blatant factual or legal errors, allowing the admins to represent as "facts" erroneous statements as to evolution, etc., it will not be fair & balanced.

As for locked controversial articles, see any of the ones I noted above.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:45, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Can you explain how a theory is a "fact"? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:00, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Same way anything else is. Massive amounts of supporting evidence. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::So then if a theory has facts to support it, it no longer is a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::::No, theories remain theories regardless of how strongly supported they are. 'Theory' and 'fact' are not mutually exclusive categories. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Of course Conservapedia is biased, and it always will be. It's a conservative Christian encyclopedia, so many will see it as a silly joke, while others (the 45% who believe the universe is 14,000 years old) will take it seriously, a la FOX News. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 13:02, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

This may come as a shock to many who peruse Conservapedia, but America is NOT the entire world. Most of the world doesn't even care what America thinks, and sees it largely as a joke. So citing the number of people in America who support literal biblical conservatism is silly, because even if it were all 300 million souls, it wouldn't make a lick of difference. [[[[User:AdamNelson|AdamNelson]] 17:01, 14 April 2007 (EDT)]]

Not a damn chance. This is the biggest joke I've seen in years.

Are you joking? The name itself betrays the fact that the site was deliberately set up to be biased. Pretending otherwise requires a tremendous effort of hypocrisy. [[User:Rjohnson|Rjohnson]] 08:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

--
Its written by people of one political veiw and of one religion with very few sources, how can it possibly be unbiased. You only have to look at some of the articals to realise that, for example thier artical on the unicorn:

"Secular opinion is that they are mythical"

By secular you mean not christian i might point out, many other religions do not support the existance of unicorns.

The image shown in that article i believe you will find most experts (aka Paleobiologists, not biblical experts) would call a "triceratops," which fossil evidence has prooved pre-dates any known human existance, or infact any large primate existance.

your section under evolution "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms," dismisses some genetic possabilities that may explain the lack of transitional forms (for example polyploidy.) Also in the whole evolution article i could not see any quote which was pro evolution, weird since in my experiance most biologists DO believe in evolution.

Also "However, young earth creationist scientists assert that there is an abundance of scientific arguments showing the earth and universe are both approximately 6,000 years in age."

Show me one peice of evidence or even moderate SCIENTIFIC (that doesnt include the bible) argument for the universe being this young that isnt an absolute joke!! Also i may point out that it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe and the earth to be of the same age.

Also in the "abortion" topic here i find a large section talking about large increases in risk of a woman getting breast cancer.

"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies"
boasting 1 reference

wikipedia:
"The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."
3 references from a respected journal.

Think point made?

Conservapedia isnt just unfair, unbalanced, biased, it is a complete joke!

Wikipedia on the other hand is often sourced and written by a large number of people of different opinions! (by the way the people: something not agreeing with you 100% does not count as biased)

Not only is conservapedia biased it lacks information. your article on genetics literally reads "The science that studies how characteristics get passed from parent to offspring." Personly i find most of your articles close to useless, especially on science.

Those are a few examples of articles here i believe to be very biased, im confident there are more. However some articles on here i was suprised to find were not as biased as the above, for example the Creationist and Theistic Evolutionary Views, in the big bang article.

No i contest that Conservapedia fair and balanced becuse unlike Conservapedia wikipedia is NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN ANTI AMERICAN OR LIBRIAL BUT INSTED IT TREATES ALL VEIWS EQUALLY AND I FIND ON THE CONTARY THAT THIS SITE IS BIASED AND TOO CHRISTIAN CENTERD AND ALSO I FIND THIS SITE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ON LIBIRAL,REAL SCIENTIFIC AND NON CHRISTIAN VIEWS I ''DEFIENITLY PREFIER WIKIPEDIA FOR REFRENCE''.--[[User:Devout evolutionist|Devout evolutionist]] 19:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, it can't be Fair and Balanced [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_and_Balanced (R)]unless it's affiliated with News Corp. [[User:WikiG33K|WikiG33K]] 19:36, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

This may not be the perfect forum for this, but I am not sure how to start a new thread..

Conservapedia claims that Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the public at large. This is based on the % of self identifying Wikipedia contributors who claim to be liberal vs. the number in society in general.

There are two problems with this... This first is mathematical. If Wikipedia is Liberal 3:1 vs. Conservative that means 75% liberal vs. 25% conservative. If the public at large is 2:1 conservative (1:2) liberal, then 33% of the population is liberal and 67% is conservative. The difference between 75% liberal and 33% liberal is not factor of six, in fact it's less than 3...

Second problem, identifying the personal beliefs of a person does not measure the amount of bias they introduce. If a hard core prius driving Susan Sarandon fan writes a Wikipedia entry on The Napa Valley and describes the location, geography, climate, and history accurately, where is the bias? Everyone has a personal political stance left, right or somewhere in between. That is a far cry from suggesting that everything they believe is tainted by that belief.

Otherwise the largely conservative crowd online here would be forced to display conservative bias, based on THEIR beliefs...

