https://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=JeffreyB 2026-06-09T17:00:32Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.24.2 https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Guns_used_by_Mexican_drug_gangs&diff=993290 2012-07-13T18:28:17Z

<p>JeffreyB: This should probably be merged....</p> <hr /> <div>== This should probably be merged.... ==<br /> <br /> To the article on &lt;s&gt;provinces and towns in the Netherlands&lt;/s&gt; [[Operation Fast and Furious]]. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 14:28, 13 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Operation_Fast_and_Furious&diff=993288 2012-07-13T18:25:47Z

<p>JeffreyB: so that something links to the relevant page</p> <hr /> <div>'''Operation Fast and Furious''' (also known as '''Project Gunwalker''') is a government-funded program of the [[ATF]] and the [[Justice Department]] that involved selling [[guns used by Mexican drug gangs]] from the [[United States]] to [[drug cartels]] and other gangs in [[Mexico]]. [[Ann Coulter]] said the purpose of the operation was &quot;to strengthen liberals' argument for [[gun control]].&quot; [http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-07-11.html#read_more]<br /> <br /> Operation Fast and Furious has developed into an enormous scandal and failure for the [[Obama administration]]. Two U.S. border guards were killed as a direct result of Fast and Furious, and Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] was held in contempt for refusing to answer a House subpoena about it. <br /> <br /> The ATF named their operation Fast and Furious, but according to many it will go down in history by its more descriptive title: &quot;Gunwalker.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-definitive-scandal-gunwalker-much-worse-than-iran-contra/ The Definitive Scandal: ‘Gunwalker’ Much Worse Than ‘Iran-Contra’], ''Pajamas Media'', July 8, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt; On July 26, 2011, during a hearing on the gunwalking operation, ATF Special Agent Bill Newell told Congress he discussed the case with a White House National Security staffer as early as September 2010.&lt;ref&gt;Sharyl Attkisson. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20083772-10391695.html ATF Manager says he shared Fast and Furious Info with White House], ''[[CBS News]]'', July 26, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> While [[Republicans]] are conducting an investigation regarding weapons the federal government &quot;walked&quot; to drug cartels, the [[Liberal bias | liberal Media]], [[Democrat]] politicians, Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] and the [[White House]] are trying to cover-up the story;&lt;ref&gt;Mark Hemingway. [http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-seals-records-murdered-border-patrol-agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html Obama Admin Seals Records of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Implicated in Fast and Furious], ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', November 30, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt; the Obama administration is reportedly intimidating witnesses into not testifying to Congress.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/26/issa-atf-warns-witnesses-to-limit-testimony/&lt;/ref&gt; Other known crimes, in Mexico and in [[America]], have been traced to these weapons provided by the U.S. government. Gunwalker firearms are turning up in [[Arizona]] gun crimes, and some of the firearms in question may not have ever left the United States at all.&lt;ref&gt;http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-terrorizing-america-too-guns-show-up-in-u-s/&lt;/ref&gt; &quot;Our federal government may bear responsibility for at least 200 murders committed with “walked” firearms.&quot; &lt;ref&gt;[http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/msm-sheep-ignoring-the-scandal-of-the-century/ MSM Sheep: Ignoring the Scandal of the Century, Pajama's Media, September 28, 2011]&lt;/ref&gt; Ed Morrissey claims, &quot;at least 300 lives&quot; have been needlessly lost. &lt;ref&gt;[http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/222660/its-time-for-eric-holder-to-resign It's time for Eric Holder to resign, The Week, December 20, 2011]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Ongoing Event==<br /> New details of Operation Fast and Furious are still being uncovered because this is an ongoing event. As cover, President [[Barack Obama]] has decidedly turned to the [[Department of Justice]] inspector general to investigate the crime.&lt;ref&gt;Bob Owens. [http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doj-inspector-general-cant-be-trusted-to-investigate-gunwalker/ DOJ Inspector General Can’t Be Trusted to Investigate Gunwalker], ''Pajamas Media'', July 8, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt; President Obama intends to use the Gunwalker scandal as a means for implementing stricter [[gun control]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://tarpon.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/11166/ Obama’s Assault On The Second Amendment: Project Gunwalker], ''Tarpon's Swamp'', March 4, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Roger Hedgecock. [http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44246 Obama's the Target of Mexico Gunrunning Probe], ''Human Events'', June 17, 2011.&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;[http://2ndamendmentright.org/2011/03/15/obama%E2%80%99s-latest-%E2%80%98gun-control%E2%80%99-proposal-will-not-close-%E2%80%98gunwalker-loophole%E2%80%99/ Obama’s Latest ‘Gun Control’ Proposal will not Close ‘Gunwalker Loophole’], Posted on March 15, 2011 by 2ndAmendmentright.org.&lt;/ref&gt; <br /> <br /> ===News===<br /> [[Conservapedia|Conservapedia's]] ''[[Conservapedia:In the News|In the News]]'' featured story on July 7, 2011:<br /> {{Cquote|'''The [[Department of Justice]] was running [[guns]] into [[Honduras]] eight months ago''', as well as into [[Mexico]]. It's beginning to add up to an attempt to justify another [[United Nations]] [[attack]] on the [[sovereignty]] of the [[United States]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/07/07/news/fast-and-furious-unraveling/]&lt;/ref&gt; }}<br /> As [[Hot Air]] noted, ''&quot;...before Congressional investigators, [[Kenneth Melson]], acting director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ([[ATF]]), revealed important new details of Operation Fast and Furious...&quot;''&lt;ref&gt;[http://hotair.com/archives/2011/07/06/atf-director-melsons-secret-fourth-of-july-fireworks-and-the-post-testimony-fallout/ ''...the post-testimony fallout...'']&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> * The ATF isn’t the only agency to bear some responsibility for the botched operation that sent guns to Mexico. The [[Federal Bureau of Investigations]] and the [[Drug Enforcement Agency]] seem to have possessed information that could have had a material impact on Fast and Furious (i.e. info that could have eliminated or reduced the ostensible ‘need’ for the operation in the first place). Or, as the letter puts it, “We have very real indications from several sources that some of the gun trafficking ‘higher-ups’ that the ATF sought to identify were already known to other agencies and may even have been paid as informants.”<br /> * [[Taxpayer]] [[money]] was likely used to finance the gunrunning. “The evidence we have gathered raises the disturbing possibility that the Justice Department not only allowed criminals to smuggle weapons but that taxpayer dollars from other agencies may have financed those engaging in such activities.”<br /> * Senior [[ATF]] officials would have preferred to cooperate with Congressional inquiries — but “[[Department of Justice]] officials directed them not to respond and took full control of replying to briefing and document requests from Congress.”<br /> * Melson was at no point asked to resign.<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> ==External links on Project GunWalker==<br /> *[http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/a-journalist-s-guide-to-project-gunwalker A journalist's guide to 'Project Gunwalker'-Part One]<br /> *[http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/02/death_in_the_desert_project_gu.html Death in the Desert: Project Gunwalker and the ATF Cover-Up]<br /> *[http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&amp;f=5&amp;t=1145029 ATF Gunwalker (Grassley/Issa letter timeline links)]<br /> *[http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=316457 Could Gunwalker be Obama's Watergate?]<br /> *[http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/02/robert-farago/atf-gunwalker-scandal-set-to-blow/ ATF Gunwalker Scandal Set to Blow]<br /> *[http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/07/12/project-gunrunner-tied-directly-to-president-obama/ Project Gunrunner Tied Directly to President Obama]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:Obama Presidency]]<br /> [[Category:Crimes]]<br /> [[Category:United States Department of Justice]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Great_Soviet_Encyclopedia&diff=993252 2012-07-13T14:19:54Z

