Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Eric Cantor

2008-08-28T03:17:44Z

Fyezall: wikify. is he really front runner? this is the first i've heard that. and whats the ACU?

'''Eric Cantor''' (b. June 6, 1963) is a representative in the [[House of Representatives]] from the area of [[Richmond, Virginia]]. He has a 100% [[pro-life]] voting record and a 92-96% [[conservative]] voting record according to the [[ACU]].<ref>http://www.nationaljournal.com/almanac/2008/people/va/rep_va07.php</ref>

He is a front-runner to be selected by [[John McCain]] as his [[Vice President]].

== References ==

<references/>

[[Category:politics]]

----

Snake

2008-08-28T02:51:55Z

Fyezall: /* The origin of snakes: Creationists View */

'''Snakes''' are long, [[limb]]less, [[scale|scaly]] [[reptile]]s which [[slither]] upon the ground and sometimes swim in [[water]]. Some snakes (about one third of species) are [[poison]]ous (specifically, [[venom]]ous). Snakes are abundant in warmer climates, and most of them are quite harmless to man.

==The origin of snakes: Evolutionary View==
Snakes are suborder within the order of ''Squamata'', class of reptiles (''Reptilia''), subphylum vertebrats, phylum ''Chordata''. They originate from lizard-like reptiles with legs. Their ancestors probably lived under the ground and lost their legs. The most primitive snakes (''Boidae'' and ''Pythonidae'') still have rudimentary back limbs.

==The origin of snakes: Creationists View==
Snakes are a group of animals that have frustrated evolutionists for many years. They are anatomically unlike any other vertebrate and can hybridize regularly, supporting the notion that they are a [[apobaramin]]. Snakes can be classified into three families based on hydridization data: Boidae (boas and pythons), Colubridae (colubrid snakes), and Viperidae (Vipers). Since hydrids can be formed within each family, but not between any family, each of the three can be classified as a [[holobaramin]], suggesting that an ancestral pair for each family was present on Noah's Ark. Other research suggest multiple [[holobaramin]]s in each family suggesting up to 12 snake pairs on the Ark during the Flood.<ref>1. Hennigan, T. 2005. An initial investigation into the baraminology of snakes: order--Squamata, suborder Serpentes. Creation Reasearch Society Quarterly Vol. 42.</ref>

In the [[Bible]], it was a snake (serpent) that persuaded [[Eve]] to defy the law set down by [[God]], and eat the fruit of the [[Tree of Knowledge]], this causing the exile of [[Adam and Eve]] from [[Eden]]. Snakes have since then been associated with [[evil]] and [[deceit]].

==Some snake species==
* [[Garter Snake]]
* [[King Snake]]
* [[Viper]]
* [[Python]]
* [[Asp]]

==References==
1. Hennigan, T. 2005. An initial investigation into the baraminology of snakes: order--Squamata, suborder Serpentes. Creation Reasearch Society Quarterly Vol. 42.

==External Links==
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396632,00.html World's Smallest Snake as Thin as Spaghetti], Associated Press, ''Fox News Channel'', August 04, 2008

[[Category:Snakes| ]]

Snake

2008-08-28T02:50:22Z

Fyezall: /* The origin of snakes: Creationists View */

'''Snakes''' are long, [[limb]]less, [[scale|scaly]] [[reptile]]s which [[slither]] upon the ground and sometimes swim in [[water]]. Some snakes (about one third of species) are [[poison]]ous (specifically, [[venom]]ous). Snakes are abundant in warmer climates, and most of them are quite harmless to man.

==The origin of snakes: Evolutionary View==
Snakes are suborder within the order of ''Squamata'', class of reptiles (''Reptilia''), subphylum vertebrats, phylum ''Chordata''. They originate from lizard-like reptiles with legs. Their ancestors probably lived under the ground and lost their legs. The most primitive snakes (''Boidae'' and ''Pythonidae'') still have rudimentary back limbs.

==The origin of snakes: Creationists View==
Snakes are a group of animals that have frustrated evolutionists for many years. They are anatomically unlike any other vertebrate and can hybridize regularly, supporting the notion that they are a [[apobaramin]]. Snakes can be classified into three families based on hydridization data: Boidae (boas and pythons), Colubridae (colubrid snakes), and Viperidae (Vipers). Since hydrids can be formed within each family, but not between any family, each of the three can be classified as a [[holobaramin]], suggesting that an ancestral pair for each family was present on Noah's Ark. Other research suggest multiple [[holobaramin]]s in each family suggesting up to 12 snake pairs on the Ark during the Flood.<ref>1. Hennigan, T. 2005. An initial investigation into the baraminology of snakes: order--Squamata, suborder Serpentes. Creation Reasearch Society Quarterly Vol. 42.</ref>

In the [[Bible]], it was a snake (serpent) that persuaded [[Eve]] to defy the law set down by [[God]], and eat from the [[Tree of Knowledge]], this causing the exile of [[Adam and Eve]] from [[Eden]]. Snakes have since then been associated with [[evil]] and [[deceit]].

==Some snake species==
* [[Garter Snake]]
* [[King Snake]]
* [[Viper]]
* [[Python]]
* [[Asp]]

==References==
1. Hennigan, T. 2005. An initial investigation into the baraminology of snakes: order--Squamata, suborder Serpentes. Creation Reasearch Society Quarterly Vol. 42.

==External Links==
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,396632,00.html World's Smallest Snake as Thin as Spaghetti], Associated Press, ''Fox News Channel'', August 04, 2008

[[Category:Snakes| ]]

Reptile

2008-08-28T02:46:13Z

Fyezall:

[[image: Alligator.png|thumb|right|300px]]

'''Reptiles''' are a class of cold-blooded [[animal]]s found throughout the world. Reptiles are [[vertebrate]]s, as they have an internal skeleton and a backbone. They are also amniotic tetrapods and their skin protects them from drying out and their toes have claws. Common reptiles include [[alligators]], [[lizards]], [[snake]]s, and [[turtles]].

[[Category:Reptiles]]

Joseph Lieberman

2008-08-26T20:19:00Z

Fyezall: /* United States Senate */

[[Image:Joelieb.jpg|right|thumb]]
'''Joseph Isadore Lieberman''' is an independent [[United States]] Senator of [[Connecticut]], in the [[Democratic Party]] Senate caucus in the [[110th Congress]].

==Early Life==
Joseph Lieberman was born in [[Stamford, Connecticut]], on February 24, 1942 where he attended local public schools. He graduated from [[Yale University]] in 1964 and later received a law degree from Yale Law School in 1967. Lieberman served in the Connecticut State Senate from 1970 until 1980 and was majority leader from 1974 until 1980. He later served as the [[attorney general]] of Connecticut in 1983, and from 1986 until 1988. In 1988, he was elected as a Democrat to the United States Senate and has been reelected three times.

==National Politics==
Lieberman has been very involved in [[Democratic Party]] politics. In August 2000, he was selected as [[Al Gore]]'s Vice-Presidential running mate, making him the first openly [[Jew]]ish candidate for high executive office. The Gore/Lieberman ticket won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College. Lieberman later criticized Al Gore for adopting a populist theme during their 2000 campaign, and stated he had objected to Gore's "people vs. the powerful" message, believing it was not the best strategy for Democrats to use to win the election. On January 13, 2003, Lieberman announced his intention to seek the Democratic nomination as a candidate in the 2004 presidential election. Throughout the campaign he claimed that he was picking up "Joementum." Lieberman withdrew his candidacy on February 3, 2004 after failing to win any of the five primaries or two caucuses held that day.

==United States Senate==
Lieberman has gained the reputation as being a moderate Democrat, one with a conservative Judeo-Christian moral code. He was the first Democrat to challenge [[Bill Clinton]] for having an affair with [[Monica Lewinsky]]. However, he voted against removing Clinton from office. Lieberman is Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He once described himself as an Independent, saying "I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy." Because of his support for the [[War in Iraq]], he has toyed with the idea of switching his affiliation to [[Republican]], although he still has a [[liberal]] record on many social issues, such as [[abortion]].

==Senate reelection, 2006==
Despite serving as chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic nominee for Vice-President in 2000 and a former Democratic presidential candidate, many on the far-left wondered if Lieberman was committed to the Democratic Party. [[Liberal]] partisan Ned Lamont challenged Lieberman in a primary for his Senate reelection. Lamont won the primary but Lieberman then ran as an independent, creating the "Connecticut for Lieberman" party, and won the general election. He is now an independent who caucuses with the Democrats.

==2008 Endorsement==

Senator Joe Lieberman has crossed party lines to endorse Republican candidate [[John McCain]] for president of the United States in 2008.<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/17/mccain.endorsements/index.html McCain endorsements]</ref> Because of his endorsement, he will not be attending the Democratic Convention in Denver, the first time he'll miss the convention since first attending as a delegate of Representative Morris Udall in 1976. <ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/us/politics/14lieberman.html?bl&ex=1216267200&en=899168b17cc46ce6&ei=5087%0A Lieberman Finds Middle a Tricky Path]</ref>

==External Links==
*[http://lieberman.senate.gov/ Official Website]
*[http://ontheissues.org/Joseph_Lieberman.htm Lieberman On the Issues]
*[http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000304/ Voting record]

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

{{DEFAULTSORT: Lieberman, Joe}}

[[Category:Political People]]
[[Category:United States Senators]]
[[Category:110th United States Congress]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:Jewish People]]

Wasp

2008-08-26T19:55:25Z

Fyezall:

'''Wasps''' are flying insects related to [[bee]]s and [[ant]]s, of the order Hymenoptera. There are several [[species]] of wasps, found in many parts of the world.

==Appearance==

Wasps can come in a variety of different shapes and sizes. Most wasps are similar to bees. A wasp is typically half the length of an adult male human's thumb and its body is yellow with black stripes. Wasps are often mistaken for bees, but there are ways to distinguish the two from one another.

*Wasps are generally more slender, with a "wasp-waist".
*Segments of a wasp are more prominent to that of a bee.
*Bees appear to have hair while wasps don't.

==Behavior==

Wasps are generally more aggressive than bees because they are hunters/scavengers rather than specialist nectar-feeders. They have catholic tastes, and constantly search for high-protein edibles among human garbage while bees just look for [[flowers]], which they [[pollinate]] while collecting their nectar food. Wasps are also more likely to sting a [[human]] unprovoked and unlike a bee, a wasp is capable of stinging a human multiple times.

==Other uses==
WASP is sometimes used as a disparaging acronym for [[White]] [[Anglo-Saxon]] [[Protestant]].

[[Category:Insects]]

Bee

2008-08-26T19:53:28Z

Fyezall:

'''Bees''' are a type of flying [[insect]] related to [[ant]]s and [[wasp]]s, all of the order Hymenoptera. They are an important pollinator of [[flower]]ing [[plant]]s, and vital to commercial growers in the [[United States]]. Many species of bees produce [[honey]].

==Bee genetics==

Unfertilized eggs laid by a queen bee contain 50% of her [[gene]]s in different combinations. These eggs develop into male bees (drones) that have one copy of each [[chromosome]]. All [[sperm]] produced by a drone are identical [[clone]]s.

Fertilized eggs laid by a queen bee develop into female bees (workers). These have two copies of each chromosome – one from the queen and one from the male who fertilized her.

Queens mate with 10-20 drones, so bee colonies are a mixture of subfamilies with the same mother but different fathers.

This means that workers in the same subfamily are related by 75% of their genes. They are therefore more closely related to their sisters than to their own offspring, who would only have 50% of their genes. This predisposes them to help raise their sisters or go with a new queen when she starts a new colony rather than seeking a mate.

==Bee Decline==

Because of their vital role as pollinators, bees are responsible for 15 to 30 percent of the food U.S. consumers eat. However, in recent years there has been a steep decline in the population of bees, and some scientists claim that unless this is arrested the supply of some fruits and vegetables may also decline. <ref> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1005_041005_honeybees.html </ref>

This decline is considered to be the result of diseases such as the varroa mite and other parasites, and the widespread practice of spraying crops with pesticides. Some scientists have asserted that the increased use of genetically modified crops may have a role to play, but the evidence for that is not yet clear.

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Insects]]

Talk:Young mass murderers

2008-08-26T16:05:30Z

Fyezall: /* Marc Lépine */

=="Mass Murder"==
This is a very strong term, and here, it seems to be used disturbingly broadly, so what's the exact definition? Does suicide count into the "mass"? Is somebody who kills himself and one other person a mass murderer? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:21, 7 December 2007 (EST)
:Well, apparently, "mass murder" now also means "wounding and intending to kill many people" since Andy reverted my edit. I won't bother to make additional edits to this. Already got a warning block for this (among other things, like the high crime of cleaning up Conservative's mess), so whatever. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 16:55, 7 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, the title is awkward, but we know what it means. I'm open to suggestions and can "move" the article to a new title if a better one can be found. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:00, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:::"but we know what it means" - Ed, I'm glad that you (or Andy) weren't around when Britannica or other encyclopedias were looking for editors. Since this article is in the mainspace and thus a part of an ''encyclopedia'' (and since there is no article text giving this table any context), the headline has to be correct and not some wishy-washy "Yeah, I know it's wrong, but it sounds great!" placeholder.
:::I would vote for a move to Andy's userspace since the entire point of this <s>article</s> table is to give Andy a more convenient way of mocking liberals ("Liberal response: Poem comparing it to environmental harm" - Gosh, other people call that "victims trying to deal with a tragedy", but hey, whatever works to make a cheap point!) and casting tragedies into a light that makes me doubt that the table is supposed to be more than satire ("Belief: wore black entirely", "Belief: targeted Christmas shoppers" - I feel like I'm reading The Onion.).
:::To be honest, I don't see much encyclopedic value in this table. Especially not in its current form with the columns and "beliefs" mentioned above. If we cut out the "Liberal response" column, clean up the last column, find all sorts of sources, and write an entire article around the table, then we could move it to "List of school shootings" or something (which in turn might be a candidate for a category instead of a dedicated article).
:::But that is somewhat like trying to rebuild a car when you just start with one damaged wheel: Sure, you could repair the wheel and then build a car around it, but why not just build a car in a more logical order (starting with a motor or chassis)?
:::Maybe move the table to some workbench outside the mainspace and see if people are dedicated enough to tinker with it. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:35, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Jenkins, I didn't read through all of your long-winded comments above. But as I said on your talk page, a Wiki is for ''adding'' and/or ''improving'' information, not deleting it. If you can improve, then do so, but don't delete information and serve the role of a censor. Go to [[Wikipedia]] to do that, where censors delete [[conservative]] information daily.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:43, 7 December 2007 (EST)

:Andy, why do you even reply when you didn't read my post? Words fail me. Not even going to bother replying to your completely messed-up idea of improving the wiki ("You must not remove information added by me, no matter how little it has to do with the title"). Oh, and thanks for blocking me for cleaning up the mess caused by one of your High Quality Editors and accusing me of censorship. That sure motivates me! --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 17:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

== "wore black entirely," ==

ROUND UP THE NUNS!!!! I THINK SISTER MARY ELLEN IS PACKING HEAT!!!!!!

What about ninjas? They wear all black, and we know they're bad. Black = evil.

and Italian widows.

==Young mass murderers==

What is the criteria? Under 30? Under 25? And does a shooting in December qualify the murderer as anti-Christian? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 09:17, 8 December 2007 (EST)

Hey, does one poem someone wrote on a blog really count as a response for all liberals? Or just one person? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:59, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: That was the official Virginia Tech poem. It's probably somewhere on the Virginia Tech now, as it was after the tragedy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)

: What is the cutoff for "young"? It's the same definition as for anything else. Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:03, 8 December 2007 (EST)
::So then the VA Tech guy ''doesn't'' count then? He was 23. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 18:44, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::: Dude, where's your logic? Of course the [[Virginia Tech killer]] satisfies the definition of "young". Please read it again, and apply logic this time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:47, 8 December 2007 (EST)

::::By your "logic", [http://www.bsu.edu/news/article/0,1370,-1019-9169,00.html Constance Clark] would have been a "young mass murderer" if she had gone on a killing spree during her last university year (at age '''50'''). It somehow appears as if you're deliberately setting the goalposts to include all students while still pretending to only focus on young ones.
::::Do I regard a 23 old man as "young"? Not really. He's old enough to drink, drive and vote (just not in that order, please...), so calling him "young" is misleading. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 19:54, 8 December 2007 (EST)

==A Growing Problem?==

Andy, you said on the Main Talk Page that, "''...this problem is growing: there were 4 mass murders...in 2007. How many will there be in 2008?''" I'm afraid that's not accurate--there's been a fairly steady number of such incidents for at least a decade. Googling "school shootings" will bring up various timelines going back years with much fodder for this article. --[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:It's certainly been growing since the mid 90s, though. There was a wave of school shootings in 1997-1999, and copycat incidents have happened since. I just wrote a paper for my college class using statistics from 1995, and the writers then were arguing that school violence was relatively rare. And it certainly wasn't as much of a threat in the 1970s. It's growing, even though there may be variance year to year. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 14:24, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::Yes, absolutely. I wonder, too, how much of the sense of a "growing" problem is a function of the greater availability of news via the Internet, which started hitting its stride in the mid-90s. A lot of the "lesser" pre-Net incidents might be buried out of public attention in local papers.--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 14:57, 9 December 2007 (EST)

::: No, I think it is a growing problem. I've heard the claims that it was constant or even declining from the 1970s (Vietnam Era) through Columbine (1999), but I think that's outdated now. 4+ big incidents in one year (2007), totaling 50 dead and many injured, plus numerous arrests including some yesterday for foiled attempts, is more than any time in 30 years, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:12, 9 December 2007 (EST)

== Colorado killer ==

The Colorado killer does not meet the previous definition of young: "Still in school, or out of school and less than, say, 21." Besides, he was a Christian-hater too.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:16, 10 December 2007 (EST)