Citizzzen 03.15.07

I have thought about the math here, and I am wrong. I have not multiplied fractions in years. However, if America is 2:1 Conservtive and Wikipedia is 1:3 then 1/3 times x = 2. The answer would be 6 as originally stated. I concede the math point. I was wrong. Citizzzen 03.17.07

Of course it's biased. Even the name suggests a right-winged bias! [[The Theory of Evolution]] page shows NOTHING supporting the theory, wheras Wikipedia shows BOTH sides of the arguments and uses citations and proof. Using the above figures, If 67% of the population is Conservative, and 33% is Liberal, then surely the laws of statistics state that more Conservatives would use Wikipedia... Or perhaps it's just that the Liberal demographic is more aligned with the intellectual, freethinking people who tend to use the web.

conservapedia is about as fair and balanced as Bill O'Rielly is, and if wikipedia is " liberal", liberal must mean based in reality.

Conservapedia states its bias right in its own name. forcing all articles to be 'clean' and conservative makes you bias, duh. Not everything in the world is 'clean' as you want it to be, and trying to hide it is sad and wrong.

Biased. Wikipedia is not anti-American. Wikipedia is not anti-Christian. Conservapedia: The name says it all. Go to talkorigins.org, and go to the creationist claims. The Bible is faith, evolution is a fact. I found there that a new species has evolved in our time: some mosquito.
:Gees that was easy; you wanna buy some land in Florida? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:58, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I'm a Homeschooler (Well, I was, I'm in college now) and a Christian, and I see this as biased. I mean, I see both as biased in they're own way (Conservapedia and Wikipedia). If there is a theory of evolution on here, the creationism should be also viewed as theory or such. "Religious doctrine" as on wikipedia. And again, with what a few people have said, you need BOTH sides of an argument. If you made this due to the left-wing bias (I refrain from saying Anti-American, Anti-Christian because it's down right silly), then don't show right-wing bias, give us neutrality.

Truth is the only thing that matters. I read all the dissenting arguements; Wikipedia is not this or not that. Wikipedia has a diversity of contributors. If Wikipedia is liberal it must be based on reality. Give me a break. Thats is all b.s. fluff, if the article misrepresents the truth, what do you actually learn? I see Conservapedia as striving for truth in everything. The same can't be said of Wikipedia that places their agenda first.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:03, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, do you understand the difference between a "fact" and an "opinion?" --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:59, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:: Enlighten us all oh great master. Like I said before, what is fair? It would not be fair if I told you a lie. What is balanced? Two sides presented, the side that is right and the side that is wrong. Opinion, is PF Fox thinking he is right because he believes it to be, everybody else wrong or just dissenters from his so called facts (op).--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Throw away your opinions for 30 seconds, and go read the "news" on the front page. How does it color liberalism? Pssht. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']]
[[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 15:26, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Not grey, whereby everybody is right and nobody is wrong.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:45, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

"Enlighten us all oh great master?" How old are you, jpatt?

"Fair," jpatt is being factual even when the facts are inconvenient for you. "Opinion," is "a view or judgement formed in the mind about a particular matter." Some people base their opinions on fact. Some people base their opinions on ideology. How about you? I am confident enough in the validity of my own opinioins to be both frank and accurate when discussing history or quoting people with whom I disagree. How about you?

I've been reading and watching the news for forty years. I'm experienced enough to have known liberals who fought bravely in World War II, in the Korean War, and in the Vietnam War. I'm old enough to remember that it was liberals who put their lives on the line marching for Black Civil Rights. Some liberals paid the ultimate price for it. Ever heard of them? Schwerner, Chaney, and Goodman? Viola Liuzzo? Jean Donovan and Dorothy Kazel? Are those names familiar to you, or did they not come up while you were being homeschooled? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 13:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

: Nobody is questioning the elder generations of liberals committment and sacrifice to America. Even today, democrats and republicans fight side by side. What this generation does it what troubles many. Unwilling to listen and reason is gone in America. It is now become "I am smarter than you because I believe a certain way".--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Jpatt, this current generation of liberals includes those who marched during the Civil Rights era and who fought in Vietnam. It even includes a few who fought in the second World War. And so far, you've shown little inclination to either listen or reason. Do you really consider calling people "scum" an example of rational debate? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Fair and balanced? Good God No. First, this website proudly proclaims it is not balanced. Second, there is little regard for truth. One can post or edit an article, for example to make it more historically accurate, and be accused of attempting to plant a "liberal falsehood." The history lecture section is a mess and really needs to redone, but of course, it is locked. It looks like it was taken out of a grade school history book, circa 1935.
But I do think conservapedia reflects the changing nature of information and technology in our society. Rather than being better informed and educated, internet and media outlets now tend to reinforce what one ''thinks'' is true. So we now have a society that will become gradually dumber and less informed. Conservapedia may survive, but it will never be anything more than a resource for homeschoolers. Already, we see a corps of sysops who quickly (despite their protests to the contrary) ban people without cause and are unwilling to listen to reason, or evidance. It seems that Conservapedia is on its way to becoming an echo chamber, where only "correct" ideas are heard and only "correct" thinking is permitted. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 16:19, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

So wise 1048247, you can't even use a name, just a number. "there is little regard for the truth". Sounds like mearly your opinion, not based on any facts. If very little regard for the truth here then the internet publication Wikipedia is a complete fraud, unworthy of any educational value. So, you claim no truth exists on Conservapedia? Funny, how you decide to frequent it then. Why do you support the website you seek to condemn. Hypocrisy?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:38, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

::Invective is not argument, Jpatt. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 22:15, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

It's logically impossible to be 'fair and balanced' when the stated aim is to create a "non-liberal Encyclopedia". It's like saying you want to create Science that's not based on Science or some other such tautology. [[User:50something|50something]]

Jpatt, Ideology trumps truth on conservapedia. Please reread my post. I said there is "little regard for the truth," not "there is not truth on conservapedia." I wrote something regarding historical fact and had portions of it immediatly reverted by a sysop who declared it "a liberal flasehood." The sysop relied on his own uninformed beleifs and was too lazy to look sources. As for frequenting the site: I am appaled that this is the sort of history education that students recieve. I will correct some articles, because I want too. As far as wikis go, no one should use either wikipedia or conservapedia as a research source. --[[User:1048247|1048247]] 09:38, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I think its full of cra...we all know that last word.
If liberalism means not discriminate nor play with our childrens mind I think its the best thing that has ever happend to the world. Children will read this page and grow up with this conservative un-evolve mind.
The rest of a the world has evolve to not discriminate homosexual, black or even female people. This conservative, church followers republican americas have seem to stay in the 18th century.
What is wrong with you people? Homosexuality is not an ilness! The bible doesn't state that homosexual people must die! That's bullshi.... If you teach this things to your children, the times of war will never end. We are not in 1720, we are in the 21th century! We have passed the time of discrimination for god sakes.
Religion is an important thing to everyone. Faith is. The church its just an institution that wants power and money. You, conservative republican americans, go against everything god taught us!
You hide behind lame excuses about how we (liberals) go against the bible. If you think a little you will see thats actually you. You are the ones who support Bush. You are the ones who support war, discrimination, violence, not us. We are clearly against all that.

: Very good point, we are all in the 21st century now. We have become the smartest generation. Time to abandon all reason and follow what human kind says is best for us. Church is the bride of Christ. It is not about power and money. As for supporting war, the Pope came out against the war. But that doesn't fit into your biased argument. The definition of reality, God is reality. You claim otherwise, you are out of touch with reality. By the way, homosexuality was claimed by the medical profession as an illness until the secular humanists got it removed.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:18, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

:::Homosexuality was also treated as a crime, homosexuals were thrown in prison and, since they were deemed "mentally ill" frequently forcibly institutionalized in insane asylums. Plainly, you'd like a return to those "good old days." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:50, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

::*''We have become the smartest generation.'' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

::: Well isn't that a wonderful pat on our backs made by someone who lives in the present and can make that statement objectively.

How can God be the basis for reality when no one can say with certinity that God exists?--[[User:Freehan|Freehan]] 13:46, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
:When [[Earth]] (for example) gives such prominence to not just a creationist view, but a ''factional view within creationism'', that can't be balanced. And fair? I'm seeing quite a few complaints about unfair sysoping, but I haven't been here long enough to get a reasonable picture. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 18:41, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Sigh...To say this site is "fair and balanced" is to lie outright. I mean, look at any page dealing with homosexuality. They're starting to look like they were written by [[Fred Phelps]]! Especially the [[homosexual agenda]] page—Why does that piece of religiously biased junk even exist? I really think that the aforementioned page should be either unlocked or deleted, preferably the latter.--[[User:Autofire|Autofire]] 21:29, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia is not balanced, nor is it fair to call it an encyclopedia. It has an American/conservative/Christian bais to the articles and topics that are politically volitile in American culture right now. Abortion, evolution, the federal government, religion, and other articles dealing with hot button American and world social issues have a distinguishable slant in the favor of opinions that champion conservative American Christian ideals over other opinions such as those of secular humanists, liberal American Christians, American Muslims, feminists, and others. The bottom line is if an institution is going to call itself an encyclopedia, it should at least conform to the generally accepted format for an ecyclopedia and include all or most of the relevant accumulated knowledge on a subject or discipline, not just the relevent accumulated knowledge that portrays the subject in a particularly favorable or unfavorable light in regards to the socio-political debates surrounding the subject of interst. Conservapedia is not an encyclopedia, but rather an institution that subtlely promotes religious and political views of conservative Christian Americans through the primary role of offering information in an psuedo-encyclopedic manner. -[[User:Charles |Avidreaderofhistory]]([[User talk:Charles |contact me]]) 11:15, 22 June 2007

Only one word needed: [[Kangaroo]]. [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:50, 27 June 2007 (EDT)