:A "very, very religious" Christian who hates Christians? That's a new one on me. The young man was clearly troubled, but I don't think you've shown that he hated Christians specifically, so much as he bore a grudge against the Missionary program from which he was ejected. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:43, 10 December 2007 (EST)

::The point was that he was homeschooled. When a Public Schooler goes on a mass killing spree its '''solely''' because he went to a public school. When a homeschooler goes on a killing spree its '''most certainly not''' because of his flawless education and values. [[User:MarcusCicero|MarcusCicero]] 21:50, 10 December 2007 (EST) P.S- Just above, you also say the V Tech killer meets the definition of young. At least attempt to find logical consistency.
==VT==
Saying that the VT poem merely compared the tragedy to environmental harm is disingenuous as it is a gross understatement - more should be added to that. Regardless however, the poem had no political motivations - it was logic - unless someone here thinks that elephants DESERVE to be massacred for ivory. "Damn those darn elephants -they cheat in a poker games"--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 22:03, 10 December 2007 (EST)
==Asa Coon==
Why is Asa Coon on here? Since when is suicide mass murder?--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 09:59, 16 February 2008 (EST)

: Attempted murder ... 4 times, followed by killing himself, which is also a type of murder.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:06, 16 February 2008 (EST)
::Oh ok - sorry I missed the number of injured - my mistake.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 14:01, 16 February 2008 (EST)
I'm not a communist or anything but I really don't understand how you can class a suicide as mass murder. Surely if this is the case the list would be somewhat longer than eight entries. [[User:RedDog|RedDog]] 13:32, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Ummm...Mr. Schlafly? ==

Aschlafly reverted my edit about the latest one concerning public schools, and....may I ask why? It seemed a logical followup to what was said. --[[User:JMarks|JMarks]] 23:01, 9 June 2008 (EDT)

== Reverts ==

Why were Jeff Weise and Kip Kinkell removed? '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User:FernoKlump/petition|Look at this petition!]] 12:55, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

== Marc Lépine ==

Why does Aschlafly keep trying to remove Marc Lepine?--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 10:54, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

: As I stated clearly, Marc had been in the workforce and was not a "young mass murderer." Also, the description for his views is misleading because it lacks hsi religious background. See, e.g., [http://www.volokh.com/posts/1142399687.shtml Volokh Blog].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:17, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

::He was also still in school and is younger than another entry on this list. His views were that he hated feminism. How is this misleading? If you don't believe me, read his suicide note.--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

<blockquote>
Forgive the mistakes, I had 15 minutes to write this. See also Annex. Would you note that if I commit suicide today 89-12-06 it is not for economic reasons (for I have waited until I exhausted all my financial means, even refusing jobs) but for political reasons. Because I have decided to send the feminists, who have always ruined my life, to their Maker. For seven years life has brought me no joy and being totally blasé, I have decided to put an end to those viragos. 

I tried in my youth to enter the Forces as an officer cadet, which would have allowed me possibly to get into the arsenal and precede Lortie in a raid. They refused me because antisocial (sic). I therefore had to wait until this day to execute my plans. In between, I continued my studies in a haphazard way for they never really interested me, knowing in advance my fate. Which did not prevent me from obtaining very good marks despite my theory of not handing in work and the lack of studying before exams. 

Even if the Mad Killer epithet will be attributed to me by the media, I consider myself a rational erudite that only the arrival of the Grim Reaper has forced to take extreme acts. For why persevere to exist if it is only to please the government. Being rather backward-looking by nature (except for science), the feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men. 

Thus it is an obvious truth that if the Olympic Games removed the Men-Women distinction, there would be Women only in the graceful events. So the feminists are not fighting to remove that barrier. They are so opportunistic they neglect to profit from the knowledge accumulated by men through the ages. They always try to misrepresent them every time they can. Thus, the other day, I heard they were honoring the Canadian men and women who fought at the frontline during the world wars. How can you explain then that women were not authorized to go to the frontline??? Will we hear of Caesar's female legions and female galley slaves who of course took up 50% of the ranks of history, though they never existed. A real Casus Belli. 

Sorry for this too brief letter. 

Marc Lépine</blockquote>

::A list of names follows, with this note attached:--[[User:DamianSuarez|DamianSuarez]] 11:38, 31 July 2008 (EDT)
<blockquote>Nearly died today. The lack of time (because I started too late) has allowed these radical feminists to survive.
Alea Jacta Est.</blockquote>

==Rename?==
It seems to me this article needs to be renamed, without the "mass" in the title. Someone who murders one person (Kimveer Gill) or just himself (Asa Coon) can't really be said to be a "mass murderer" by any sense of the definition. Maybe "Attempted mass murderers" or just "murderers", or some other adjective, for accuracy's sake. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 12:05, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Grasshopper

2008-08-26T16:00:23Z

Fyezall:

'''Grasshoppers''' are terrestrial [[herbivore|plant-eating]] [[insect]]s of the order orthoptera. They have powerful hind legs adapted for leaping. They are closely related to [[cricket (insect)|cricket]]s. Some grasshoppers are consistered [[pest]]s, such as [[locust]]s.

[[Category:Insects]]

Fly

2008-08-26T15:49:44Z

Fyezall:

A '''fly''' can be used to describe many types of flying [[insects]] of the order diptera (probably from the same [[baramin]]), though it is more likely used to mean [[house fly]] a household pest that lays [[eggs]] in [[garbage]] resulting in [[maggot]]s. Flies are the only insects to have two wings instead of zero or four ("diptera" means "two wings").

[[Category:Insects]]

Dragonfly

2008-08-26T15:48:07Z

Fyezall: expand

A '''dragonfly''' is a [[insect]] of the order Odonata, often found in [[swamp]]s. Like almost all insects, they have four wings, and they can dart very quickly.

[[Category:Insects]]

Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse

2008-08-26T15:27:14Z

Fyezall: /* Other editors responses */

<noinclude><center>[[Conservapedia:Desk|Back to the Desk]]</center> </noinclude>
=Abuse Complaints=
Archives: [[Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse/Archive1|1]]

== Wrongly block from Conservapedia ==

I tried to transfer five Wikipedia political articles to Conservapedia Sunday evening but was blocked at my home computer. I have been able to log in at the office computer. Once one is blocked, he cannot make any contact from that particular computer. Apparently, the one who blocked me, I cannot remember the moniker, but it started with a "J", thought that I had just scooped up some articles from Wikipedia. I have written 100 percent of those articles. Four are about conservatives.

The articles were:

*Billy J. Guin
*Allison R. Kolb
*Hall M. Lyons
*Ben C. Toledano, all Louisiana Republicans

*and Roy R. Theriot, a Democrat.

Wikipedia does not want the articles after 12 to 18 months on the site.

Conservapedia allows a transfer if the author wrote the article on Wikipedia.

I should be unblocked and have these five articles reverted to the screen, particularly the four on conservatives.

Please unblock me,

Billy Hathorn

bhathorn

I can also get you several dozen Wikipedia articles still on the screen about conservatives if you would like them.

:You were unblocked six hours after being blocked[http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Blockip/Bhathorn]. Are you sure that you are still getting a block, or is it just that you've encountered the [[Conservapedia:Editor's guide#Restrictions|night-editing restrictions]]?
: If you ''are'' still getting a block, perhaps you should write to a sysop (see the "Email this user" link in the left column of a sysop's user page; but you must have your own e-mail set to do this), particularly if it's your IP address that is the problem.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:59, 19 December 2007 (EST)
::bhathorn, I deleted your pages because they were copied straight from Wikipedia. This site does not allow that unless it is your own work. You've been unblocked because the articles you copied have been verified by another administrator. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 07:02, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Unblocking User:LardoBolger? ==

I've been trying to get my account unblocked ([[User:LardoBolger|Lardo Bolger]]) For nearly two months now and have mailed several sysops, including Ed Poor and Aschlafly.

I have received no response from either but dead silence, but I was fortunate enough to get at least ONE reply from Iduan, so my thanks to him. Another thanks to Learn Together for possibly inquring my block, as TK emailed me with boastful words amounting to having more power than everyone else except Schlafly himself.

Due to the nature that the block message reads "Atheistic Deceit" by TK, when I had made inquiry of his blocking to AtheistKathryn as deceitful, and the fact that sysops neither reply or act to my emails, I feel a bit discriminated against. Not only that, but the insults TK said to me just shows the lack of accountability here. Seeing as he also banned another user with the statement that atheists aren't welcome on CP, it would seem but obvious to consider discrimination of religion, even though ''I'm not Atheist.''

Among all this, not one reason I was blocked, just wild accusations and insults. I'm hoping this doesn't truly define how Conservapedia works. I never saw in the rules that being accused of Atheist, reporting/inquiring sysop abuse, or having a promiscuous mother (as was said by TK, among many other things) justifies a block here. Perhaps the rules should be changed so future editors can keep their mothers, religion, and thoughts of equality in check. Also, when signing up, it says "Real name (Optional)", so my username obviously didn't reflect my real name. However, that was also used to define why I was blocked by TK, and I feel I should say everything in one go.

I ''apologize'' for not ''understanding'' what I did wrong, and I apologize for using a different account to get a response (if any) since email seems to be only an option to read here. [[User:PhilB|PhilB]] 14:51, 28 December 2007 (EST)

:I can't see exactly why you were blocked, so I am just offering the benefit of the doubt and unblocking you. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 14:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
::Thank you VERY much, mister Fox! By all means, watch my edits if you have any suspicions! :) [[User:LardoBolger|LardoBolger]] 15:01, 28 December 2007 (EST)

== [[User:GoObama]] ==

POV pusher. [[User:TheEvilSpartan|TheEvilSpartan]] 22:41, 3 January 2008 (EST)
:Began vandalizing after I warned him. [[User:ThomasB|ThomasB]] 22:43, 3 January 2008 (EST)
::Andy's dealt with him. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:52, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Aschlafly's Removal of Legitimate Information ==

After repeated edits of the Barack Obama article to include the following fully cited, unbiased, and completely factual information:

Both [[Democrats]] and [[Republicans]] have accused him of avoiding controversial stands in an apparent attempt to make it easier to be elected to higher office. The prime example being, as a state senator in [[Illinois]], he voted "present" rather than "aye" or "nay" 129 times.<ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html</ref> However, this is not unusual given the nature of the Illinois Senate as each senator votes through the use of three buttons, green for yes, red for no, and yellow for present. As Illinois political writer and blogger Rich Miller has said, "not all 'present' votes are cowardly, including those cast by then-state Sen. Obama."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> Chris Mooney, a professor of [[political science]] at the University of Illinois, Springfield, sheds further light on the situation: "Mooney and other state capitol watchers and players say Illinois lawmakers often vote 'present' as part of a larger party or issue bloc strategy."<ref>http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18348437</ref> During that same period, he was planning to run for the [[House of Representatives]], which was unsuccessful, and then successfully for [[U.S. Senate]], in which he defeated Republican candidate [[Alan Keyes]], also an [[African American]].<ref>http://www.ilsenate.com/default.asp</ref>

Aschlafly, has threatened to ban me if I am to edit it again. However my edits were completely neutral in nature and only served to remove opinionated and accusative language and to elaborate upon the voting "present" controversy so that people will have a better understanding of both the Illinois Senate and why Sen. Obama voted in such a way.

On the talk page I have repeatedly defended the position as well as asked Aschlafly to refrain from removing the edits and at the very least, give some sort of justification for removal, something which he has yet to do. His only responses have been that what he said is right, giving no justification or information to support his claims, and to threaten me with banning if I am to edit the article again.

It is my personal belief on the matter, that he is using his administrative powers to enforce his opinion as fact and to limit attempts by others like myself, from trying to improve Conservapedia to be more neutral and factual.--[[User:ElliottRosewater|ElliottRosewater]] 16:23, 17 February 2008 (EST)

== Karajou's block of Jimmy is unwarranted ==

I believe Karajou has abused his position as a sysop and blocked [[User:Jimmy|Jimmy]] simply for disagreeing with him. Now, I could understand if Jimmy had been vulgar or insulting, but it's plain from reading the discussion at [[Talk: Obama on rifles]] that this was not the case. Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals. Karajou claimed in his [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jimmy block notice] that Jimmy was insulting and denigrating service members. This clearly isn't the case. I believe Jimmy should be unblocked at the very least. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:37, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:How do you know that "Jimmy was blocked for suggesting that a significant number of active and retired military members are Democrats and/or liberals" rather than for something else? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:09, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::That's the only thing I saw in the discussion that could remotely be considered insulting and what's more is that it was the last statement Jimmy made immediately prior to being blocked. Do me a favor and read the page and tell me where you think Jimmy insults or denigrates service members? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 19:59, 27 February 2008 (EST)
:::Is there no response? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 16:47, 1 March 2008 (EST)
:::: Regarding the lack of response, I think I saw your response when checking my watchlist whilst at work on Thursday, but didn't have time then to respond. Once home, I overlooked it because it was no longer highlighted on my watchlist. Sorry about that.
:::: It's often the case that a block is imposed not for a specific comment or edit, but for a pattern of edits or a bad attitude. Based on comments that Karajou has made to me, I gather that this is the case with Jimmy. Regardless, Jimmy has written to me and I will be passing his concerns on to Karajou for review (Karajou's "e-mail this user" link doesn't work).
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:59, 1 March 2008 (EST)

== Block of SSchultz ==

It seems to me that Karajou has blocked SSchultz for very little cause. As far as I can tell, SSchultz wasn't lying about anything; he just made the mistaken factual assumption that sections of the ''O'Bannon'' article were copied from Wikipedia. Naming the primary source when the accusation was made would have alleviated any confusion and the matter would have been closed. --Jimmy 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
: I guess you should be careful about making an accusation based on an assumption. But in any case, SSchultz has indicated elsewhere that he is not wanting to return. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:39, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Index item - Bible is for C**ts ==

I think you should remove this item from the index. It redirects to the "Bible" page. The word used carries a sexual meaning that is not appropriate for this site.

== Censored words ==
When I first heard about conservapedia I thought, "Excellent, a place to talk to like minded individuals", however I am shocked at the fact that this 'family friendly' encyclopedia allows obscenity. No matter what the subject, the term Ed Poor used (and the complaint that was deleted) is NEVER ok. As you say many times yourself, there are children reading this. Also if your sysops can use this term without any warning or blocking then you have opened the floodgates and now everyone can feel as though the can use such terms. Again I stress that such terms are obscene no matter what the context. If nothing is done about this I can only assume that conservapedia is not willing to adhere to its own rules, that the sysops are above the law and I will not consider contributing to what I once thought was clean educational resource.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 00:00, 3 April 2008 (EDT)
: In at least partial defence of Ed Poor, I would point out or remind you (and others) that although there are some words that almost everyone considers unacceptable, there are others that are more borderline, that some consider unacceptable and others consider acceptable. Furthermore (and I don't know if this applies in your case), there are words that some societies (e.g. America) considers acceptable or unacceptable but which other consider the opposite. Personally, this Aussie agrees with you regarding the word that Ed Poor used in an uncensored way. He, however, clearly considers that word to be acceptable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the rational reply Phillip. I will drop this matter now, having got a well thought out answer such as yours but before I do my I just say that I dont believe there is an english speaking country (I have been all over the world) where the word f*** is acceptable. There is nothing borderline about it and as Andy harps on about this being a clean, high quality resource I thought more would be done about it. You sysops need to set the example. I will settle the matter now but I do not wish to see anymore swearing.
[[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 14:06, 3 April 2008 (EDT)

:Don't be a d***. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

== Severe abuse of power by Karajou ==

I was looking at the Recent Changes, when I saw an exchange was occurring on Karajou's talk page. I went over to look at it. You can [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Karajou#It_Was_FLAVOR-AID.2C_Not_Kool-Aid find it here], if it is still there. You will note there is a dispute about whether it was Kool-Aid or Flavor-Aid used in the Jonestown massacres. I had recently listened to the PBS radio special on the matter, so I decided to provide that evidence to support the fact that it was Flavor-Aid being used by providing that evidence. I therefore [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AKarajou&diff=462746&oldid=462705 put this message there], supplying that. I didn't bother to leave a message, since I thought I was just providing a few links for the discussion, and linked each with the word "Flavor-Aid" to indicate the content and which I thought was correct.

Immediately thereafter, Karajou posted a message on my user talk, headed "you're stuck":
<blockquote>
Since you decided to leave a sarcastic entry on my talk page regarding Flavoraid, you're now stuck looking for real references which are going to be used to create and improve the Jonestown article I am writing. You are going to get newspaper, newsmagazine, or video references which state explicitly references to Flavoraide at Jonestown; these references will be dated within two months of November 18, 1978 and not later; and you've got until 10:30 pm central time tonight to dig them up. If what you've implied is true, they will be posted in the article, you will get the credit, and I will eat my words to that effect. If not, then I will block you for a week for the sarcasm as well as assisting in a lie. Get to work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:42, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
</blockquote>

As you can see, he is demanding that within a span of eight hours I have to find newspaper, newsmgazine, or video references with explicit documentation of a single fact from a two-month span dating almost an even thirty years ago. Since most online archives don't go back that far for free, he is essentially demanding I drive to the library '''today''' and spend some time in the stacks with microfilm, trying to meet his demand for proof, or else he says he will block me for a week.

I'm not sure this requires much more explanation, but it should be obvious I was not being "sarcastic" with my three links - it beggars the imagination to think of how much sarcasm I could fit into the repetition of a single, entirely topical word three times. It should also be obvious that even if he was allowed to make such demands of me, his demand is so unreasonable as to be difficult-to-impossible to meet. There is nothing in the rules (that state explicitly "these are the only rules") that says I have to go do research for sysops if they demand it or I will be blocked.