Anybody who claims conservapedia is fair and balanced is clearly missing the elephant in the room. '''By taking a conservative point of view conservapedia is bias by definition'''. To say you are conservative (or liberal for that matter) means that you hold points of view that are biased in favour of one political ideology. ideology (Liberal or conservative) always distorts the truth to favour its own outlook and this is very much evident here. It is a denial of reality to say that every conservative view point is correct and that every liberal view point is nonsense yet this is the tone of Conservapedias articles. The greatest enemy of the truth is not lies but conviction. In this case Conservapedia is a fine example of conservative conviction. Contributors to conservapedia are so convinced of their conservative beliefs that when they write articles with a blatant conservative slant (bias by definition remember) they think they are writing what could be considered to be true.
For the record I believe conservapedia is the last thing that America needs at this point in time. It further polarises the country masquerading conservative opinions as fair and balanced truth. We get enough of that with fox news

:By my count, there are about 50 No comments and 14 Yes comments (it's really hard to place some on one side or the other, not to mention working out where one comment ends and another starts!). Since presumably this site has a very high proportion of supporters amongst its (not blocked) users compared with the population in general, the answer seems very clear. It makes me wonder where all the admins are, maybe they have just looked at this page and can't come up with any arguments to make in Conservapedia's defence? Anyway, the comparisons with Fox News are interesting, maybe Conservapedia is owned by (or at least receives donations from) [[Rupert Murdoch]] too... actually his article seems very positive! [[User:EmanresU|EmanresU]] 14:38, 17 July 2007 (EDT)

----

Conservapedia is clearly biased - but I'm still here to contribute in whatever manner I can. For example, in the article [[Godless Liberal]] which I created, I tried to defuse the negative stigma on the word. A conservapedia Sysop insisted on saying something about Liberal Atheists 'insisting' on purging spirituality from the public. I would rather the term 'believes in the merits of' or 'feels that purging spirituality is beneficial', rather than 'insists on', as there is definately a negative tone to this.

Another example is in the [[France article]] where they go out of their way to say the French didn't support the Iraq war, but make no such qualification for Germany. This is clearly because France is a whipping boy of the religious right. Also, they call it the Liberation of Iraq, but a more accurate term is the invasion of Iraq.

([[User:Denzo|Denzo]] 11:23, 18 July 2007 (EDT))

After spending many days reviewing the site and the works posted I think the name should be Christianpedia, not Conservapedia. I consider myself Conservative but the focus on christian values and the obvious out-to-get-Wikipedia attitude makes one wonder about the objectivity of this site.
--[[User:AGivenVoice|AGivenVoice]] 18:00, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Obviously Conservapedia is biased, far more than Wikipedia is. 6x more liberal than the average population? Maybe somewhat but you have to look for it. Here you can't go into "kangaroo" without having God pushed in your face. Wikipedia doesn't say atheism is right or wrong, here they have an entire article dedicated to showing how evil and morally corrupt all atheists are, when in reality, they are just normal people.{{unsigned|Conservativezpl}}

No, Conservapedia is not fair and balanced. It clearly favors right wing, neo-conservative political and social attitudes as to counter the "liberal bias" of wikipedia. It is disconserning, however, to see that many of the facts present in the article relating to wikipedia's bias are, in fact, wrong. It seems like the author never even bother to go to wikipedia. Also, to those who believe wikipedia is biased, there is a way you can change this, by writing your own article and citing the sources. Very simple, really. There is nothing balanced about this site, and it is fair only insofar as you a) believe in Jesus, and b) believe every one else is lying. Note the spend-o-meter on the front page featuring hillary clinton. A presidential term is four years. So, by my count, she would spend $777 billion over four years. Currently, President Bush just asked (and received) $800 Billion for the next years budget. Where is that little news flash? :)

----

Conserverapedia only offers one side of any given argument, and is therefore even worse than wikipedia, which at least tries to be unbiased. Such as in the homeschooling page, it forgets to point out why homeschooling can be BAD. It only seems to glorify it, while forgetting that home schooled students often have a lack of social skills, and miss out on ideas that are not supported by their parents.

In the abortion article, it does the same thing. Apparently, there is no good that can come from abortion, when that is entirely biased. If it were unbiased, both sides of the abortion arguement would be presented, and there would be examples of situations in which abortion was the best alternative.

~Slif
(No, I don't know how to do all of those fancy codes)

so lets pretend that i thought wikipedia was anti-voodoo, if i created a website called voodoopedia.com thats pro-voodoo it wouldn't be fair and balanced, partially because even if i pretended that it was balanced, if all the sysop were pro voodoo i couldn't really see it being fair and balanced, and partially because IT DECLARES ITS PRO-(something) which means that it isn't fair on the topic-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 22:31, 15 May 2008 (EDT)
----
Conservapedia's article on [[Conservatives]] says that they support Second Amendment rights. They forgot to say that they don't support any other part of the constitution. Oh, they locked that page from editing. Any more questions whether Conservapedia is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia" anymore? This is any more "Fair" and "Balanced than Bush himself.

NO!!! NO!!! SEriously what the hell. I wonder which sysop filled half of the main page with "shame on Barack Obama" and "oh my god". I hardly think that Obama would call this fair and balanced. Not very encyclopedic, if you ask me.--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 07:49, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...HAHAHAHAHAHA.. oh that's the funniest of all the jokes i've read so fa... oh they're serious that's just sad.([[User:Gosweden|Gosweden]])

----
Conservapedia isn't meant to be fair and balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:51, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

== Is that a serious question? ==
The answer is quite obviously an emphatic "No." It has the name of a political ideology ''in the name!'' That fact alone precludes any chance of current or eventual balance or reliability.

*Agree it's clearly NO on both counts due to the statement on the front page. "A [[Conservative]] encyclopedia you can trust. The truth shall set you free." Clearly conservative is a point of view. Wikipedia on the other hand comes from the [[Atheist]], [[Secular]], [[Socialist]], [[Communist]], [[Social democracy|Social Democratic]] and [[Liberal]] points of view. I don't understand why this is a matter of discussion. This encyclopedia is meant to balance the other one. [[User:KirjathSepher|KirjathSepher]] 14:44, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

I've edited articles on Wikipedia. I am not an atheist, I'm a broadstream evangelical, Reformed anabaptist specifically. If you're polite, fair, and believe that things can be discussed in the following manner: "We both have different views on this controversial topic. I think I'm right, and you think you're right, let's discuss and share how we work through the issues even though I think you're clearly wrong and you think I'm clearly wrong" you shouldn't have any problem encountering Wikipedia bias. However, if you insist on going into Wikipedia and acting as though those who disagree with you are stupid, that you are unbiased, that there cannot be any debate over these issues because you're right, obviously you will encounter resistance.

For example, read how the article on [[Predestination]] is handled on Conservapedia - it is pretty unbiased toward either side, phrases such as "According to" and "Proponents of...say..." appear. Contrast this to the page on [[Jesus]] - which bluntly states some facts which read more like a Creed than a serious encyclopedia article.

==Of course not, but...==

Nothing is without bias - no historical account, no statistic, no news story, no sociological study, nothing. Any attempt to collect, analyze, interpret and present data will be shaped by the people who are engaged in the process, by national, gender, class,religious, cultural and a host of other concerns. Even something as apparently "unbiased" as a census is biased in terms of what questions it asks - and what questions it does not. From what I've seen, Conservapedia, like, let's say, the [[Daily Kos]], wears its bias on its sleeve. Is that a bad thing? Of course not. The real question is "Is Conservapedia intellectually honest in the way that it collects and presents information." [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 12:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

:As you state, nothing is perfect or without some form of bias, but Conservapedia is up front that the Conservative view that is often censored in other media will be freely presented here. For that reason alone, this forum and website is a refreshing alternative. Anyone seeking open dialogue should be able to find sites that present a number of different views. Generally speaking, it is much harder to find sites that allow the information put forth in Conservapedia than it is to find the Politically Correct flavor. At the very least we present alternatives that are suppressed in many other settings. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)

: Yes, it does balance out Wikipedia. Which means that if someone were to read the articles on Creationism and Evolution on here, and then look up those same articles on Wikipedia, ''that'' would be fair and unbalanced. (Of course that assumes we have exactly the same amount of Conservative bias as Wikipedia has liberal bias, which frankly I don't think is true or even possible, but that's not the point). So yes, looking up the same thing on different sites which have different views is "fair and balanced" but any single one of those sites would not be. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:40, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

==The Wedge Document==
Given that the [http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html wedge document] was deleted instantaly, I rather think not.[[User:Albertdock|Albertdock]] 13:57, 25 April 2008 (EDT)

==Absolutely not==

This seems like as good a place to post this as any. I realize that many of you will not like my views, but in this world you need to communicate with those you disagree with.

My name is Max, and I am a homosexual pastor with the First Church Of Christ in Atlanta, Georgia. I have an honest connection with God, as well as with my partner. Time and again when I read your site, I find evidence that Conservapedia is not fair. At all.

Who are you to tell me that God doesn't love me or that I can't join him in the kingdom of Heaven? The only Earthly figure I would hear that from is Jesus Christ, and he said nothing about homosexuality. Nothing. Not a word. One thing Christ said was that all should love one another, not denounce each other. Instead of trying to focus on God and how better to worship him, you spend your time telling people that gays are immoral and unholy. I did not choose to become gay; I was raised in a tolerant Christian household where my parents understood who I was. I have been a lifelong Christian in the Deep South, where gays like me are persecuted. I have been driven out of churches after years as a churchgoer when it was found that I was gay, but I refuse to leave God.

You say that Wikipedia isn't fair, that it displays a bias, yet you, in article after article, denounce every conceivable group that isn't among you. Unlike you, I am tolerant. You call atheists, as a group, awful things, just because they don't believe in God. How can you possibly say you are more fair when anyone who is not a Christian is driven away from this site?

Another thing. Evolution and God are not incompatible. Has it ever occurred to any of you that the miracle that a single cell evolved into what we are could have been the work of God? Instead, you take lies for truth.