This is an absolutely clear and obvious abuse of Karajou's power.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 16:04, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

:Just want to draw attention to this again, since there has been no action taken or response to this abuse complaint here.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:34, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

:Karajou has stated that he went to the library himself yesterday, and he didn't block me, saying it was a "lesson learned." Since he is big enough to admit that, I withdraw my complaint of abuse, out of hope we can all get back to work.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:41, 30 May 2008 (EDT)

== Separate Section ==

Jareddr has delted my work on John McCains section titled abortion. It did not violate any CP commandments.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think this is the wrong section for your "complaint", and second, I can show evidence in the form of the document you took the section from and the ''minor'' changes you made, which didn't bring it into compliance. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 22:53, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== TerryH threats and blocking. ==

The actions of sysop TerryH over the past couple of days have been completely unprofessional, damaging to the reputation of this project, and so far unchecked by the administration. The core issue is that a statement made by TerryH on the main Talk page was shown by others, beginning with Aggrieved, to be incorrect. Instead of simply accepting the correction when supporting evidence was presented, he threatened Aggrieved and eventually blocked him. He then went on to block others who stepped in to support Aggrieved, invoking arbitrary rules like MYOB to silence them. His arrogance and abusive use of his sysop privileges to threaten and punish others who were abiding by CP principles reflects poorly on the project, and sets a bad example for the students who use it. The threads can be found on the main Talk page under the headings " Supreme Court decision re: Habeas Corpus" and " Outlandish Gitmo assertions and the unfortunate consequences", as well as the user talk page for Aggrieved and other users he's blocked. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

== Bugler ==

Bugler, IMO, inappropriately blocked Dannyredful for "complicity" in the fake signatures added to the Lenski letter. When asked to explain, Bugler stated the "complicity" was for not deleting the names off the list. Of course, not only had Danny added his name BEFORE most of these names were listed, but there were a number of other users who either added their name or posted AFTER fake names were added without any punishment. This is not the first time Bugler has been reported for abuse in his short time as a user and sysop. He has been singled out for his heavy-handed approach and seeming "power trip". Are we now all responsible to the point of being blocked if we don't correct information that we may not know isn't true? Is NOT editing something now a blockable offense?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that DannyRedful was watching and adding sarcastic remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. DannyRedful's claims that he did not know the names were of footballers and football managers in not credible. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused embnarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia. DannyRedful's further claim that he was in a Catch 22 situation because edits on talk pages are inviolate - the changes required were on an article talk page, not a personal 'castle' - s also inadequate and Jesuitical. The serious consequences of sending an email with spoof messages outweighs any considerations of rules about editing, which hardly applied in this case anyway. Therefore not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:48, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:Perhaps you'll post a message here and on his talk page apologizing to Danny for blocking him when you were the one mistaken? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:54, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I have apologised to Danny and have blocked Jareddr as the true culprit. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:55, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: What is it that Jareddr has done wrong? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:00, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::He did what I wrongly accused the now-banned sock DannyRedful of doing. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Oh?
:::* Added sarcastic remarks? Nope, they don't look sarcastic to me. Humorous, actually.
:::* Claimed that he didn't know the names were footballers? Nope, that ''was'' [[user:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]].
:::* He was in a catch 22? Nope, that was DannyRedful again.
:::* Not removing names of banned users? How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?
::: So I ask again, what is it that Jareddr did wrong?
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:45, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

It really isn't all that difficult, Philip. If one examines the history of the Lenski talk page it will be clear that Jareddr was watching and adding sarcastic - or 'humorous' as you will have it - remarks every time I blocked a parodist account. Had the email been sent with these names appended, it would have caused grave embarrassment to Andy and legitimate signatories, and caused great damage to the reputation of Conservapedia.

You ask: ''How is it an offence to ''not'' do something that is not his job to do?''

It is not credible that Jareddr did ''not'' know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia. In virtually every legal sysstem on the planet, standing by and letting an offence take place when one had foreknowledge of that planned offence, is in itself a crime. On that analogy, and by any rational standards of conduct, not removing the names was akin to sabotage, and a three day block is merciful in the extreme.

If you cannot see that, then I doubt that you are cut out for the role of Ombudsman that you appear to have assumed. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 06:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:PS: this is the text of an email to me from Jareddr: ''Oh, and the reason I didn't remove the names was because I didn't sign on to the letter. It can be sent with whatever names Aschlafly wants on it. He was the one who kept changing the number. I wanted nothing to do with the letter, and if he looks foolish for having those names on there, it will only add to the foolishness of sending the letter in the first place. Ciao!''

He knew the spoofs would damage CP, and he deliberately did nothing.

::Um, it seems you're under the impression Jareddr '''didn't''' remove the names from the list in an attempt to make Andy look bad by sending a spoofed email (''"It is not credible that Jareddr did not know that the names were spoofs intenfed to damage Conservapedia... not removing the names was akin to sabotage"''). The problem is, he did remove the signatures of the blocked users, many times over: [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476461][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476463][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476464][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476466][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476467][http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=prev&oldid=476468].

::I think you better check that you copied the text from the right email, because at the moment it contradicts what Jareddr did (I hardly think he would say he didn't remove the names of parodists when in reality he did). While you're at it you may want to unblock and apologise, whether Jareddr's comments were appropriate or not is a matter between him and you, but the rest of his actions were the complete opposite of what you accuse him of. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:35, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Thanks, StatsMsn. Bugler, I had my suspicions about the names because so many were new accounts, but I didn't pick the names themselves as spoofs, and I don't see why Jareddr should have (although one edit comment does indicate that he did know or eventually realise this). But more to the point, as StatsMsn said, Jareddr ''was removing'' the names that you blocked. I assumed that your reasoning for blocking was that perhaps he missed a few, so you somehow saw that as deliberate, given that he'd got the rest, but now I'm wondering if you didn't realise that he was removing them at all. To put it another way, Jareddr was ''helping'' you by removing from the list of co-signers the names that you blocked. Simply blocking them was not likely to result in Andy not including them on the letter (as he would likely not have realised that they were blocked). They also had to be removed, and Jareddr was doing that.
:: And in case you haven't gathered by now, the issue is not whether the spoof names would damage CP; I agree that they would, and I was glad that you found cause to block them (as I said, I was suspicious, but didn't have a good reason to remove them). I realised what was going on when I saw Jareddr removing them, and his edit comments explained ''why'' he was removing them (because you were blocking them). Without that, I might just have reverted his removal of those names.
:: I'd rather not play the role of ombudsman (although an ombudsman usually acts on complaints; in this case I acted on my own initiative), but the best way to put an ombudsman out of business is to give him no cause to exist. And I was actually doing what you said I should be doing: not "standing by and letting an offence take place".
:: I think I saw a comment somewhere that Jareddr was a sock of someone else, and if so, he should be blocked permanently, but not for this alleged offence.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::Thanks for your response, Philip. I don't want this to become an endless ping-pong match but would just add that Jareddr deleted the spoofsignatures one by one as I barred the spoofers. You might argue that my barring was the only way he knew they were spoofers. I argue that he ''knew'' they all were, and would have let any that I didn't bar go through, to the detriment of CP. I feel that StatsMan may be implying bad faith on my part in my reproduction of Jareddr's email to me. I would be happy to forward the email to you so that you can asses this for yourself. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:34, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: On the basis of what I've seen so far, I see no reason for coming to the conclusion that Jareddr ''knew'' that many of the signatories were spoofs. I've no reason to doubt your honesty in reproducing Jareddr's letter above, but I'm sensing that you only reproduced part of it, and perhaps there's more that reinforces your belief about him. If that is the case, then yes, please forward the e-mail to me. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler recently blocked yours truelly for a period of three days, forunatlly I'm busy with my new job so it didn't really disrupt me that much... But I digress. IMO the block was vindictive and without merit, it was over a disagreement in the [[Hollywood Values]] article where I had added some true and valid information, he removed it, I placed it back with an explanation, where I had the misfortune of writing liblelous. I immediatly recieved a three day(!) block for this.

I wasn't trying to insult him, nor was saying that anyone would have a case against him. For a site that credits itself for not subscribing to the "laws" of political correctness, anyone who isn't a sysop sure has to treas lightly lest he/she be blocked. And even if you're trying to make a point, long blocks discourage many people from returning. Perhaps the whole block policy should be reviewed? Thanking the administrators in advance. '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 03:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

== Joaquin Martinez ==

Are any of the admins going to confront Joaquin over his refusal to discuss editing with Tom Moore? It's becoming increasingly petty n the part of the former, and a real good reason not to edit at Conservapedia. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 16:38, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:Specifics please (links, diffs, etc.). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:01, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Just noticed this. I happened to have written up a summary of the problem earlier for Andy, so here it is again -

The whole deal with [[Greek influence on Western Culture]] with Joaquin is getting absurd. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466769 This] was the article before I came along and rewrote the whole thing. Clearly, a mess. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466874 My version] is more concise and much better written, I believe. Shortly thereafter, Joaquin began editing the article again. I wasn't too surprised, since he was the person who put together and edited most of the previous version. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=466966 He proceeded] to add a bit of good material and some other things. I [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture&oldid=467339 incorporated his material] and cleaned up the formatting of the page again, as well as removed a picture of Pericles that had no relevance on an article that didn't even mention his name. I suggested to Joaquin that he could write a bit about Pericles, and then the picture would be perfectly appropriate. Joaquin undid my edits without explaining himself. So I redid them, and he blocked me for a month. [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Joaqu%C3%ADn_Mart%C3%ADnez#Tom_Moore After several people questioned him], Joaquin's block was undone by another sysop. He stated that I shouldn't have "removed important material." But as you can see, I didn't. I made the important material concise, and removed an irrelevant image until it became relevant. He refused to discuss it further or explain himself.

Following this, I posted a message on his talk page, saying I wanted to work it out and describing my reasons. He ignored it, and I after a few days I redid my edits. He reverted them. I posted another message on his talk page, begging him not to ignore me. He ignored it, and when I redid the edits, he reverted them again. And then the whole cycle repeated itself.

I'm not sure what I have to do here to make him stop so the article can be improved. He clearly has seen my messages, since he has edited somewhat and replied to other people on the talk page. If he wasn't a sysop, he would have been blocked long ago for refusing to discuss his reverts of good edits and redoing them several times over.

:He finally, after two other sysops posted on the page asking about this, deigned to reply to me, and our conversation thereafter can be found [[Talk:Greek_influence_on_Western_Culture|here]]. He accused me of removing several items of information, which I pointed out were actually almost entirely still in the article (his ignorance of this makes me suspect he never read my edits). He also accused me of removing two images, which I ''did'' remove for very good reasons (they are irrelevant). I replied point-by-point and remarkably patiently, considering he had already blocked me previously for disagreeing with him (a block undone by another sysop, and never apologized for). Now he has begun to ignore me again.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be mostly caused by that irrelevant picture right? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 14:22, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:::You'd have to ask him. He claims I also removed other information, but I believe him to be in error, as I demonstrated. We both agree I removed an image of Pericles (not mentioned in the article, only in the See Also links) and an image of the Delphic Oracle (not mentioned in the article or anywhere else on the page). He thinks they belong there, but won't say why other than that he "spent time looking for them" or they are "important." I really can't answer further as to his views, though, since he refuses to discuss it.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Someone tried to hack my account ==

This morning I received an email that someone from IP address "83.146.14.24" tried to steal my password. I think that standard procedure would be to "block" that IP from the site, so what can be done about it? Thanks. --[[User:Alpnineone|Alpnineone]] 14:03, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

== DeanS abusing power ==
===DLerner complaint===
DeanS has abused his Sysop power in blocking [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby Jirby]. Here is the history:

* [[User:DeanS]] bocked [[User:Impm|Impm]] because of an "[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Impm edit war]".
* [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] thought that the block was unfair, and [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 told DeanS] what he thought.
* DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=next&oldid=504854 '''he''' will be blocked].
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Philip_J._Rayment&diff=prev&oldid=504857 Jirby complains] to [[User:Philip J. Rayment|PJR]] about the way he was treated to DeanS.
* [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Jirby DeanS blocks Jirby].

First of all, DeanS was abusive in the way he spoke to Jirby; second, he has no right to block him for complaining to a sysop. MYOB is <big>'''not'''</big> an answer! It paves the way for abuse and must be stopped!

{{User:DLerner/sig}} 21:20, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

===Philip's response===

: I agree. I've disagreed with my fellow administrators before on this. From their point of view, they don't want to waste time having to justify blocks to any Tom, Dick, or Harry who decides to cause trouble by second-guessing the adminstrator's actions. That's understandable, but, as you mention, can lead to problems the other way, where they are not answerable. Unfortunately, this Abuse page appears to have no mechanism in place to resolve issues raised here, but its existence does at least imply that there is some freedom to question actions.
: In this particular case, DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby ''did not raise that again''. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did ''something different'', yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm. How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator ''is'' his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

::Philip, while I respect your right to disagree with my decision to block Jirby, I don't repect your right to undo my block. I have therefore reblocked him. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 23:56, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
::: I pointed out that your block was unjustified. Your rebuttal? There was none. You have not disputed any point I made, or justified your block in any way. I don't accept that you ''have'' a right to block for an invalid reason. {{Bible ref|Matthew|7|3}} [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Bugler's response===
::::My reading of the situation is that Dean has not ''abused'' power at all, but is ''using'' his power wisely in ridding CP of people whose ''sole'' motivation in coming here is to cause trouble. It it a sad day when certain administrators think it fit to weigh in on the side of these troublemakers, exercising poor judgement and an overly-liberal attitude. I believe that PJR's interference in this matter is completely unjustified, as it was in the Daphnea business. He should accept the judgement and good faith of other sysops and those with blocking powers, and not set himself up as a whited sepulchre. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]]
::::: Bugler, will you please supply evidence that Jirby's "sole motivation" is to cause trouble? Until you do, your argument fails. And if you want to provide evidence of unjustified intereference on my part, please use an example where you got it right. [[user:Daphnea|Daphnea]] was not such a case. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Dean's response===
In response to DLerner's complaint above.

Point 1. User:DeanS bocked Impm because of an "edit war".

1. We all know the Barack Obama article is a contentious article. Editors are constantly changing Andy's edits and he reverts them back. This is exactly the situation when Impm removes Andy's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=504849 here].
2. Then Andy reverts Impm's edits [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504849here].
3. Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504850 here]. Here is his edit comment "(1) Obama did not go to an Islamic school, 2) he does town hall meetings every day, including one today, where he didn't read from a teleprompter."
4. Then I revert Impm's edit [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=next&oldid=504852 here]. My edit comment is "Stopping edit war. Impm, you will discuss further desired changes on the talk page."

I believe Impm knew that he would start an edit war by removing Andy's edit's. (See #1) This is confirmed when Andy reverts Impm's edits. (See #2) Then Impm takes out two whole paragraphs. (See #3) If I'm not around, I can see where this is headed. Andy will see Impm's edits and revert them. This is why I make the comment in #4.

5. I block Impm for starting a edit war. 11:43, August 25, 2008 DeanS (Talk | contribs | block) blocked Impm (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day (account creation disabled) ‎ (Edit war)

I could have just given Impm a warning, but he has a history of complaining about this [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Impm article], and has now gone from using the talk page to directly causing contentious edits he should know will be reverted. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I believe his edits are starting an edit war and I'm stopping it.

Point 2. Jirby thought that the block was unfair, and told DeanS what he thought.

1. Jirby is not an innocent bystander. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jirby His contributions] show a repeated pattern of complaining about several of our contentious articles: Richard Lenski, Obama, Deceit, Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness‎, and Quote mining‎ articles.
2. Jirby [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=prev&oldid=504854 comments on my talk page], protesting Impm's block.

Jirby should be making positive contributions to Conservapedia, not complaining about another editor's block. He is not "Minding his own business". As I explained above, I considered Impm's edits as starting an edit war.

Admins on Conservapedia have to make blocking decisions every day, and I don't appreciate other editors going around questioning our decisions instead of editing. To me, Jirby is being a troublemaker and needs to get back to editing.

Point 3. DeanS tells Jirby to MYOB, or he will be blocked.

This is true. as I explained above, Jirby is not minding his own business and he needs to get back to editing or he will be blocked.

Point 4. Jirby complains to PJR about the way he was treated to DeanS.

If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite. I don't believe my comments are abusive, they make the point quite clearly.

Point 5. DeanS blocks Jirby.

This is true. I disagree with DLerner about complaining to other sysops. I don't feel editors should run to other admins and complain about things they never should have been involved in the first place. I warned Jirby and he disregarded my warning. A one day block from me is linient and serves notice that I mean what I say and he needs to stop this behavior. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:17, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

In response to Philip's comments:

Point 1. "DeanS has gone beyond that. That is, he told Jirby to mind his own business (regarding Impm's block), and Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable. So he did something different, yet DeanS blocked him anyway for not folling the "advice" to mind his own business on the blocking of Impm."

As I mentioned in Point 4 in my response to DLerner, "If Jirby was minding his own business, he would have returned to editing and let Impm complain when he returned from his block. That's not what Jirby does. He goes to Philip, to complain. To me, Jirby has just disregarded by comment and done the opposite." To me, this contradicts Philip's statement "Jirby did not raise that again. Instead, he approached another administrator (me) to ask if what DeanS said was acceptable." While Philip believes this is acceptable behavior, I don't. To me it's a tattletale childlike behavior, "Mommy, Joey did this" and "Mommy, Joey did that." This is troublemaker behavior, not conducive to make positive contributions to Conservapedia.

Point 2. "How Jirby is spoken to by an administrator, or what he is told by an administrator is his business. So Jirby's block was not justified, and I will therefore unblock him."