Instead of instantly banning me as with so many others, are any here willing to honestly debate me? Or will you just call me a faggot and ban me? I know which Christ would do.

-MaxV

Kudos, Max, Kudos. I appreciate your tolerant views, as a liberal humanist and a human being. Thank you for being Christ- like, not just Christian. I agree with you that Conservapedia is not fair in the slightest; an easy example: look under the first paragraph of liberal and the first under conservative. It is blantly biased. I do not appreciate how negative this site is to people not of the Christian faith or have conservative views. But anyways. Once again, thank you Max.

-IContainMultitudes

:Well, seems like some people make Christianity whatever they want it to be. A homosexual pastor falls in the same category as Christian abortion supporters. You may take this as bias toward others not conservative. I care to think of it as we don't tolerate sin, we aren't inclusive of sin, we don't coexist with sin. God said it was wrong for man to be alone so he created a woman, not another man. My guess is a gay pastor has to pick and choose his beliefs aka [[Cafeteria Christian]]. I am not condemning your actions or beliefs but there is a judgement day that you will answer for. The rectum was designed for a reason. Procreation? No. Love? No again. Waste discharge. Any other use is just an abomination. Are you reading this vandal site members? The truth isn't fair.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::What Christ would tell you to do is exactly what he said to the adulterous woman in John 8: QUIT SINNING! You think He's going to tolerate sin? As a Christian pastor - or so you claim - you should know better than that. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:06, 8 June 2009 (EDT)

Thankfully those of you spending any appreciable amount of time posting on such Earth-shatteringly important topics as why Obama is a Muslim and the like aren't posting on Wikipedia, a site people actually read and rely on. I appreciate your efforts to cordon yourselves off. Thank you. -- Mike H.

Just came across this looking for something else, but my answer to the question would be no, CP is not "fair and balanced" at least at in the sense that some hold WP to be, which, for instance, allows most any interpretation of the Bible to be treated as viable, as its basis for inclusion is verifiability, not truth, and so Pontius Pilate could well be an editor. CP is evidenced to be an alternative to WP, which manifests a liberal bias. While WP is very useful in most topics, CP, despite some drawbacks, allows a distinction to be made between truth and falsehood in places where WP would hold all as equal.

As re your promotion of tolerance, as you are a homosexual pastor with a partner, you are obviously intolerant of the historical, and warranted position that leaves you guilty of fornication , and that of a most perverse sort. While arguments for such may be considered viable on WP, attempts to wrangle this out of the Bible inevitably negate its Divine authority, and renders God into an image more palatable to carnal men. In regard to such, see [[Homosexuality and biblical interpretation]], and may all find grace to repent and be truly born again and walk in newness of life.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:39, 7 October 2009 (EDT)

==No==

Why is it so difficult to follow your own rules? Why is it so hard to simply let people say what they believe outside of mainspace? Is this an encyclopedia or a blog? This text was taken from a short-lived conversation I had with sysop Karajou over the email. I am not afraid of saying what I believe, and so long as I do not try to force my beliefs on others, you have no right to censor me based on your own rules. Unless you're all closet liberals or something. (Ostrich Syndrome is, after all, a very "liberal" disease to have, right?)

Subject: RE: Your behavior problem

Hey, first of all, thank you for emailing! That means a lot to me. I’ll start with the reason that I continued recreating my account using a privoxy. When I uploaded my opinions onto my userpage, I was not in violation of any Conservapedia Commandments. I was displaying liberal thoughts and negative feelings towards the site administration, but it was not in mainspace, it was on my personal page, where I can, by the site’s rules, voice my thoughts. I feel that Conservapedia is ruled through fear; your behavior as an administrator in this situation shows that you have no respect for your own rules or people that disagree with you, and since you have the level of power that you do, people are afraid of standing up to your persecution. I was blocked without violating the rules, and my only hope of appealing the block was nonexistent as I had no way of talking to anybody about the situation.

I apologize for violating the rules, but you must realize that a system of law means nothing if the lawmaker does not abide by it. I guarantee that you and I disagree on a great deal of topics, but that does not make one of us any more correct than the other. You and I are both human beings, and our brains are imperfect. Furthermore, for a site claiming to be Christian in nature, I see nothing Christ-like about it. It’s discriminatory and immature in the way it treats users, and I’ve never known it to spread anything but hatred and partisanship. What would Jesus do? For that matter, what would Buddha do? What would Muhammad do? The point of religion shouldn’t have to be war and hate. I would want to love people in the name of a higher power, not kill them.