Even if Philip disagreed with my block, I don't think he should have undid my block. As noted above, I believe my blocks were justified. I believe Philip is abusing his power by unblocking another admin's block. Since my block should not have been reversed in the first place, I am reinstituting the block. --[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 10:38, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

===Other editors responses===
:::I am new, so I understand my opinion means next to nothing. I am trying to learn the "codes" and behaviors here, important in any online community. My only suggestion, if you will take this in the way it is intended, is that I find "MYOB" to be rude and very unwelcome. While I see DeanS's point (he edited something I wrote, with a very valid point, but in a very rude way, I felt. NOt offering advice or help to a new user, just being arbitrary) I think a lot can be avoided by saying "Please understand this is between the poster and myself" or something rather than MYOB. Does that seem fair? Just because we are given power in life, that isn't a call to forget common decency -- *yet still do the best job as administrator and sysop*. Again, I am trying not to step on toes, just say as a woman I think there is room for gentleness here.--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 10:49, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

At least DeanS's block was only for a day. That's a slap on the wrist here. Has anyone bothered looking at [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Ed+Poor&page= Ed Poor's block log]? 1 week for "disruption" (code for "edits I don't like"), 2 weeks for "misunderstanding the purpose of talk pages vs. debate pages" (something that is never made clear, as many debates rage on talk pages, and no attempt was made to explain the difference prior to blocking), infinite for 90/10, all sorts of blocks (up to 2 weeks) for "personal remarks" (''not'' "personal attacks", this covers basically anything mentioning him at all), 1 month for 90/10 (bogus, much more than 10% were to articles) and "useless and misleading comments" on a talk page (actually a series of questions), 1 week for editing his talk page comments (minor changes to links), and let's not forget my impending infinite block for pointing this out. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 11:27, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Swing state

2008-08-26T01:47:44Z

Fyezall: forgot a big one

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties.

==2008 Swing States==
[[Colorado]] 
[[Florida]] 
[[Iowa]] 
[[Michigan]] 
[[Minnesota]] 
[[New Hampshire]] 
[[New Mexico]] 
[[Ohio]] 
[[Oregon]] 
[[Pennsylvania]] 
[[Wisconsin]] 
[[Virginia]] 

[[Category:United States]]

User:Fyezall

2008-08-26T01:44:03Z

Fyezall:

...Just seein' what's goin' on...

Swing state

2008-08-26T01:42:04Z

Fyezall: grammar

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s in which neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties.

==2008 Swing States==
[[Colorado]] 
[[Iowa]] 
[[Michigan]] 
[[Minnesota]] 
[[New Hampshire]] 
[[New Mexico]] 
[[Ohio]] 
[[Oregon]] 
[[Pennsylvania]] 
[[Wisconsin]] 
[[Virginia]] 

[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2008-08-26T01:41:18Z

Fyezall: expand/clarify definition

'''Swing states''' are [[state]]s neither the [[Republican]] nor [[Democratic]] candidate has a clear majority of the voters' support prior to a Presidential election, and therefore could "swing" the election results in either direction. They are also known as "battleground states" because they are where the majority of the campaigning takes place for both parties.

==2008 Swing States==
[[Colorado]] 
[[Iowa]] 
[[Michigan]] 
[[Minnesota]] 
[[New Hampshire]] 
[[New Mexico]] 
[[Ohio]] 
[[Oregon]] 
[[Pennsylvania]] 
[[Wisconsin]] 
[[Virginia]] 

[[Category:United States]]

Swing state

2008-08-26T01:37:19Z

Fyezall: add more

Swing states are states that could reasonably vote for either major party's candidate in a Presidential election.

==2008 Swing States==
[[Colorado]] 
[[Iowa]] 
[[Michigan]] 
[[Minnesota]] 
[[New Hampshire]] 
[[New Mexico]] 
[[Ohio]] 
[[Oregon]] 
[[Pennsylvania]] 
[[Wisconsin]] 
[[Virginia]] 

[[Category:United States]]

Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008-08-26T01:13:28Z

Fyezall: /* Any POV here? */

Whoever selected the picture seems to have deliberately tried to find an unattractive one. Sorry, but conservative bias is just as bad as liberal bias.
: I disagree. This is '"Conservapedia" and I don't mind a conservative bias. I'm tired of the liberal bias everywhere else and liberals trying to get rid of anything they don't agree with. I'm annoyed at seeing Hillary's smiling, happy face on all the other sites and I'm happy to see this picture. [[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]][[User Talk:Crocoite|talk]] 13:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Do you know why bias (any bias) is bad in the first place? Becuase it makes us ignorant to the true state of the world. The cost of saying that "in my bias, slavery, the holocaust, and the murder and marginalization of the american indians never happened" is you are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past. Has hillary made mistakes? sure! We all have. But no one's life is doomed to only their mistakes and failures, no matter how much that's all we care to see.

Bias, no matter where it comes from, is inevitable. We're all humans, we all have ideas, we can't help but convey at least a little of our ideas through what we do. So we may as well give up, for the most part, on trying to be impartial, because it's not really going to work anyway. As for ignorance, a person needs to be exposed to alot of bias before they can gain a good idea of the "true state of the world." --[[User:StevenM]] 11:52 Oct 10 2007

Did someone suggest that Hillary could be anything other than unattractive? LOL. The picture here is better than fair. --[[User:Bob Arctor|Bob Arctor]] 22:47, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm trying so hard not to make a crude joke about that. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 22:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Huh? The criticism of Hillary Clinton consists entirely of a poll? [[User:Kolbe|Kolbe]] 23:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Most people it seems are made or broken based on their polls, even if the people polled do not understand the questions they are being polled on. [[User:TheComputerWizard|TheComputerWizard]]

== Presidential Campaign 2008 ==
I think what she meant that no mother had been a MAJOR candidate for president. The correction is basically of very minor importance.[[User:Alloco1|Alloco1]] 19:15, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

RObS entire new addition regarding Hillary's possible "clinical condition" should be removed as gossip at best. The cited reference is a conservative website that references a book written by someone with no medical training, and yet we are to accept her as an authority on Hillary's possible mental illness? This is just a baseless smear. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:08, 18 May 2007 (EDT)
:Baseless smear? Since when do smears need a base? It has been well documented, for instance, what an idiot George W. Bush is, without foundation. For example, Google Bush+idiot brings up 1,590,000 hits. [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%2Bidiot] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:11, 18 May 2007 (EDT)

It may be true that some people call people names but reputable encyclopedias do not. The Wikipedia entry on George W. Bush does not call him an idiot and does not offer anyones psycho-analysis of his character. I may not like it that the entire article is devoted to creating a negative perception of Hillary Clinton but at least most of it is seems factual. If you want to be taken seriously at all, you should remove paragraph.[[User:Wismike|Wismike]]

:Oh really? What's this? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_on_the_Couch Bush on the Couch] and this [http://www.counterpunch.org/wormer1011.html Addiction, Brain Damage and the President] or this [http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/April05/slime-mold.Bush.Cheney.ssl.html Slime Mold Beetle named for Bush] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathidium_rumsfeldi] All this found its way into the GW mainspace. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:40, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

The articles that you are citing are not part of the article on George W. Bush in Wikipedia. The "Bush on the Couch" article describes a book by that name and has a section that presents pro and con criticism of that book. The other articles aren't part of Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia has a whole section of books about George Bush and Hillary Clinton and divides them neatly into pro and con categories. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]]
:Go into the histories and you will find them. And you will also find a string of corpses from RfC's and Community banning of editors who protested that garbage for as long it stood. Sure, the trash was taken out after people who protested were banned for protesting it. That is the Wikiopedia way. And frrankly, at this point I don't care. It did it's damage when Bush still had better poll numbers, so obviously kicking the old boy when he's down seems cruel, doesn't it? Timing, is everything. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
I find it interesting that RobS justifies smearing Clinton in this article on the basis of smears against George Bush he alleges to have found on the internet at large. Sounds like he's got a small chip on his shoulder that is having a negative affect on his editorial policies. NitramNos 13:57, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
:I didn't say it, it's a reputable citation. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:06, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

The list of "intriguing" symptoms Buchanan purported to include in her endnotes -- specifically endnote 74, Chapter 1 -- appears to be missing from the book entirely. Buchanan does not reference her study of "narcissistic personality style" elsewhere in the book.

Additionally, Fox and MSNBC failed to identify Buchanan as a senior adviser for Republican presidential candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo (CO). Buchanan's biography on the back of the book's dust jacket also fails to note her role as an adviser for Tancredo's campaign. The back cover includes a note of praise from Tancredo.

Human Events and Regnery Publishing are both subsidiaries of Eagle Publishing, a "leading conservative publishing company."

== Recommend ==

[[Conservapedia:Manual of Style/Politicians]] - [[User:Myk|Myk]] 02:21, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==A genuine classic==
For you serious students of politics, and others who worship at the alter of public opinion polls, this Poll is a classic in the genre of public opinion molding and shaping. You just gotta love the choices given respondents,

*Very corrupt
*Somewhat corrupt
*Not very corrupt
*Not at all corrupt

Can we suppose the key idea here must be "corrupt"? and what influence do you suppose the wording may have had on the findings of the poll? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:56, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

==For those who dislike this woman==
I have a funny picture i would like to share with you all (espically those who dont like her): [http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jul2003/BabyPunch.jpg funny pic] --[[User:Will N.|Will N.]] 12:02, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
: Hah. We can all find ''hilarious'' photoshoppings on the internet. We should probably also not try and look for the worst pictures of someone for their article - not too bad here, but the [[Al Gore]] article - eugh. --Wikinterpreter'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Wikinterpreter talk?]

== Hillary ==

Senator Clinton is the best Democratic candidate for President in the upcoming election.

Past both biases. You can't just insert opinion pieces into a "factual" article. If you want to be "conservative" in your writing, then get rid of the political/ideological opinion. This is ridiculous for a website that presupposes itself to be more factual than wikipedia.

== Her Friend, Dick Morris? ==

orly? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 13:53, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

*Dick was always more Bill's friend that Hillary's...but the truth is, for the first several years, until Morris wised-up, they were indeed calling each other friends. Now I think it safe to say he detests everything about her, while still liking Bill. I am missing the reference. Help! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:03, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

:I can't find any ref that he gets along with either of them, or has for years. As far as I can tell, they fell out years ago and Morris now makes a tidy living crapping all over the Clintons. And before anybody says it, I really don't CARE about the Clintons being pooped on, I just was curious if there was any reason to characterize Morris as anything other than a political enemy of Clinton at this point? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 15:07, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

::Ok, so we've talked about "her friend" being inaccurate here on the talk page, as is suggested at the top of the article. What's the next step? I don't want to overwhelm the page with suggestions that could get lost in a shuffle... [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 10:59, 20 September 2007 (EDT) ''<-shut up and deal...''

== Corrections for this article ==

Well, for some reason I can't edit the article myself. However, I am Hillary Clinton. Your article characterizes me as a conspiracy theorist, which is unfair. I did not knowingly accept money from Peter Paul, but I have asked my staff to return the money which he supposedly donated if it is found that he is telling the truth. I do condemn the smear campaign on General Petraeus, which was clearly inappropriate. I am not an irresponsible cut-and-runner. I voted for and supported Barry Goldwater in 1964, though today I consider myself a moderate. I request that Conservapedia correct my article as it is rather offensive to me at the moment. [[User:HClinton|HClinton]] 20:14, 9 November 2007 (EST)

:Would you be willing to answer the question [[Ann Coulter]] posed:
::"How about having [[Tim Russert]] ask Hillary if she believes the [[New Testament]] is the [[perfection]] of the [[Old Testament]]? She claims to be a [[Christian]]. Let's get it on the table: Is she or isn't she? It doesn't get any more bare-bones than that.<ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23174 ''Human Events''], October 31, 2007.</ref>
<references/>

Rob, I don't see how an Ann Coulter quote you've dragged up is relevant to HClinton's suggestions. If you're curious, I would suggest posing such questions on her talk page instead. The talk pages for articles at Conservapedia, however, should remain on topic as much as possible. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 10:57, 10 November 2007 (EST)

*I hate to be a "party pooper", but when the ''real'' Hillary Clinton brought over danish this morning, she told me she had never registered with Conservapedia. Imagine my shock and dismay upon her telling me that face-to-face! I was absolutely crushed! Accordingly I have removed the parodist user. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:33, 10 November 2007 (EST)

Fair enough... I suppose it's all irrelevant then. In any case, TK can always just ask her himself. XD [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 13:56, 10 November 2007 (EST)

:*Indeed I did! And like the user pretending to be Hillary, ''the real Hillary'' objected to being called a "cut-and-runner as well. She wanted to make sure everyone at CP, indeed in the United States, knows that long before she supported the War in Iraq, she opposed it, and vocally, just as she has since deciding she was duped by that evil President George Bush, with his conspiracy to launch World War III.
:*And in speaking of conspiracies, she also asked that I let everyone know she isn't as conspiracy theorist at all, and resents those anti-feminists who portray her as such. Aside from the vast Right-Wing conspiracy out to smear her and her husband and the massive conspiracy of George W. Bush and the Haliburton Corporation to publicly fund the Middle East oil grab, she does not generally subscribe to conspiracy theories at all.
:*She added she is happy to directly and plainly answer the questions of right-wing cabalist and smear merchant Ann Coulter, if only she would define what the meaning of the words "Christian" and "perfection" mean. She looks forward to an open dialog with Coulter and the American people!
--[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:43, 10 November 2007 (EST)

I don't see where it says she voted for Goldwater. She has always said she was a "Goldwater girl," and raised in a good Republican home. It wasn't until she went off to an Eastern elite college with a commie-dominated faculty and got mixed up with a lowlife scumbag that the [[prodigal]] child departed from the values her parents instilled in her as a girl. But there is such a thing as redemption; she can still make up for shame she brought to her parents by marrying that putz and find her Goldwater roots again. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:14, 10 November 2007 (EST)
::Easter elite college? Didn't bush go to Yale? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 16:57, 14 November 2007 (EST)

I don't think anyone really supports abortion, as it claims Hillary does a few times in this article. Can we maybe change that to "supports the right for women to have abortions"?

:I think that sounds fair. Can I also raise a warning flag here - when you compare this page against Huckabee's, then H Clinton hasd a lot of controversies listed, but M Huckabee does not. This seems to be ludicrously unbalanced. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 20:04, 18 January 2008 (EST)

== Accusations of Stolen Gifts ==

I do not see how this section of the article is relevant. It appears that the first family quickly realized its misunderstanding, and corrected it. [[User:Adg2011|Adg2011]] 21:49, 1 April 2008 (EDT)

== Any POV here? ==

ok, im kinda new to conservapedia, but I am just wondering. This article seems to have a lot of right-wing POV without instating the good things that Hilary Clinton did. If possible, can someone please list the good things about Hilary Clinton?
::This is not Wikipedia. We don't give affirmative action to liberal nonsense. Relevancy is what matters and not catering to liberal tripe in order to give "balance". [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:41, 1 June 2008 (EDT)

::So are you saying that Clinton's childhood, early years, career, time as wife of the Arkensas governor, and everything else about her is irrelevant as far as Conservapedia is concerned? Or are you saying that to say anything good about HC has to be an example of liberal bias? [[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 16:00, 23 June 2008 (EDT)

It's the classic cop out for CP.com We'll list all sorts of negatives for people on the wrong side of the political tracks for our tastes 'till the cows come home. Bu suggest that even one or two posiives be listed, and you're hit with som retarded come back insinuating that unlike wikipedia we do not have a liberal agenda. It's ignorance at work. Get used to it. [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 20:36, 24 August 2008 (EDT)

==Infobox==
I tried using the President infobox for Senators, like at [[Joe Biden]], but I realize it doesn't work, for either, actually as it mentions "president". They're useful, could someone make one for Senators? And use it for Biden's, which right now says "Candidate for Viceth President of the United States", which ''almost'' works. McCain's too, I think. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 21:13, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

2008-08-26T01:01:45Z

Fyezall: nice infobox, but it says "president", is that a problem?

{{President
|image=Hillary-6.jpg
|seq=Senator
|term_start=January 3, 2001
|term_end=Present
|party=Democratic
|previous=Daniel Patrick Moynihan
|next=Incumbent
|birth_date=October 26, 1947
|birth_place=Chicago, Illinois
|spouse=[[Bill Clinton]]
|religion=[[United Methodist]]
}}

'''Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton''' (b. 1947) is the junior [[United States Senate|Senator]] from [[New York]] and was [[First Lady]] of the United States of America during the [[Bill Clinton|Clinton Administration]] from 1993 to 2001. In 2000, she ran for the New York Senate seat vacated by the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] Senator [[Daniel Patrick Moynihan]]. Backed by the White House, she obtained the Democratic nomination for this Senate seat, and then won easily against [[Republican Party|Republican]] Rick Lazio (who entered the race when [[Rudy Giuliani]] withdrew). She ran for the Democratic Presidential Candidacy, winning more primaries than any female politician in American history. On June 7th, 2008 she conceded defeat to [[Barack Obama]] after a closely challenged campaign.

==Controversy over alleged embellishment of career events==

{{quotebox|What is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of [[cognitive dissonance]] in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. ... But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop NAFTA. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "[[Wag the Dog]]," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration. - [[Peggy Noonan]] [http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html]}}

==Presidential Campaign 1992==

===Raising taxes on foreign corporations===
In the final 72 hour election crunch of the [[1992 Presidential election]] at Hillary Clinton's behest, the issues were framed as "raising taxes on foreign corporations." Hillary Clinton alleged that the Bush/Quayle ticket, the [[Republican Party]], and the Reagan coalition wanted to grant foreign [[corporation]]s doing business in the [[United States]] massive tax cuts. The Clinton campaign promised to thwart these efforts and grant the American taxpayers a [[tax cut]].<ref>''The Agenda: Inside the Clinton White House'', Bob Woodward, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1994. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/mediawatch/1994/watch19940801.asp]</ref>

The result in the first 100 days after Clinton Administration won a plurality was a massive tax cut for foreign corporations through [[NAFTA]] and a [[tax increase]] on the American people.<ref>[http://www.clintonmemoriallibrary.com/clint_econ.html William Jefferson Clinton Memorial Library]. On Aug. 10, 1993, the largest tax increase in history was signed into law, raising taxes by almost $280 billion over five years. "Instead of middle-class tax relief, President Clinton chose to include in his $241 billion tax plan higher federal gasoline taxes, tax hikes on Social Security recipients, and steep income tax hikes on small business owners. The President even tried unsuccessfully to institute a brand new $71 billion [[BTU energy tax]] that would have cost the typical family nearly $500 per year." ''The President's Forgotten Middle Class,'' Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff, 3/22/96.</ref>

===Domestic spying===

''The Hill'' magazine reported Hillary Clinton may have been involved in [[civil right]]s violations by monitoring [[illegal wiretap]]s and [[domestic spying]] on political opponents during the 1992 camapaign.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> After the revelations came to light in a book entitled, ''Her Way'' [http://www.amazon.com/Her-Way-Ambitions-Hillary-Clinton/dp/0316017426] by Don Van Natta Jr., an investigative reporter at the ''[[New York Times]]'', and Jeff Gerth, who spent 30 years as an investigative reporter at the paper, a [[Republican]] official remarked,
{{Cquote|it is rather unbelievable that [Hillary] Clinton would listen in to conversations being conducted by political opponents, but refuse to allow our intelligence agencies to listen in to conversations being conducted by [[terrorist]]s as they plot and plan to kill us.<ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-targeting-clinton-on-phone-call-snooping-2007-10-16.html GOP targeting Clinton on phone-call snooping], By Alexander Bolton, ''The Hill'', October 16, 2007.</ref> }}

== Record as First Lady ==

During [[Bill Clinton]]'s presidency Hillary Clinton initially played an important role. Immediately after his [[inauguration]] in 1993, Hillary Clinton embarked on a [[radical]] program to create a national health care system. She headed a Health Care Task Force which submitted controversial and [[extremism|extreme]] proposals to revamp this health care, which constitutes about one sixth of the U.S. economy. She was sued by the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] for violations of the [[Federal Advisory Committee Act]], and the trial judge ruled against her and the Clinton Administration. An appellate court reversed this ruling but remanded it for further proceedings, which ultimately resulted in disclosures to comply with the law.

Hillary Clinton's friend [[Vincent Foster]] supervised the defense of the litigation, but died under mysterious circumstances at the height of the controversy; the death was officially ruled a suicide. The extreme proposals were overwhelmingly rejected by [[United States Congress|Congress]]. Subsequently, the Republicans won a landslide victory in 1994, taking over both Houses of Congress.

The remainder of Hillary Clinton's tenure as First Lady was largely devoted to combating what she perceived as conspiracies. The Clinton [[White House]], wracked by multiple scandals, abruptly fired longtime members of the White House Travel Office, leading [[Congress]] to vote for a restoration of their benefits. At one point confidential tax records of Republican opponents were discovered in the White House, and no legitimate explanation was ever provided.

===Accusations of improper recruiting for Health Care Task Force ===
:''Main article: [[Clinton health care plan]]''
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) requires every panel that includes non-government employees to have open meetings.
In January 1993, the ''[[Washington Times]]'' reported the problems with Hillary Clinton's closed door [[Healthcare Task Force]] meeting and the former Watergate crusader ignoring a post-Watergate reform. Rep. Bill Clinger (R-Pa.) demanded that the closed meetings stop. In February the [[Association of American Physicians and Surgeons]] (AAPS) sued. In March, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled the task force violated the FACA. The ''Washington Times'' revealed that many task-force members Clinton claimed as federal employees were not. When a list of 511 names was released, the Times noted the list "did not meet the [GAO] request for dates of employment, salaries and detailed backgrounds." <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_8_18/ai_83699629 ''Enron vs. Hillary care: media double standard is at work''], Brent L. Bozell III, Insight on the News, March 4, 2002.</ref>

===Conspiracy theories and enemies list===
:''Main article: [[Vast right wing conspiracy theory]]
In 1995 there were approximately 1 million computers connected to the Internet. By the end of 1998, there were 50 million. In perspective, after the invention of television, it took more than 10 years before there were 50 million sets in the world. The same rise on the Internet took less than three years.<ref>[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14676 Hillary Clinton, conspiracy theorist], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily.com, February 11, 1999.</ref> This [[economic growth]] of the Internet Hillary Clinton branded as "a [[vast right-wing conspiracy]]." White House staffers were directed to write a report, at taxpayer expense, which included an enemies list of persons and organizations who subsequently endured IRS audits and harassment.<ref>Larry Klayman, WorldNetDaily 7/9/99. [http://www.alamo-girl.com/0311.htm]</ref>

In 2005, Clinton revived her campaign of Internet censorship under the guise of a vast right-wing conspiracy theory.{{fact}}

===Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction===

[[Hillary Clinton]] speaking on [[Saddam Hussein]]'s possession of [[Weapons of mass destruction]] said,
{{Cquote|I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he [Saddam] were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the [[Weapons of mass destruction|chemical and biological stocks]].<ref>[http://www.archive.org/details/HillaryClintonsviewsongoingtowarSaddamandWMDs Hillary Clinton's views on going to war, Saddam, and WMD]</ref>}}

Hillary Clinton further described the situation after weapons inspectors we're expelled during the time when America had two in the position of presidential leadership, "for the price of one."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2007/11/02/two_for_the_price_of_one Two For the Price of One], By Charles Krauthammer, November 2, 2007.</ref>
{{Cquote|In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his [[nuclear]] program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to [[terrorist]]s, including [[al Qaeda]] members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>[http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=6390 Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), October 10, 2002]. Retrieved from Zmag.org December 4, 2007.</ref>}}

===Reaction to Monica Lewinsky scandal===

[[Dick Morris]] and [[Eileen McGann]]
said that Clinton "loudly defended Bill and arranged for attacks on [[Monica Lewinsky]] when she knew the complete and sordid truth." [http://www.newsmax.com/morris/Hillary_Unmasked_morris/2008/02/29/76871.html] As the full extent of the scandal became known, however, Clinton forgave her husband, and the two appear to once again have a trusting, love-filled relationship. <ref>[http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/06/09/tem_monlede09.html]</ref>

== Record as U.S. Senator ==

In 2001, one of Hillary Clinton's first acts as U.S. Senator was to introduce a bill to abolish the [[Electoral College]]. This received insufficient support. No major legislation has been credited to Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton was reported to be the biggest spender of any freshman senator in history.<ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_7_54/ai_84454903 Hillary Clinton's spending of taxpayer money], ''[[National Review]], April 22, 2002.</ref>
[[Image:070917graveconcern-x.gif|right|thumb|400px]]
Her current plans are reintroduce an [[extremism|extreme]] proposal again to [[socialism|socialize]] the health care system, this time by converting medical records into electronic form that can be easily monitored. She also pushes for universal health coverage, considered to be a step towards a [[Single Payer]], government-controlled system.

Since joining the Senate, Clinton has belonged to a conservative prayer group with the expressed purpose of "bringing Jesus back to Capitol Hill."<ref>http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html</ref> A few of her collaborators in the group include Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan) and Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa).

===FEC fined campaign for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions===

In January 2006 Hillary Clinton's New York Senate 2000 campaign was fined $35,000 for failing to accurately report $721,895 in contributions. <ref>[http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060126mur.html Federal Elections Commission] Press Release, January 26, 2006. </ref>

===Smoking gun videotape===

WorldNetDaily reports Hillary Clinton may face a felony conviction that carries with it a five year sentence for violations of Title 2 section 437 of the U.S. federal code, which states: "Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a violation of any provision of this act which involves the making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, donation, or expenditure aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both." Peter Paul, a former friend and contributor to the Clintons, claims he donated $1.9 million to her Senate Campaign, which Hillary Clinton knew of and accepted, in violation of a $2000 limit on individual donations.<ref>[http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55320 'Smoking gun' tape indicts Hillary] Art Moore, WorldNetDaily.com, April 21, 2007.</ref> Mr. Paul will present a "smoking gun" videotape <ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/default.php?page_id=2]</ref> of the event as evidence in an ongoing lawsuit involving the Hillary Clinton's fundraising activities in California.<ref>[http://www.hillcap.org/060817_second_amended_complaint.swf]</ref>

===Failure to reform earmark process===

The noted newspaper which covers legislative affairs, ''The Hill'', reported Hillary Clinton received more [[earmark]]s for Congressional [[pork barrel]] projects than only one other United States Senator. Reforming the earmark process had been among the Democrats top priorities in the [[110th Congress]], up until the time Democrats voted to rescind the rules aimed at reform that were passed in the first 100 hours of the new Congress in January. Ethics reform and the earmark process is widely attributed as the cause why Republicans lost control of both Houses of Congress after several members had been caught up in ethical scandals. ''The Hill'' reported Sen. Clinton received 26 earmarks worth about $148.4 million total, much going to [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] contractors. <ref>[http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/clinton-can-boast-wealth-of-earmarks-2007-06-13.html Clinton can boast wealth of earmarks], By Roxana Tiron and Ilan Wurman, ''The Hill'', June 13, 2007.</ref>

===Voted against raising the minimum wage===

After voting to send troops to Iraq Hillary Clinton voted against funding the troops in Iraq. In May of 2007 Clinton voted against raising the minimum wage. <ref>[http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=12952&can_id=55463 Senate Concurrence on HR 2206] Title 8 Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007, Record Vote Number 181, 05/24/2007. [http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?cs_id=12952]</ref>

== Presidential campaign 2008 ==

=== Hillary and Nixon ===

Hillary Clinton has often been compared to [[Richard Nixon]].<ref>[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/nixon_1968_clinton_2008.html
Nixon 1968, Clinton 2008], By John Ellis, RealClearpolitics.com, November 21, 2007.</ref> Columnist Robert Novak reported in November 2007 that a Clinton agent was spreading the word that the Clinton campaign had [[scandal]]ous information about Senator [[Barack Obama]] but was not using it for purposes of party harmony. The nature of the alleged scandal was not revealed to the source of the item, a well known Democrat, who said he thought Clinton wanted to avoid a Clinton-Obama clash that would benefit a third candidate, presumably former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee and Senator [[John Edwards]].<ref>Hillary's Nixonian TacticsAgainst Obama], by Robert Novak and Timothy P. Carney, ''Human Event'', 11/21/2007.</ref>

===Failure to condemn smear campaign===
Hillary Clinton failed to vote to condemn an unpopular smear campaign conducted by the [[radical]] [[leftist]] group [[MoveOn.org]].<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-20-senate-condemn_N.htm</ref> The [[U.S. Senate]] voted 72-25 to condemn<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297498,00.html Senate Votes to Condemn MoveOn for Ad Attacking General Petraeus], [[FOX News]], September 20, 2007.</ref> the unmitigated attack upon a respected career soldier. The [[U.S. House of Representatives]] one week later by an overwhelming [[bipartisan]] consensus of 341-79 expressed popular discontent with the groups tactics.<ref>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/09/26/national/w095848D93.DTL</ref> A poll showed 58% of the American people expressed disapproval, with only 23% supporting<ref>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/23_approve_of_moveon_org_petraeus_ad_58_disapprove</ref> debasement of the political dialog over a vitally important issue of national concern. Hillary Clinton was criticized by President [[George W. Bush]] for failing to take a stand against radical extremism in civic debate.

===No criminal background checks on donors or advisers===

On September 12, 2007, the ''[[L.A. Times]]'' reported Hillary Clinton's decision to begin [[criminal]] background checks on major donors in wake of the [[Norman Hsu]] scandal. Hsu contributed more than $1 million for Hillary Clinton’s New York Senatorial race and faces charges dating back 15 years that he fleeced investors out of $1 million. <ref>[http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-hsu12sep12,1,2928455.story?coll=la-politics-campaign&ctrack=1&cset=true Campaigns feel the effects of Hsu case], By Dan Morain and Tom Hamburger, ''Los Angeles Times'', September 12, 2007.</ref> Less than one week earlier it was reported by [[MSNBC]], that Hillary Clinton was being advised by convicted criminal [[Sandy Berger]]<ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/April/05_crm_155.htm Former National Security Advisor Samuel Berger Pleads Guilty to Knowingly Removing Classified Information from the National Archives], United States Department of Justice Press Release, April 1, 2005.</ref> who plead guilty to [[theft]] of [[classified information]] from the [[National Archives]] in connection with requests for documents made by the National Commission investigating the [[September 11 terrorist attacks]] upon the [[United States]] (the [[9/11 Commission]]).
[[Image:Melting-Md.jpg‎|right|thumb|250px|Image depicting Clinton's concerns about her electability in the Presidential race.<ref>http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/cartoonarc/Melting.htm</ref>]]

===Electability===
A big concern in the Hillary Clinton camp was whether or not she was electable. An Electability Poll undertaken in June of 2007, in which the participants are asked in no certain order, a list of candidates from both parties, whether they would vote for candidate X or prefer someone else. Recent polling has revealed, of all major presidential candidates from both parties, Hillary Clinton is the only candidate to whom a majority of 52% would not vote for, or would prefer someone else. <ref>[http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/28/248165.aspx Poll: Is Hillary Electable?], by Mark Murray, ''NBC News'', June 28, 2007. Retrieved from MSNBC.com June 29, 2007.</ref> The poll results show majorities would consider voting for all other major presidential candidates, or possible candidates, to avoid voting for her.

===Promises made, promises broken===

In late August 2007 Senator [[Bill Nelson]] and other members of Florida's Congressional delegation protested the Democratic National Committee's scheme<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> to deprive Floridians of equal voting rights protection<ref>[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FL_DEMOCRATIC_PRIMARY_FLOL-?SITE=FLPET&SECTION=HOME Fla. Democrats warn of voting rights probe if state sanctioned], By Rasha Madkour, Associated Press, Aug 23, 2007. Retrieved from ''St. Petersburg Times'' August 24, 2007.</ref> in selection of delegates to the 2008 DNC Presidential nominating convention. A letter sent to DNC Chairman [[Howard Dean]], threatened legal action "to determine whether this could violate any state or [[federal law]]s governing and protecting individual [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights]].... It always has been a priority of our party to protect the rights of every eligible American to vote...We would hope the DNC will continue to honor this right."<ref>[http://www.nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ Letter from Florida Congressional Democrats to DNC Chairman Howard Dean], August 22, 2007. Retrieved from nelsonforsenate.com/feature/dean/ September 13, 2007.</ref> The move prompted Hillary Clinton to pledge not to campaign in Florida.<ref>[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/02/us/politics/02dems.html?ex=1346472000&en=d7f7216c6188da2e&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States], By Jeff Zeeleny, ''New York Times'', September 2, 2007.</ref> A week later she was campaigning in Florida.<ref>[http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2007/09/11/news/iowa/c07662f8adc84f9a8625735300091c7f.txt Candidates have events in Florida despite pledge], By Charlotte Eby, ''Sioux City Journal'', September 11, 2007.</ref>

===The nuclear option===
[[Barbara Olson]] in her 1990 book ''Hell to Pay'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0895262746/102-6782111-3076127?SubscriptionId=11NRD61HE570TCSR99R2]</ref> made a convincing case that the former Goldwater girl, raised in a Republican home, while working for the staff of the House Judiciary Committee preparing impeachment Articles against [[President Nixon]], studied Nixon very closely. Olson and others have now commented how Hillary Clinton built her political career by learning to think and act as Nixon did, and modeling herself after him. These writers cite instance after instance of such behavior. <ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45138 Hillary's Secret War], The plan to silence Internet journalists, Joseph Farah, ''WorldNetDaily.com'', July 6, 2005.</ref> When Democratic competitor [[Barack Obama]] made a public statement vowing not to use [[nuclear weapons]], Hillary Clinton shot back,
{{Cquote|I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons}}reflecting Nixon's thoughts in ''The Real War'' :
{{Cquote|[[Eisenhower]] said... "You should never let the enemy know what you will do, but it's more important that you never let the enemy know what you will not do." }}
Nixon referred to it as "the [[Madman theory]],"
{{Cquote|... statements that appear to rule out the use of force, while perhaps meant to be unprovocative, will in fact provoke an antagonist to push for more. ...we should not make statements that we will never launch a preemptive strike. Whether or not we would ever exercise that option, we should always leave open the possibility that in extreme circumstances we might. <ref>[http://nobsnews.blogspot.com/1996/10/real-war.html#hole_card ''The Real War''], Richard Nixon, Warner Books, May 1980, pgs. 253 - 260.</ref>}}

===Health concerns===
Analyst [[Bay Buchanan]] suggests that
Hillary Clinton may suffer from a psychological condition and
that this should raise questions about her fitness for office. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref> A recent book entitled ''The Extreme Makeover of Hillary Rodham Clinton'' <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/Extreme-Makeover-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/1596985070]</ref> examines the Senator's instability, incoherent speeches as both student and First Lady, casual disregard for the law, and ever-changing opinion on the [[Iraq war]]. <ref>[http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=20699 Analysis of Hillary Reveals 'Clinical Narcissism',] by Ericka Andersen, ''Human Events'', 05/14/2007.</ref>

These [[character flaw]]s, Buchanan writes, make Hillary overly dependent on [[guru]]s and outside experts, with no internal compass to guide her, displaying all the classic symptoms of “clinical narcissism.” The American Psychiatric Association describes this condition to include feelings of superiority, self-importance and “fantasies of unlimited success, fame or power.” The author further states, “We are not talking about self-infatuation, we are talking about a clinical condition that could make her dangerously ill-suited to become President and Commander in Chief.”

===Abuse of Mother Teresa===

Hillary Clinton was chastised by a [[Catholic]] Advocacy group for using an image of [[Mother Teresa]] in a campaign ad. Clinton continues to support abortion. <ref>[http://www.fidelis.org/gw3/articles-news/articles.php?CMSArticleID=1456&CMSCategoryID=10 Fidelis Covered by Catholic News Agency on Mother Teresa Video Controversy], ''Catholic News Agency,'' 05-18-2007.</ref> The U.S. Catholic-based advocacy group Fidelis, an organization working with people of faith to defend the [[sanctity of life]], [[traditional marriage]], and [[religious liberty]] rights, called for Hillary Clinton to remove the image of Mother Teresa from their campaign video. In a press release the group declared the video, narrated by her Bill Clinton,
{{Cquote|is wholly inappropriate, disrespectful and disturbing ...using an image of blessed Mother Teresa as a political tool, especially given their radically different views on abortion...Mother Teresa tirelessly fought to protect unborn children, while Hillary Clinton staunchly supports [[abortion]] on demand in all nine months of pregnancy, including [[partial birth abortion]] and [[taxpayer funding of abortion]]}}

When the image of Hillary and Mother Teresa appears in the video the former president is heard saying “Hillary, in effect, was the face of America … in India;” the video then cuts to a clip of the former first lady addressing the 1995 Beijing Conference where an effort was made to declare abortion a fundamental “human right.”