I’ll respond to your points…

1) True, I should adhere to the subject matter. But Conservapedia claims to have no subject matter, and rather be a straight-forward encyclopedia without the Liberal bias of Wikipedia. For the record, I agree that Wikipedia has Liberal bias. I attempted to talk to the editors there about removing some of the essentially pornographic images on their vast library of sexuality pages, but I didn’t get anywhere…

2) I don’t want anybody to accept my beliefs. I want to get my opinion out there and show people multiple perspectives, something Conservapedia tries to… dare I say… censor. I disagree with CP, but that doesn’t make me right, it just gives me a different perspective. I want to explore the Conservative and Christian perspective, but all I got for that wish was hatred! Before the system failure a couple weeks ago, I was talking to a guy named Rod Weathers about it. I wished to explore the website’s point of view, since mine was so different. Instead of showing openness, he lashed out and attacked me for disagreeing, not even explaining his personal viewpoint to me. How is that any different than the persecution of Christians in ancient Rome, or the persecution of Zoroastrians by the Muslims? I am not trying to push Liberalism. I just want people to work together!

3) An encyclopedia based on free Wiki software is built around teamwork. Andrew Schlafly has even stressed the importance of that. If you don’t give people the voice they deserve regardless of what they think, you don’t have an encyclopedia built out of teamwork, you have a BLOG. It is a blog written and limited to a group of people who see eye to eye, and I know that isn’t what it intended to be.

4) I could call Conservatism a mental disorder as well, but I won’t because I know that both sides have valuable ideas to bounce off one another in contribution to a peaceful society. I believe in cooperation, and your attitude, your “behavior problem” as a person of power spreads hatred and discommunication. This doesn’t get anybody anywhere; when we make war with each other, we are pushing ourselves backwards! I don’t like Obama because he’s Liberal or Black or whatever else you hate him for. I like him because I believe he wants people to help each other out. Life is a struggle for anybody, and it’s too short to waste any time hating people. There’s no reason to strive to hurt other people or drag them down further for what they believe, just because you can’t see beyond black and white, so to speak. I’m really sorry for sounding so accusational! I’m trying my best to respect you, Karajou, I really am!

Everybody is going to hell. Islam extremists think that everybody who doesn’t agree with them is headed for eternal damnation. Christian extremists, such as the administration at CP, feel the same way about their beliefs. I understand that your faith is strong, but what makes it any more correct than anybody else’s? I feel that faith is believing in your heart that which cannot be proven empirically, and there are people of all religions who feel a strong connection to their faith as you do to yours. Just because you believe it doesn’t make it true absolutely, and people who disagree with you are not going to hell automatically. To assert that you can decide what constitutes right and wrong is to assert that you are a God in your own right, and I just can’t bring myself to call that kind of behavior “Christian.”

I’m using a special program that randomly changes my IP address. I don’t know much about computers or the functioning of the internet, but this program isn’t really a proxy, and I don’t think there’s a thing you can do about it, to be honest. I came to Conservapedia as a sort of missionary, you could say. I’m not trying to impose my mindset on others. I just want to give the users of Conservapedia the freedom to think for themselves; I guess you could say that I’m trying to push Anti-Fascism, in a way. I know CP won’t change to my whims, and I don’t expect it to. But I believe that peace is always the better option, and that this site is an ironic joke, the exact opposite of what it set out to be, and I really want to help it get back on track with itself.

Thanks for your time, Karajou. I hope that you and I can sort this out soon! Best of luck to you.

Sincerely, Marvin

-----Original Message-----
From: (Karajou, real name censored for privacy reasons)
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:49 PM
To: hoeftfam@hutchtel.net
Subject: Your behavior problem

"Karajou, my voice will not be censored any longer. I want to respect you, and I wish you could respect me, but that will never be possible if you don't directly communicate with me. Please send me and email, or a message on CP if you don't want to disclose your email address. I am not demanding instant change or personal gratification; I merely want people to start working together instead of fighting. I will not make any mainspace edits if you will agree to give me a voice. Please do not ban me; I will find a way back on with the below message again and again. I would love to talk to you about this; I simply disagree with the direction that Conservapedia has taken, and I would like to help it become a positive resource again. Also, please don't label me using pejorative smears. Thank you."

This is what you wrote above your lengthy rant, and it ends with "please don't label me using pejorative smears". Your whole rant contains perjorative smears you used against the site, and you have a problem with a smear being labled against you?

Here's what I am going to say about this matter:

1. You do not have the right to enter Conservapedia, or any other website for that matter, and edit as you wish. If you think you can do that in the name of free speech, then find a Star Wars wiki and post articles on the American Civil War. Let's see how far you get.
2. You do not have the authority to tell anyone who is Christian to accept your beliefs, your views, and your ideas in the name of tolerance; you do not have the authority to demand that anyone within Conservapedia or the administration here must be tolerant of liberalism or anyone who pushes it. We have booted people off Conservapedia for this reason, and you are no different.
3. You do not have the right to come into Conservapedia and demand a voice. We are building an encyclopedia, not a town hall meeting place.
4. Conservapedia is a conservative website and resource; that is the direction that we will take it, and we will highlight exactly what is wrong with the rest of society when and where we see it. If this means showing off the mental disorder that liberalism really is, then so be it. That isn't hatred for our fellow human beings; it is telling them that what they are doing is wrong, and by so doing, we are warning them from ending up in a place called hell.