===Skipping flyover country===

Hillary's strategists felt they could win the nomination by skipping Iowa as flyover country. <ref>[http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070524/NEWS09/705240387/1001&lead=1 Aide advises Clinton: Skip Iowa,] Thomas Beaumont, ''Des Moines Register'', May 24, 2007. </ref> Hillary Clinton's once close friend, political pundit Dick Morris, declared that she will campaign on the "Mom Strategy." Morris says this "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war." <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,238117,00.html Hillary's New Strategy]: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann.</ref> Hillary Clinton did exactly that on the ABC television show ''The View'' in early 2007. She was asked if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position." Hillary's claim was false. Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and also a grandmother, ran for President in 1976 on a platform that included opposition to abortion.<ref>http://www.constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw12_12310.html</ref>

===PolitiFact awards===
Hillary received a "Pants on Fire" award from [[PolitiFact]] for saying Obama "basically threatened to bomb Pakistan."<ref> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/375/ Et tu, Clinton?</ref>

Hillary received a second "Pants on Fire" award from [[PolitiFact]] for this false statement to a Washington, D.C. crowd on March 17th, 2008. <ref> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/411/ Video shows tarmac welcome, no snipers</ref> {{cquote| I remember landing under sniper fire.}}

==Arkansas==
During the 1970s and '80s, the Clintons invested in the [[Whitewater Development Corporation]] which later became the subject of a federal investigation, [[prosecution]]s and [[conviction]]s. Jim and Susan McDougal, and then-Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker were convicted of multiple counts of financial [[fraud]], even though President Clinton testified for four hours for the defense.<ref>Once upon a Time in Arkansas, [http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/arkansas/docs/clintondepo.html Transcript of Clinton's Sworn Deposition], PBS.</ref>

On the evening Bill Clinton lost his bid for a Congressional seat in 1974, Hillary is reported to have shouted in a rage at Clinton's campaign manager Paul Fray, calling him a "Jew bastard". The incident was reported in a book published by Harper Collins in 2000 entitled, ''State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton''. <ref>[http://www.amazon.com/State-Union-Complex-Marriage-Hillary/dp/0060193921]</ref> The author, Jerry Oppenheimer, cites three witnesses to the incident. <ref>[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200007/ai_n8910772 Did Hillary commit a hate crime?], Human Events, July 28, 2000. </ref><ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/US_election_race/Story/0,,344475,00.html Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur], Michael Ellison, London Guardian, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.sobran.com/columns/1999-2001/000718.shtml Hillary’s Manners], Joseph Sobran, July 18, 2000.</ref><ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15015 I agree with Clinton!], Joseph Farah, WorldNetDaily, July 20, 2000.</ref>

==Legal Services Corporation==
Hillary Clinton was appointed by President [[Jimmy Carter]] to head the controversial [[Legal Services Corporation]] (LSC) in 1978 and remained on the Board til 1983. <ref>[http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=225 Thwarting the Will of Congress: How the Legal Services Corporation Evaded, Diluted, and Ignored Reform], Testimony of Kenneth F. Boehm before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, House Judiciary Committee, February 28, 2002. </ref>
Under Hillary Clinton's leadership, the LSC began moving away from its legislated task of providing poor people with free lawyers and began an [[activist]] agenda to influence [[public policy]] through [[class action lawsuit]]s. One case involved bringing lawsuits to force New York's Transit Authority to hire [[heroin]] addicts. The LSC also violated its own rules by organizing political campaigns against a state referendum and against Ronald Reagan. <ref>Michael Barone , [http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone070899.asp ''Taking Hillary seriously], ''Jewish World Review'', July 8, 1999. </ref>

Hillary Clinton failed the District of Columbia [[Bar Exam]] in the 1970s.<ref>[http://mediamatters.org/items/200706010006 On Today, Bernstein omitted key fact in purported disclosure of Clinton's D.C. bar exam failure: It's not news], ''[[MediaMatters]]'' June 1, 2007. Retrieved from MediaMatters.org October 4, 2007.</ref>

==Accusations of stolen gifts==
When the Clintons left the White House, they were accused of taking furniture that belonged not to them, but to the White House. It was explained that the movers inadvertently packed the wrong items. Most of the articles were quietly returned. <ref>"Clinton Shipped Furniture Year Ago," Washington Post, February 10, 2001.</ref>

==Goldwater girl==

Speaking at [[Selma]], Alabama's First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the "bloody Sunday" freedom march Hillary Clinton declared: "As a young girl I had the great privilege of hearing [[Martin Luther King|Dr. King]] speak in Chicago. The year was 1963....[Dr. King] called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the [[civil rights]] pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union." In her memoirs Hillary Clinton described herself in 1964 as "an active Young Republican" and "a [[Barry Goldwater|Goldwater]] girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit." Columnist [[Robert Novak]] observed, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined [[Solid South|Southern Democratic]] [[segregation]]ists opposing the historic [[Voting Rights Act|voting rights act of 1964]] inspired by King."<ref>[http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RobertDNovak/2007/03/12/hillary,_king_and_goldwater Hillary, King and Goldwater], by Robert D. Novak, [[Townhall.com]], March 12, 2007.</ref>

==See also==
*[[Hillary Clinton for President Exploratory Committee]]
*[[Previous Breaking News/Hillary Clinton|Articles about '''Hillary Clinton''' from previous "Breaking News"]]

==External links==
*[http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990809/kaminer Hillary's No Liberal], Wendy Kaminer, ''The Nation'', July 22, 1999 (August 9, 1999 issue).

{{liberalism}}

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Clinton, Hillary Rodham}}
[[Category:Conspiracy theorists]]
[[Category:United States Senators|Clinton, Hillary Rodham]]
[[Category:Democratic Party]]
[[Category:First Ladies]]

User:Fyezall

2008-08-25T23:37:59Z

Fyezall:

:See the man
:The crushed up man with the crushed up Carroll's packet in his hand
:Doesn't seem to know or care or even understand
:And all he has to say is...

="F" YEZ ALL, "F" YEZ ALL==

Tom Ridge

2008-08-25T23:03:58Z

Fyezall:

[[Image:TomRidge.jpg‎ |thumb|200px|]]
'''Tom Ridge''' (born August 26, 1945) is a former governor of [[Pennsylvania]] (1995 to 2001) and the [[United States]] [[Secretary of Homeland Security]] from 2001 to December, 2004. He attended [[Harvard University]] and graduated in 1967. In 1982, after serving in the [[Vietnam War]] with the Army and earning his law degree, he was elected to Congress as a Representative. He was reelected an amazing six terms in a row<ref>http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/ridgebio.html</ref>. In 1995 he was elected governor of the state of [[Pennsylvania]] where he served two teams in office. Shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] and [[World Trade Centers]], Ridge was appointed by President [[George W. Bush]] as the first Office of Homeland Security Advisor in the history of the [[United States]]. He held the position until he stepped down on December 2, 2004<ref>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/30/ridge/</ref>. He was replaced with [[Michael Chertoff]].

Ridge has been widely cited as a potential running mate for [[John McCain]] in his 2008 bid for the White House. His home state of Pennsylvania is a [[swing state]] that has voted for the Democratic candidate in the last 4 Presidential elections, and is often considered a "must win" for Obama. However, Ridge's stance on [[abortion]] is considered too [[liberal]] for many [[conservative]]s in the Republican Party.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
*[http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/ridgebio.html White House.gov Biography]

{{DEFAULTSORT:Ridge, Tom}}

[[Category:Political People]]
[[Category:Pennsylvania Governors]]

User:Fyezall

2008-08-25T22:08:32Z

Fyezall:

:See the man
:The crushed up man with the crushed up Carroll's packet in his hand
:Doesn't seem to know or care or even understand
:And all he has to say is...

Talk:John McCain 2008 Presidential Campaign

2008-07-16T13:44:59Z

Fyezall:

==Kidrade's comments==
[[Kidrade]], it's really offensive when you wrote, ''This page brought to you by Wikipedia and your local copy/paste shortcuts'' I used wikopedia as a source and that's all. Since you wrote that literally seconds after this article was published, I have that feeling that you just briefly glanced at it at saw it look similar to wikopedia's article. Read though both of them, they are clearly different. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]

==Endorsements==
Is the endorsements section really notable? Now that the nominees are decided, just about every Republican in the nation will endorse and McCain and just about every Democrat will endorse Obama. That's the way political parties work. Occasionally someone will make an endorsement of a candidate from another party, and those are about the only ones that are notable enough to deserve separate mention (Lieberman, being a pseudo-Democrat, fits the bill this year, as Zell Miller did 4 years ago). It was a different issue during the primaries, but they're over. McCain will have the support of most Republicans; is it necessary to list them all? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 09:44, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Vegetarianism

2008-07-15T21:33:37Z

Fyezall: don't think "many" nutritionalists say this. The sheer number of healthy vegetarians in the world show that it is minimaly sustainable

[[Image:Fruits.jpg|right]]
'''Vegetarianism''' is the practice of abstaining from [[meat]] consumption. Somebody who practices vegetarianism is referred to as a ''vegetarian''.

==Reasons for Vegetarianism==

Vegetarianism is a common theme among the [[Dharmic religion]]s, such as [[Hinduism]], [[Buddhism]], and [[Jainism]]. This stems from the belief that all higher animal life is sacred (in Jainism, ''all'' life is considered sacred), one of the core concepts of all of these religions. <ref>For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the wholistic nature of people. [http://www.andrews.edu/NUFS/veggiediet.html Andrews University Nutrition Department] </ref> It was also a central tenet of the [[Essene]] branch of Judaism.

Many people outside of these religions also choose to be vegetarians because of various other beliefs, such as abstinence from contributing to "inhumane" farming methods practiced by the meat production industry, or to lessen their environmental impact.

Health can be given as another reason. In Daniel 1:4-15, Daniel and his companions declined to eat Babylonian royal food and instead requested fresh water and vegetables. At the end of ten days, they were healthier than those who ate the rich food.

==Forms of Vegetarianism==
*'''Vegan''' - A vegan diet excludes all food and ingredients that comes from animals. This excludes animal meat, animal products such as milk, cheese, eggs or honey, and byproducts such as gelatin. Effort is needed to make a vegan diet healthy.<ref>http://www.vegan.org/going_vegan/eating_vegan/index.html Vegan regimen</ref> "Vegan" can refer both to the diet and the dieter.
*'''Lactovegetarian''' - Someone who eats a plant-based diet but also eats animal produced foods (that do not result in the death of the animal) such as milk and cheese. Lacto vegetarians can relatively easily remain healthy.
*Ovo-lactovegetarian (or '''lacto-ovo-vegetarian''') - Similar to the Lactovegetarian but also consumes eggs.
*'''Pescatarian''' - This is considered a form of vegetarianism, which consists of eating [[fish]], but no other varieties of meat. [[Egg]]s and dairy may be part of this diet. Since fish are still living animals, stricter vegetarians (especially those who are vegetarians for moral reasons) are likely to feel that pescatarians are not true vegetarians.

==Nutritional Issues==

Some nutritionists have argued that vegetarianism is an unsustainable diet. It can be difficult to regularly get all of your daily required [[nutrient]]s without eating animal products every day. [[Soy]], [[nut]]s and [[bean]]s are often used as a substitute for meat and protein, but nonetheless many vegetarians have to take vitamin supplements or eat enriched foods.<ref>According to Olivant, the most useful supplements for the vegetarians contain nutrients that may be limited in their diet, such as omega-3. [http://www.nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?n=65255-vegetarian-supplements]</ref> Nutrionist Dr. Ray Sahelian warns "Those who eat very little meat, fish and foul and ... may be missing, or getting very little, crucial nutrients for optimal health such as [[vitamin B12]], [[iron]], [[creatine]], [[carnitine]], and several other [[nutrient]]s"<ref>[http://www.raysahelian.com/vegetarian.html Dr. Ray Sahelian]</ref> Vegetarians suffer from higher rates of certain diseases, such as [[osteoporosis]], [[anemia]], [[bulimia]], and [[thyroid]] problems due to the lack of [[calcium]] and other nutrients in their diets.

==Famous Vegetarians==
[[Image:H G Wells 2.jpg|right|H G Wells]]
*[[Albert Einstein]] - Scientist, famous for [[Theory of Relativity]]. He became a vegetarian a year before his death.
*[[Adolf Hitler]]
*[[Shania Twain]]
*[[Mohandas K. Gandhi]]
*[[Siddhartha Gautama]]
*[[Mahavira]]
*[[Thomas Edison]]
*[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]]
*[[Bob Barker]] - Game Show Host, most notably [[The Price is Right]]
*[[H. G. Wells]] - Famous Science Fiction author, works include [[The War of Worlds]]
*[[Paul McCartney]] - singer/bassist for [[The Beatles]]
*[[Henry Heimlich]] - Inventor of the [[Heimlich Maneuver]]<ref>www.famousveggie.com[http://www.famousveggie.com/peoplenew.cfm]</ref>
*[[Henry A. Wallace]] - Vice President of the U.S. 1941-1945; Presidential candidate 1948
*[[Adam and Eve]], at least while in Eden (Genesis 1:29)

== See also ==
*[[Naturopathy]]
*[[Adrian Vander]]
*[[Meatarianism]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/appendixC.htm USDA Dietary Guidelines]
* [http://www.vegsoc.org/ The Vegetarian Society ]
* [http://www.britishmeat.com/49.htm 49 good reasons to be a vegetarian]
* [http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html The Myths of Vegetarianism by Stephen Byrnes]

==Notes==
<references/>

[[Category:Health]]

[[category:biology]]

Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study

2008-07-15T20:15:24Z

Fyezall: /* Expertise in Statistics */

Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P < 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.

: "Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)

==Marginally significant==
In #1, that's not inconsistent. The figure makes it clear that, according to the hypothesis, the mutations should also occur earlier than 31,000, but should become more common at that point. 12/17 mutants occurred after 31,000. The point in #3 is not clear. What do you mean by ''weighting''? In #5, ''Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment...his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.'' Actually, '''marginally significant''' is clear. It means that the p-value is between .05 and .10 (in this case it's .08, table 2). It's a pretty standard phrase to describe an effect that falls into that range. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
: Your defense of Lenski per point #1 is contradicted by the paper's own abstract, and by the comments by the other Lenski defender below. In point #3, proper weighting is needed to combine multiple studies. In point #5, you don't cite any authority for the unscientific claim of being "marginally significant."--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:45, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
::Define "proper weighting". Are you referring to how they interpreted the sum of the work or to a specific analysis? You're right, I didn't cite any scientific authority. Here's one: Motulsky, H. (1995). ''Intuitive Biostatistics'', Oxford Univ. Press. Chapter 12. Also, try searching for the phrase in Google Scholar or PubMed, you'll find plenty of uses of it. It's a shorthand way of describing an effect that came close to the arbitrary threshold for statistical significance but did not reach it. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 21:55, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::: You seem unwilling to accept that Point #1 identifies a clear mistake between the figure and the abstract in the paper, which requires correction by Lenski or PNAS. Given that unwillingness, I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. You're right that other usage of the dubious concept of "marginally significant" can be found on the internet, but the first link to such usage on my internet search for it returned the non-rigorous "Intuitive Biostatistics" and the second link returned a criticism of the concept similar to the criticism express here. [http://annhyg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/49/1/93-a.pdf] --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
::::It's not a clear mistake in my mind. There does seem to be some confusion or contradiction in terms of the number of generations, but I haven't seen a clear explanation of why this is or is not a mistake. What seems like a contradiction is the abstract statement that no mutations occurred before 31,500, but it's not clear to me whether I'm misunderstanding that. ''I doubt it will productive discussing the other mistakes further with you. '' Of course you doubt it, because you are unlikely to be willing to concede anything no matter what anyone says. Why do you call the concept dubious? The procedure of determining whether an effect is significant requires the setting of an arbitrary threshold, which is usually .05. That means, in analyses of the sort in the Blount et al. paper, that there's less than a 5% chance that the findings are due to sampling error. When an effect comes close to the threshold it is worth noting, because of the problems inherent in significance testing, which itself is widely criticized in the statistical literature. I am not clear what you mean by weighting, as I mentioned before - in the interpretation or statistically? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:30, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Richard Lenski incorrectly included generations of the E. coli already known to contain Cit+ variants in his experiments.[3] Once these generations are removed from the analysis, the data disprove Len ==

The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:03, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Your explanation is not convincing. Show us how Lenski proved that the samples did not have '''any''' Cit+ variants, if you really think he's claiming that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:51, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I count at least four distinct diagnostic methods used in the paper for distinguishing whether clones are Cit+. One in particular they describe as being very sensitive to weakly citrate-using cells. It's not that I 'think' Blount et al. claim they started with Cit- cells. They say that in the 'Supporting information' document.

::Andy, for tonight, I'll leave it as an exercise for you to answer your own question of how one might test a clone to be sure that is was Cit-. Use the paper if you'd like or present another means. Tomorrow evening I'll cite the methods Blount used in the paper.

::Meanwhile, here's another question to ponder: If the colonies used to start the 'replay' cultures were Cit+ at the start, why is it that no Cit+ cells were found in such cultures before 750 generations? These cultures were all started from single clones which must have either had the Cit+ phenotype or not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

-
How did Lenski obtain Cit- clones from later populations after Cit+ had become the dominant phenotype? It's pretty standard procedure. First, keep in mind that these populations contained a minority of Cit- cells. Now, a small liquid growth is made from the frozen glycerol stock of cells from a given generation, say 32,000. This is grown to an appropriate OD and then plated on a standard rich media agar plate. Provided that the plated sample isn't too dense, this plating will deposit somewhere between 15-100 individual cells on the agar, with plenty of spacing between them. The plate is then incubated at 37 C for a given time, during which the individual cells replicate to form small, visible colonies. These colonies will consist solely of cells that are genetically identical to the original cell deposited on the agar. This is all well and good, but how do you find which of the colonies are Cit-? Here you use a technique called replica plating. The agar plate is gently inverted onto a sterile swatch of velvet so that some of the cells from each colony are deposited onto the fabric. Next, a citrate-only agar plate is pressed against the velvet, transferring cells from the fabric to the new plate in exactly the same spacial orientation as the first plate. The cells are then allowed to grow on the citrate-only plate. When we then compare the two plates, we look for colonies on the rich plate that did not grown on the citrate-only plate. These colonies will be Cit-, and can be used for the replay experiments. [[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 13:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:Just a correction: The Cit+ cells didn't dominate the cultures at generations 32,000 & 32,500. Cit+ mutants represented 12% and 19% of the population at these times points, respectively. Replica plating is definitely one means of identifying Cit- and Cit+ clones but because the Cit+ cells represented a fraction of the total, it is simple enough to streak the samples to individual colonies (founded by single cells) and test each colony individually. Otherwise, a nice description of replica plating (a technique developed by Joshua Lederberg that allowed him do the research for which he was awarded one of the 1958 Nobel Prizes in Medicine)--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:38, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Oops, you're right, Argon. Cit+ wasn't dominant at generation 32,000, so replica plating might not be the best option. Still, in the case of almost 20% Cit+, I think replica plating might be labor reducing. I'm a biochemist by training, not a microbiologist, but I'm sure there are other methods that could be used. For example, Christensen's agar appears to provide a sensitive, colorimetric method of identifying even weakly citrate-utilizing colonies, so one might be able to plate cells on a Christensen's agar plate and pick uncolored colonies. Again though, I'm no microbiologist so I don't know the best method. However, there are ways to easily pick Cit- clones from later generations in this case. That said, I think that this specific "flaw" cited in Lenski's paper should be removed from the main article. Clearly, Cit+ were not used in the replays from later generations, so Conservapedia's objection is totally baseless.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 19:19, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::All appropriate descriptions. For generating estimates of the population distribution (Cit-/Cit+) in a culture, replica plating would certainly be applicable. The main point is that identifying and isolating Cit- clones from the generations used in the experiment is straightforward. I agree that it would be a mistake to keep that objection in the article (actually that thread runs across several points in the article).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: Nothing in the paper rules out contamination of those samples by Cit+ variants, and you quote nothing in the paper to rule it out. There was no reason to use and rely on these samples that already have Cit+ variants.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:04, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::The whole point of the discussion above was to illustrate that there are methods to isolate cells with a particular genotype from a mixed population. Suppose we used the replica plating method (maybe not the best choice, but it's standard procedure). Care to explain where the Cit+ contaminants could possibly come from? And the naivete inherent in objecting that "nothing in the paper" rules it out is simply astounding. Standard laboratory procedures, like isolating specific clones, typically don't show up in papers. For example, if I to write a paper on my research, it would not include a detailed discussion of the construction of my expression plasmid. I might mention that I cloned my gene into a particular vector, but there wouldn't a discussion of how I did my PCR, restriction digests, or transformations. Things like that are simply extraneous details that are taken for granted by experienced researchers. There is simply no reason for Lenski et al. to include a discussion of their method for isolating specific clones. This is why this whole exercise of Conservapedia criticizing Lenski's paper is folly, because most Conservapedia users simply don't know standard laboratory techniques. It's kind of important to know what scientists today are able to do on a routine basis before wading in to claim that they couldn't have done what they claim.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 09:05, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==

Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:04, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

== Statistics101 package: ==

What does the author imply by writing: "...Lenski himself does not have any obvious expertise in statistics. In fact, Richard Lenski admits in his paper that he based his statistical conclusions on use of a website called "statistics101"?

From the web site:
''Professionals: Although it was originally developed to aid students, the Statistics101 program is suitable for all levels of statistical sophistication. It is especially useful for Monte Carlo, resampling, and bootstrap applications. It has been used by professionals in many fields. These include anthropology, biology, ecology, evolutionary biology, epidemiology, marine biology, psychology, toxicology, veterinary pathology.''
It would appear that the package from the web site (not the web site itself) was used to perform the Monte Carlo resampling tests. Is there any evidence that the package produces incorrect results?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:41, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

==Formal Response to PNAS==

''I've moved this thread from the open section above since this page is being categorized.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper. Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.

: PNAS publishes, quite easy to find Rules for "Rebuttals" (they call it "Letter"). It is specifically what you want. [http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml PNAS:Information for Authors] . I cite: ''Letters are brief online-only comments that contribute to the discussion of a PNAS research article published within the last 3 months. Letters may not include requests to cite the letter writer's work, accusations of misconduct, or personal comments to an author. Letters are limited to 250 words and no more than five references.'' --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so. Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team. To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose. This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks. Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television. Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS. Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating. The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process. The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was. Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected. In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science. Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

PNAS has a letters section available with the online edition. Many journals have a letters section for rebuttals or clarification. Legitimate corrections are welcome. Andy, have you run your list of 'flaws' past any biologists?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 15:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

: Funny, Argon, how you don't apply your demand of expertise to Lenski himself. What are Lenski's credentials with respect to statistical analysis? Has he even taken and passed an upper-class statistics course of any substance?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:45, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::I don't follow. Are you suggesting that Lenski doesn't understand the proper application of the statistical methods used in his paper? If so, I haven't seen a description of which alternate methods you'd employ, let alone any output from such an analysis. Here's a thought: Why don't you substantiate your claims by writing up the work and submitting it as a correction letter to PNAS?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:46, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Argon, if you really "don't follow," then try harder. You insist on credentials by others who criticize Lenski, and yet you do not insist on expertise by Lenski in statistics with respect to his "analysis". Perhaps Lenski should first take and try to pass "Statistics 101" before trying to use a website by its name to draw flawed conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::::Do you really think that Lenski went to statistics101.net to learn about statistics and how to apply them? That simply is not the case. The Lenski group knew that they needed to do a Monte Carlo resampling analysis on the results of their replay experiments. In this situation, they are faced with two choices: either code an appropriate program themselves, or utilize one that has already been developed and is readily available to researchers. Since statistics101 had such a program available, they chose the latter option. Statistics101.net was simply the source of the program that the Lenski group used to perform the statistical analysis. If you want to argue against that choice, then you need to examine the source code for the statistics101 package and enumerate why it should not have been used.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 11:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly, does your response above, "I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television", mean that you will not be submitting a response with these identified flaws directly to PNAS? As I mentioned above, it takes nothing away from the value of posting these statements here on CP to also submit them to PNAS, but the proper way to prompt a journal to review and correct an article is through a direct response, not publication on an unrelated website like CP. It's not proper for anyone but the author(s) of the objections in this article to make that submission, so I'm hoping they step up with the conviction of their beliefs and respond to PNAS directly. Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:32, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::: By now Lenski has probably seen the flaws identified on the content page here. What's "proper" is for him to correct his own paper in PNAS. The criticism will likely continue as long as he declines to do so. If anyone here would like to educate the PNAS editors about the flaws, then please feel free to do so.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

== Expertise in Statistics ==
I don’t mind admitting that I have none! The article states that Lenski combined the three trials incorrectly and that he doesn’t make the insignificance of the third clear. Now it may well be very clear to others but, unfortunately, the article doesn’t make clear to people like me what was wrong. Can someone expand on this point? Is anyone able to explain to a layman what Lenski should have done and the conclusions he should have reached? It's all getting a little technical for me. --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 12:10, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

: OK, here's point 4 in layman's terms: Lenski's hypotheses of a mutation rate imply that a ten-fold increase in sample size should result in a ten-fold increase in mutations. But it doesn't. In fact, a nearly ten-fold increase in sample size results in only a slight increase in mutations in Lenski's data. These data, as presented by Lenski in his paper, suggest (if properly interpreted) that there is no mutation rate at all. Rather, these data are more consistent with occasional contamination, broadly defined.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

::Except that the growth pattern of the Cit+ cells in the third replay experiment demonstrated that there were no Cit+ cells in the cultures at the time of plating. Control plates with a mix of Cit- and Cit+ cells were done which showed rapid development of Cit+ colonies, whereas the experimental plates did not show any Cit+ colonies for at least 8 days and up to 28 days. If you believe that the plates became randomly contaminated during the course of the incubation, rather than at the initial plating, the post-plating contamination should have affected all generations equally, but it did not--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:46, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

:::Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Undemocratic

2008-07-11T22:13:41Z

Fyezall:

==Gay marriage==

Why is the recent decision by the Ca. Supreme Court striking down gay marriage ban considered checks and balances? Million voted 8 years earlier and the initiative passed. 4 unelected judges decide for millions. Some would call that Democratic? When the people will has been usurped, I certainly feel it is undemocratic. I think the original post should stand. Next, someone will say suing Ralph Nader off the ballot is the American way.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:05, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

::"Why is the recent decision by the Ca. Supreme Court striking down gay marriage ban considered checks and balances?" The judiciary striking down an unconstitutional law is ''the very definition'' of checks and balances. You can argue that it is undemocratic, but then so is the electoral college, the Senate (100 people making laws for 300 million, based merely on one single vote covering the total of the Senator's actions, once every six years?), and, indeed the government in general. We don't live in a democracy, in the strictest sense of the word, we live in a Republic. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:23, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

::: I am curious to know how you feel about Hillary losing? She had more votes than BO but BO has that silly thing called delegates that gives him the nomination. Undemocratic as well?

::::You could call it that I guess. It's much like the electoral college. If Obama's victory in the primaries was undemocratic, than Bush's in 2000 certain was as well. [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 18:13, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

:It was the "will of the people" to have Al Gore as president in 2000. But it's the electoral college that we go by and therefore the "will of the people" wasn't carried out. Likewise, our Constitution created the third branch--judiciary--who have the power of judicial review. That's part of democracy. The United States, thankfully, doesn't simply go by the majority, but works as well to protect the rights of the minority.

:Now, if you want to yell at unelected judges, do you also want to overturn Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka? Or do you agree with Dred Scott v. Sandford or Plessy v. Ferguson? --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 15:49, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Even undemocratic has two sides to the same coin. Maybe Ca. judges will rule that Communism is a better system of government, since they get to decide for the citizens. Jesus was not liberal.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:21, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

::: And maybe the people of Kansas will decide that segregation worked better and overturn it. Or the white majority of South Carolina will decide that slavery worked best, and, well, majority rules. Or, heck, Missouri may decide that freedom of the press shouldn't be a freedom, and vote and strike it from the list. I mean, according to your standpoint, nothing can stop the will of the majority in the United States, which is a democracy (even though it's technically not).

::: And re: Jesus---civil rights, fighting for the homeless, the poor, the less fortunate, caring for the earth, pacifism and loving our enemies---sounds like a giant LIBERAL to me. Why don't you create a userbox stating Jesus is a conservative and you can put that on your userpage?--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 16:32, 11 July 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Undemocratic

2008-07-11T20:23:21Z

Fyezall: /* Gay marriage */

Undemocratic

2008-07-11T17:59:15Z

Fyezall: emove marriage example; whoever wrote that doesn't understand the system of checks and balances

'''Undemocratic''' is an [[adjective]] referring to the circumventing of [[democracy]] by fraud, [[deceit]], for financial or for partisan gain. Original laws of a democratic nation can be used against it for malicious purposes.

==Examples==

* In the '04 Presidential elections, Democrats sued Independent candidate [[Ralph Nader]] off the ballot in 19 states

* State [[Democrats]] in Texas fly out of state so as not have a legislation available to enact laws <ref>http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20030513/ai_n14550502 , FORT WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM Redistricting fight closes Texas Legislature, May 13, 2003</ref>

* Politicians votes are recorded as "present" instead of voting yes or no on bills.

==What it is not==

Undemocratic actions should be distinguished from cases such as ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]]'', in which the court protected the Boy Scouts' constitutional rights from usurpation by [[big government]], and from maintenance of Constitutional order, such as the power of [[Congress]] to countermand acts of the city council of [[Washington, D.C.]]

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Deceit]]

Young mass murderers

2008-07-11T15:47:04Z

Fyezall: a single suicide is certainly not a mass murder

{| class="wikitable"
|-
!Year
!Name(s)
!Education
!Killed
!Wounded
!Beliefs
![[Liberal]] response
|-
|2008
|Stephen Kazmierczak
|[[Northern Illinois University]]
|5 + himself
|16
|Fan of [[Nietzsche]]'s "The Antichrist," obsessed with self-injury, was a "cutter" in [[public high school]], wore all black to carry out his massacre, and was still a [[public school]] student at age 27
|Shock at the fact that the gunman didn't "fit" the typical mold of a killer, when in fact the gunman wore all black and was taught at a [[public school]].
|-
| 2007
| Matthew Murray
| Homeschooled
| 5
| 5
| Murdered individuals associated with the "Youth With A Mission" training center in Arvada, CO and at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, CO. Murray himself was Christian, and described as "Very, very religious."
| None, as of yet.
|-
|2007
|Robert Hawkins
|Papillion-La Vista public high school
|8 + himself
|5
|Targeted [[Christmas]] shoppers; wore black; "I can't take this meaningless existence anymore"<ref>[http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/bal-te.omaha08dec08,0,6053469.story Baltimore Sun]</ref> Told a therapist that "he is not sure if there is a God or life after death and that when he dies, he'll probably go to hell." Told social workers he was satanic and acknowledged that he often acted before thinking of the consequences. <ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318506,00.html Mall Gunman Admitted He was Satanic, Attempted Suicide], [[Associated Press]], [[Fox News Channel]], December 27, 2007</ref>
|Avoid suggesting [[gun control]] lest [[Democrats]] lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Wisconsin]] in [[2008 presidential election]]
|-
|2007
|Pekka-Eric Auvinen
|Jokela High School public high school (Finland)
|8 + himself
|About 12
|[[Atheist]], "I, as a natural selector, will eliminate all who I see unfit."
|[[Finland]] already had [[gun control]]
|-
|2007
|[[Seung-Hui Cho]]
|Westfield public high school (VA), then Virgina Tech public university
|32 + himself
|25
|"Ismail Ax" suggested [[Muslim]] beliefs, felt "Jesus was crucifying me."
|Poem comparing it to environmental harm<ref>"We are Virginia Tech. ... We do not understand this tragedy. ... Neither does the baby elephant watching his community be devastated for ivory; neither does the Appalachian infant killed in the middle of the night in his crib in the home his father built with his own hands being run over by a boulder because the land was destabilized. ..."[http://americaabroad.tpmcafe.com/blog/oldengoldendecoy/2007/apr/17/nikki_giovanni_we_are_virginia_tech]</ref>

|-
|2002
|Robert Steinhäuser
|Erfurt public school (Germany)
|16 + himself
|
|Wore black entirely, literally from head to toe; stopped only when a teacher pulled off his black mask
|[[German]] [[gun control]] already strict, demands for limitations on computer games
|-
|1999
|Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold
|[[Columbine public high school]] (CO)
|13 + themselves
|23
|[[Atheistic]], singled out [[Christian]] victims
|Demand [[gun control]], causing [[Al Gore]] to lose [[West Virginia]] and [[Tennessee]] in 2000 presidential election
|-
|1998
|Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden
|Westside Middle School
|5
|10
|Stole their fathers'/grandfathers' weapons. Set off a fire alarm and shot fleeing students.
|Outcry for tougher sentencing (they were in prison until they turned 21). Also have no parole or supervision and can buy guns legally.
|-
|1997
|Michael Carneal
|Heath public high school (KY)
|3
|5
|Murdered girls as they prayed in a [[prayer]] group
|Under-publicized due to anti-[[Christian]] nature
|-
|1989
|Marc Lépine
|Collège d'enseignement général et professionnel, (''College of General and Vocational Education'')
|14 + himself
|10
|Detested feminism and believed that feminists were an ill of society
|Improve police training (which helped in the [[Dawson College Shooting]]). Stricter gun control. Raised knowledge of violence against women. Founded the [[National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women]]
|-
|}

== References ==
{{reflist}}
[[category:crime]]

St. John of God

2008-07-08T23:31:17Z

Fyezall: New page: '''St. John of God''' (1495-1550) was a Portugese Saint. As a young man he saw a vision of the infant Jesus who bid him go to Granada, where he devoted himself to the sick and the poor...

'''St. John of God''' (1495-1550) was a Portugese Saint. As a young man he saw a vision of the infant [[Jesus]] who bid him go to Granada, where he devoted himself to the sick and the poor.

Slavery

2008-07-08T23:25:05Z

Fyezall:

'''Slavery''' is involuntary servitude to another person or persons, such that the person(s) held in bondage is/are considered to be property. It reduces a person to the status of [[chattel]] who can be owned by another person. The selling price of a slave varied from less than that of horse to as many as a dozen horses.<ref>[http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/socialstudies/projects/jvc/unit/econ/msstatemsg.html Indentured Servants and Slave Prices] (forum post)</ref>
The master controls and commands the slave, either through property-like ownership of the slave or by right to command him.

Slavery is best known to Americans as a peculiar institution of the Southern states before the US Civil War, supported by [[Democrats]], although it is found in some  [[civilization]]s. Slavery still exists today in many parts of the world including China, Islamic countries, parts of Africa and some Latin American countries. In particular, even today, people are enslaved in the [[Sudan]].
Slave owners in the Southern states cited Ephesians 6:5, “slaves, obey your masters” in arguments for the Christian endorsement of slavery. Another Bible verse states that thieves should be sold into slavery.<ref>Exodus 22:3 "He should make a full restitution; and if he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.</ref> Under the [[Mosaic Law]], slaves could be kept for six years. <ref>Exodus 21:1-4 "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing."</ref> (See [[#"Slavery"_in_the_Bible|"Slavery" in the Bible]], below.)