You came to Conservapedia of your own volition; no one invited you. And you expect us to change our ways to accomodate you? The pushing of your own ideas as expressed in your rant has identified you as the fascist, not us. Your further went out of your way to gain access to Conservapedia by using proxies and network sharing devices, one in Florida, the other in Prague. That is called lying and deceit. Do you think we should tolerate that as well? Do you think we should tolerate people who have every intention to be less-than-honest when they come into our website?

The answer is no. You are censored whether you like it or not. If you have a problem with that, call the nearest congressman.

Have a nice day.

[[User:MarvinST|MarvinST]]

Conservapedia isn't meant to be balanced, it's meant to tell the truth. [[User:Dford|Dford]] 14:54, 29 May 2010 (EDT)

No. it's there in the title, CONSERVApedia. it's ok not to be balanced between liberals and conservatives, but you should never try to justify yourself if the sole goal of your cause is to support or propagate a decidedly polar idea or outlook--[[User:Flounder19|Flounder19]] 00:33, 5 August 2010 (EDT)

No. But I don't think there's any source that's truly fair and balanced. The vast majority of our members and editors are Conservatives. Of course it's going to have a Conservative bias for the same reason Wikipedia has a liberal bias. I don't think that's a problem, because if it were it would invalidate every single source of news and information in the world. But it is most definitely NOT fair and balanced. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:36, 30 March 2011 (EDT)

:Telling the truth may not seem "fair" to those who wish to deceive, or are deceived themselves. But we don't follow the FOX News slogan, "fair and balanced". We tell the truth, as well as we can. We also describe opposing points of view.

:It would be unfair to pretend that controversy does not exist, when actually people disagree sharply on all sorts of things. By presenting only one point of view, it's possible to give the impression that no other view exists. That would be deceptive, and yet it's the most common mode of argument.

:That is where we part company with Wikipedia. While professing to exalt a neutral approach to controversy, they began (around 2004-2006) to argue that describing opposing points of view gives '''support''' to these. They call this "undue weight" and "equal validity", as if describing something is the same as endorsing it. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 12:23, 12 April 2011 (EDT)

==No, But...==
If people followed the rules and principles of the site it could be, and could be a great resource for understanding the world from a conservative point of view. Sadly, the site founder ASchlafly, and the user named "conservative," among others, seem to have little regard for truth, and only want to make all Christians look good and all liberals look bad. Really, the truth is more complicated, and we must be honest with ourselves and others when we take a look at it; it is possible to do this while maintaining our faith, and this is what the best of conservatives have done and how Christians can carry out the best works and truly reach others.

It is sad because this site could be truly useful if people didn't look at the flaws in liberal arguments and then try to do the exact same thing or even worse. The fallacious and trivial arguments on this site are an embarrassment. I can't in good conscience tell my younger cousins in school to use this site as a resource in its current form. I hate to say it but Wikipedia, despite its flaws, is currently more reliable and more balanced. I wish there truly were an alternative that were more focused on truth and less on trying to deny the other side as much as possible.

I really can't tell if Schlafly and the other major editors mean what they say about truth in a tongue-in-cheek or satirical way. But the Bible does not teach us to see truth in such a cynical way. And the world does not teach us that progress is made without confronting our problems. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:48, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

: Amen. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez|Joaquín Martínez]] 15:24, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

:::A brief comment: As far as "making liberals <big>'''look bad'''</big>", while I certainly understand that some people have health conditions such as thyroid conditions which contribute to weight problems, I certainly don't make obese and overweight atheists overeat or engage in other unhealthy habits such as "swilling beer" when [[PZ Myers|they already have a unsightly gut that could use some Slimfast instead]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 18:47, 5 May 2011 (EDT)

::::Funny, and I'm not saying that PZ Myers doesn't deserve it - he's arrogant, confrontational, and disrespectful, and, yes, overweight. But that kind of attack belongs on a blog or an entertainment site, not an encyclopedia dedicated to conservative values. I don't consider that kind of gossip to be a conservative value. And it's not relevant to any kind of important truth. I don't mean to be too serious - I like a good sense of humor, and I want to contribute more on comedy and comedians (I've already added an entry on Nick DiPaolo). But that brand of humor seems like the territory of liberal blogs like Gawker and Perez Hilton, and seems to me a great example of Hollywood values. Thanks for your support, Joaquin. [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 19:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::I also wanted to add that the claim that I want to make "all liberals look bad" is certainly an extravagant claim. I am merely one person and there are certainly a very large amount of liberals in the world. There are only so many hours in a day and I certainly have other interests than supposedly trying to make all liberals look bad. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:10, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::By the way, I do find it telling that you implied I made a fallacious argument somewhere, but failed to support that contention. Given you are advocating that others act in a more noble manner, your lack of holding yourself up to a high standard is very poor form. As a result, I see no compelling reason to further posts to this web page. But please feel free to engage in any [[last wordism]] that you may wish to engage in. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:42, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I think conservative's first comment is the most apropos illustration of silliness of this sight. KingHanksley: "I have some serious objections to how information is presented on this site". Conservative: "Atheists are fat". Touché , conservative - argument over. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)