The slavery system diminished a person to the point where they would be regarded as a thing or an object to be owned. Christian [[abolitionists]] disagreed with this valuation, and advanced an interpretation of the Bible which presented human value in terms of God's parental love for all people as His children (see [[human rights]]).

Slavery is mentioned in a number of places in the [[Bible]], although this often referred to indentured servitude, and Biblical injunctions existed granting certain rights and prohibitions, such as the right of the slave to go free after a certain amount of time or the prohibition against the master of putting a slave's eye out{{fact}}.

== Ancient History ==
[[Image:Ruslavery.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Painting of a slave market in early medieval Eastern Europe.]]
Slavery has existed at least since ancient [[Greece]] and ancient [[Egypt]], where, according to the Bible, Hebrews were slaves. The primary slave market in ancient Greece was on an island in the Aegean sea known as "Delos". From there slaves were traded and used throughout the Greek city-states. In [[Ancient Greece|ancient Athens]] about 30% of the population consisted of slaves.<ref>[http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741501460_4/Ancient_Greece.html Ancient Greece]</ref>

Often prisoners of wars in ancient history were used as slaves, particularly during the [[Roman Empire]]. Probably over 25% of the population was enslaved in the Roman Empire.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/slavery_01.shtml BBC - History - Resisting Slavery in Ancient Rome]</ref> [[Christianity]] helped lessen the harshness by which Romans treated slaves; however, later Christian nations like Spain, England, and the Netherlands would continue in the use of slaves. According to the [[Domesday Book]] census in 1086, 10% of England's population was enslaved.<ref>[http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs2970.htm Domesday Book Slave]</ref> Slavery in [[Poland]] was forbidden in the 15th century; in [[Lithuania]], slavery was formally abolished in 1588; they were replaced by the second enserfment. Slavery remained a major institution in [[Russia]] until the 1723, when the [[Peter the Great]] converted the household slaves into house serfs. Russian agricultural slaves were formally converted into serfs earlier in 1679.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24160 Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History]</ref>

Slavery was also pervasive among [[Arabs]] into the twentieth century. As recently as the 1950s, [[Saudi Arabia]] had an estimated 450 000 slaves, 20% of the population.<ref>[http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm Slavery in Islam]</ref><ref>[http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/apr07/page18.html £400 for a Slave]</ref> It is estimated that as many as 200,000 people had been taken into slavery in Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War.<ref>[http://www.iabolish.org/slavery_today/in_depth/sudan-genocide.html War and Genocide in Sudan]</ref><ref>[http://journalism.nyu.edu/pubzone/livewire/archived/the_lost_children_of_sudan/ The Lost Children of Sudan]</ref> In [[Mauritania]] it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labour.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1458_abolition/page4.shtml The Abolition season on BBC World Service]</ref> Slavery in Mauritania was finally criminalized in August 2007.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6938032.stm Mauritanian MPs pass slavery law]</ref> In [[Niger]], slavery is also a current phenomenon; a Nigerien study has found that more than 800,000 people, or almost 8% of the population, are slaves.<ref>[http://abcnews.go.com/International/Story?id=813618&page=1 The Shackles of Slavery in Niger]</ref><ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/4250709.stm Born to be a slave in Niger]</ref>

==Recent History==
[[Image:Canadaslavery.jpg|right|200px]]
In 1455, a "papal bull" (formal letter by the [[pope]]) justified a "right" of Christian nations to enslave any non-Christian in the name of exploration. The [[Spain|Spanish]] had already been enslaving [[South America|South American]] natives on a limited basis, but with the rise of sugar plantations the need for a larger slave force arose. Millions of [[Africa|African]] slaves were brought by the Spanish and [[Portugal|Portuguese]] to [[Mexico]], [[Peru]], the [[Caribbean]] and [[Brazil]]. The growth of sugar—which had first been introduced to [[Europe]] when the [[Muslims]] ruled Spain—was exploding in popularity throughout the entire western world. Soon [[France]], the [[Netherlands]] and [[Great Britain]] were also establishing profitable [[sugar]] plantations in the new world. The plantation system began in Brazil, where rich white [[plantation]] owners were the highest rung in the social hierarchy and black slaves were at the bottom. Obviously life on a sugar plantation was very hard work for a slave.

Slavery was widespread within Africa itself, and the richest in Africa were not those owning the most land, but those who owned the most slaves. In the Sahara Desert, slaves worked in caravans and were used in gold and salt mining. Slaves were usually prisoners of war from other areas of Africa, or debtors, or enemies or the [[king]], but many women outside of those three categories were also enslaved in African societies. Polygamy—the practice of having more than one wife—was common in Africa, as was the existence of harems, from which African women were often sold to join Arabian or Middle Eastern harems.

The trading of slaves with other countries was encouraged in Africa, and was considered an important component of the African economy. Slave trade across the Atlantic (the Trans-Atlantic slave trade) became a booming business for Europeans and Africans alike, by which African rulers sold their people to Europeans for goods such as iron, alcohol, tobacco and most importantly, guns. Trans-Atlantic trade led to the degrading use of "chattel" slaves, whereby the slaves were treated purely as property of the owner. The slaves served as sailors, skilled craftsmen or farmers. The journey across the Atlantic, known as the Middle Passage, led to the death of 10-20% of the African slaves. But an even higher percentage lost their lives in the journey from their homes in Africa to the African coast, where they were to board the slave ships.

The Trans-Atlantic slave trade was one component in a system of routes known as the "Triangular Trade" between South America, New England, and the West Coast of Africa. The three main items that were exchanged were sugar, rum and slaves. European goods, mainly guns, were used to buy slaves from Africa. The slaves were then shipped to the Americas. Then, from America, sugar, rum and tobacco were brought back to Europe, completing the "triangle" of trade. Slavery is one of the less noble aspects of American history.

Between 1530 and 1780, Europeans including Britons and even some Americans were frequently taken captive and enslaved by privateers from the [[Barbary States]]. Estimates of so-called "white slavery" vary from as little as 50,000 to in the millions <ref>http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/whtslav.htm</ref>. Generally Europeans enslaved by the [[corsairs]] were usually poorer sea merchants and city dwellers whose families were unable to pay the ransom necessary to free them. Often the [[Pasha]] would purchase the female captives into his harem. Many were forced to "go turk" or convert to "mohammadism" in order to stay with their children who were raised as Muslims. Occasionally slaves would convert in order to escape harsher labors such as tending the oars in the corsairs <ref>http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/empire_seapower/white_slaves_print.html</ref>.

For a long time, until the early 18th century, the Crimean Khanate maintained a massive slave trade with the [[Ottoman Empire]] and the Middle East. Kefe was one of the best known and significant trading ports and slave markets. In a process called "harvesting of the steppe" Crimean Tatars enslaved many [[Slavs|Slavic]] peasants.

In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, close to one-third of the population was enslaved. In early [[Islamic]] states of the western Sudan, including Ghana (750-1076), Mali (1235–1645), Segou (1712–1861), and Songhai (1275-1591), about a third of the population were slaves. In [[Sierra Leone]] in the 19th century about half of the population consisted of slaves. In the 19th century at least half the population was enslaved among the Duala of the Cameroon, the [[Igbo]] and other peoples of the lower Niger, the [[Kingdom of Kongo|Kongo]], and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of [[Angola]]. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third of the population consisted of slaves. The population of the Kanem was about a third-slave. It was perhaps 40% in Bornu (1396–1893). Between 1750 and 1900 from one- to two-thirds of the entire population of the Fulani jihad states consisted of slaves. The population of the Sokoto caliphate formed by Hausas in the northern [[Nigeria]] and Cameroon was half-slave in the 19th century. It is estimated that up to 90% of the population of [[Arab]]-Swahili Zanzibar was enslaved. Roughly half the population of [[Madagascar]] was enslaved.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157 Welcome to Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to Black History]</ref>

The Anti-Slavery Society estimated that there were 2 million slaves in the early 1930s [[Ethiopia]], out of an estimated population of between 8 and 16 million.<ref>[http://www.yale.edu/glc/events/cbss/Miers.pdf Twentieth Century Solutions of the Abolition of Slavery]</ref> Slavery continued in Ethiopia until the brief Second Italo-Abyssinian War in October 1935, when was abolished by order of the Italian occupying forces.<ref>[http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6443 CJO - Abstract - Trading in slaves in Ethiopia, 1897–1938]</ref> In response to pressure by Western Allies of World War II Ethiopia officially abolished slavery and serfdom after regaining its independence in 1942. On August 26, 1942 [[Haile Selassie]] issued a proclamation outlawing slavery.<ref>[http://www.globalmarch.org/resourcecentre/world/ethiopia.pdf Ethiopia]</ref><ref>[http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/2691/COS2.html Chronology of slavery]</ref>

According to Sir Henry Bartle Frere (who sat on the Viceroy's Council), there were an estimated 8,000,000 or 9,000,000 slaves in India in 1841. In Malabar, about 15% of the population were slaves. Slavery was abolished in both [[Hindu]] and Muslim India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843. Provisions of the Indian Penal Code of 1861 effectively abolished slavery in India by making the enslavement of human beings a criminal offense.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-24160 Slavery :: Britannica Concise Encyclopedia]</ref><ref>[http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24156 Historical survey > Slave-owning societies]</ref><ref>[http://www.wluml.org/english/pubs/pdf/occpaper/OCP-07.pdf Islamic Law and the Colonial Encounter in British India]</ref>

Indigenous slaves existed in [[Korea]]. Slavery was officially abolished with the Gabo Reform of 1894. During the Joseon Dynasty (1392–1910) about 30% to 40% of the Korean population consisted of slaves. Slavery was hereditary, as well as a form of legal punishment. There was a slave class with both government and privately owned slaves, and the government occasionally gave slaves to citizens of higher rank. Privately owned slaves could be inherited as personal property. During poor harvests and [[famine]], many peasants would voluntarily become slaves in order to survive. In the case of private slaves they could buy their freedom.<ref>[http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-693609/history-of-Korea Korea, history pre-1945:slavery -- Encyclopaedia Britannica]</ref><ref>[http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/~geobl/main/lectures/l17.html The Choson Era: Late Traditional Korea]</ref><ref>[http://ideas.repec.org/p/snu/ioerwp/no26.html Korean Nobi]</ref>

==Prominent American Abolitionists==
*[[Harriet Tubman]], Underground Railroad. (1820 - 1913) <ref>http://www.heritageny.gov/Railroad/urny.cfm</ref> Well known associate of the Underground Railroad. Acted as a spy and lead raids to assist others in gaining their freedom.
*[[Frederick Douglass]], orator, writer and publisher. (1817 - 1875) <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/447/000048303/</ref> Respected leader of the abolitionist movement, consummate freedom seeker, orator and publisher.
*[[Ralph Waldo Emerson]], unitarian minister and freethinker. (1803-1882) <ref>http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/ralphwaldoemerson.html </ref> Expressed visceral public disapproval of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Exhorted people to "do the duty of the hour", and support abolition.
*[[William Lloyd Garrison]], anti-slavery editor of the Liberator (1805 - 1879) <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/966/000049819/</ref> Founded the Liberator with partner Isaac Knapp in 1831.
*[[Elizur Wright]], abolitionist, freethinker. (1804-1885) <ref> http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0852788.html</ref> Became involved in the abolitionist movement while attending Yale university. Eventually worked as a secretary with the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1833 and assumed the editorship of the Massachusetts Abolitionist in 1839.
*[[John Stuart Mill]], philosopher, essayist. (1806 - 1879) <ref>http://www.nndb.com/people/147/000030057/</ref> Wrote numerous essays on abolition during the American Civil War. Asserted the war was being fought to abolish slavery, an unpopular political opinion at the time.

==End of European and American Slavery==

The end of slavery in Europe was not to come until the beginning of the 1800s, when abolitionists such as [[William Wilberforce]] and [[John Wesley]] began speaking out against the evils of the system.<ref>[http://www.brycchancarey.com/abolition/wilberforce.htm William Wilberforce (1759-1833)]</ref> Wilberforce was supported in his efforts by [[John Newton]], a slave trader who became a Christian and then opposed the slave trade. The slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1807, however slavery was not abolished in the Empire until 1832.

The British ban on the slave trade enforced by the British navy did undermine the slave trade globally.<ref>[http://www.bbc.co.uk/devon/content/articles/2007/03/20/abolition_navy_feature.shtml Sailing against slavery. By Jo Loosemore] BBC</ref> This led to the United States banning the slave trade in the early 1800s. However, slavery itself was not abolished until decades later in 1865 when the U.S. government passed the [[13th Amendment]], after the secessionist Confederacy sought to defend its right to retain slaves and failed, and in [[South America]] when it was ended in Brazil in 1888.

=="Slavery" in the Bible ==
[[Image:Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe The Slave Market.jpg|right|thumb|350px|Boulanger Gustave Clarence Rudolphe's painting ''The Slave Market'']]
"Slavery" is also referenced, permitted and regulated in the Bible. The Hebrew word ''ebed'' is translated as "slave" or "servant", but the concept is not the same as the modern understanding of "slave". It included "persons in subordinate positions"<ref name="ctt">[http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qnoslave.html Does God condone slavery in the Bible?] (Christian ThinkTank)</ref> Therefore "all the subjects of Israel and Judah are called '''slaves''' of their '''kings'''".<ref name="ctt" />

Even where slaves are treated as property, the Bible teaches that all property belongs to God, with mankind responsible for looking after it for Him.

Some biblical passages mentioning slavery are:

* "We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, ... for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine..." {{bible ref|1_Timothy|1|9-10}}

* "A father can sell a daughter into slavery to pay a debt. A daughter sold into slavery is not released at the end of six years as is an ordinary male slave." -- Exodus 21:7-11

* "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant." -- Genesis 17:12-13, showing that slaves were considered subject to the Old Covenant.

* "A slave owner is to be punished if he strikes his slave and the slave dies shortly thereafter. If the slave lives a day or two and then dies, the slave owner is not to be punished. A slave is the same as money to his owner." -- Exodus 21:20-21

* "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever." -- Exodus 21:2-6. Hebrews may be slaves for a maximum of seven years, then must be freed. Any children produced during the period of slavery shall however remain the property of his owner.

* "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." -- Leviticus 25:44-46 (Leviticus 25 contains more detailed rules regarding who may or may not be enslaved)

* "And all the people that were left of the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites, which were not of the children of Israel, Their children that were left after them in the land, whom the children of Israel also were not able utterly to destroy, upon those did Solomon levy a tribute of bondservice (slavery) unto this day. But of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen: but they were men of war, and his servants, and his princes, and his captains, and rulers of his chariots, and his horsemen." -- I Kings 9:20-22

* "Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being a servant (slave)? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather." -- I Corinthians 7:20-21

* "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward." -- 1 Peter 2:18

* "Let as many servants (slaves) as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort." -- I Timothy 6:1-2

* The book of Philemon is a record of Paul sending a slave back to his master "no longer as a slave but more than a slave-- a beloved brother." (Philemon 1: 16)

The Old Testament alone, prior to New Testament considerations, broadly prohibits the permanent enslavement of the native inhabitants of Israel but permits the enslavement of immigrants and the occupants of other countries. Depending on the precise circumstances, ethnicity, nationality and any enslaved relatives of a slave, some must be freed after a specified time, while others remain slaves for life. While Exodus 21:20-21 (quoted above) permits corporal punishment of a slave, violence that results in the slave's death is not permitted.

==References==
<references/>

==External links==
*[http://www.pogledi.co.yu/english/78.php Islam and Slavery:The Concealed Truth], Excerpts from a Lecture by Srdja Trifkovic, Xavier University of Louisiana, New Orleans, November 14, 2003.

[[Category:History]]
[[Category:Economics]]
[[Category:Sociology]]

User:Fyezall

2008-07-08T23:21:12Z

Fyezall: New page: Hi

The Middlesex County Volunteers

2007-11-11T15:45:37Z

Fyezall:

'''The Middlesex County Volunteers''' is a non-profit fife and drum corps that plays music from the 17th, 18th,m and 19th centuries.

The Middlesex County Volunteers was founded in 1982 at the end of the [[United States]] [[Bicentennial]] celebration, the group is comprised of New England area musicians sixteen years old and older. The members wear the uniform prescribed by the United States [[Continental Army]]'s clothing warrants of 1779. The Continental Army derived many of its practices from Europe, including the tradition of reversing the musicians' colors since the musicians were "signallers," and considered non-combatants. It was recommended that New England regiments should wear blue coats with white facings which are the lapels and cuffs with the trousers and waistcoats being white. This is the uniform that The Middlesex County Volunteers wear.

They have released several CD's, performed extensively throughout New England at historic sites, numerous times with [[John Williams]], [[Keith Lockhart]] and the [[Boston Pops]], at [[Colonial Williamsburg]]'s [[Grand Illumination]], and throughout the British Isles and Western Europe.

Their music was used in a 2003 film ''The Deserter'' about the [[American Revolution]] by New England filmmaker [[Eric B. Borgman]]. In 2005 they were featured at the Yshalle Tattoo in [[Basel, Switzerland]] and have performed at the [[Edinburgh Military Tattoo]] in 2007. They were the first American Fife & Drum ensemble to appear at this event.

== Recordings ==
*''In America (2005)''
*''On Christmas Day (2002)''
*''Lafayette's Ghost (2001)''
*''Military Music from the Age of Reason (1999)''
*''Guardian Angels (1997)''
*''The Banks of Allan Water (1994)''
*''Massachusetts (1992)''

== External links ==
* [http://www.mcvfifesanddrums.org/index.html Middlesex County Volunteers Website]

[[Category:Arts]]