<p>JeffreyB: Created page with &quot;The '''Great Soviet Encyclopedia''' was an encyclopedia published in the USSR from 1926 to 1990. The publication is perhaps best remembered for how it dealt with people ...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>The '''Great Soviet Encyclopedia''' was an [[encyclopedia]] published in the [[USSR]] from 1926 to 1990.<br /> <br /> The publication is perhaps best remembered for how it dealt with people who had run afoul of the Soviet administration, and the clever use of [[censorship]] to remove reference to those individuals from its record, including mailing people articles and asking them to remove pages from their copies of the book and replace them with the new ones they'd been sent.<br /> <br /> [[Category: Communism]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=%27s-Hertogenbosch&diff=993249 2012-07-13T14:13:00Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>'''`s-Hertogenbosch''' (old [[Dutch]] for &quot;the Duke's Wood&quot;; or ''Bois-le-Duc'' in [[French]], ''Herzogenbusch'' in [[German]]) is the capital of the southern [[Netherlands|Dutch]] province of [[North Brabant]]. It is also known by the unofficial name &quot;'''Den Bosch'''&quot;. `s-Hertogenbosch gained its city rights in 1185, it was an important center in the [[Middle Ages]] and as late as the sixteenth century was the second-largest city in the present Netherlands. It suffered during the [[History of the Netherlands#Dutch Revolt 1568-1648|Dutch Wars of Independence]], and later in the 19th century from blinkered municipal authorities who forbade industrial or educational development in the city. This has, however, led to the preservation of an antique townscape which has made `s-Hertogenbosch a tourist center. The most notable tourist attractions are the [[Saint John]]'s Cathedral and the &quot;Bossche bol&quot; (a large chocolate pastry filled with whipped cream).<br /> <br /> The city has a population of 142,000 as of 2012.<br /> <br /> == Links ==<br /> *[http://www.s-hertogenbosch.nl/ official web-site] (in Dutch)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Dutch Cities and Towns]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Hertogenbosch}}</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=%27s-Hertogenbosch&diff=993248 2012-07-13T14:12:42Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>'''`s-Hertogenbosch''' (old [[Dutch]] for &quot;the Duke's Wood&quot;; or ''Bois-le-Duc'' in [[French]], ''Herzogenbusch'' in [[German]]) is the capital of the southern [[Netherlands|Dutch]] province of [[North Brabant]]. It is also known by the unofficial name &quot;'''Den Bosch'''&quot;. `s-Hertogenbosch gained its city rights in 1185, it was an important center in the [[Middle Ages]] and as late as the sixteenth century was the second-largest city in the present Netherlands. It suffered during the [[History of the Netherlands#Dutch Revolt 1568-1648|Dutch Wars of Independence]], and later in the 19th century from blinkered municipal authorities who forbade industrial or educational development in the city. This has, however, led to the preservation of an antique townscape which has made `s-Hertogenbosch a tourist center. The most notable tourist attractions are the [[St. John]]'s Cathedral and the &quot;Bossche bol&quot; (a large chocolate pastry filled with whipped cream).<br /> <br /> The city has a population of 142,000 as of 2012.<br /> <br /> == Links ==<br /> *[http://www.s-hertogenbosch.nl/ official web-site] (in Dutch)<br /> <br /> [[Category:Dutch Cities and Towns]]<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Hertogenbosch}}</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_women&diff=993240 2012-07-13T13:19:30Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Wired saying &quot;atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot; */</p> <hr /> <div>I think this entire article is analytically questionable. At a minimum, more and better research is necessary to support its thesis with a straight face.<br /> <br /> Have there been any actual peer-reviewed studies looking at whether women find atheism an unappealing characteristic in a man? Certainly many devout women would have a problem with it - I am not questioning that - but there are also female atheists in the world, as well as agnostics who likely wouldn't be too troubled by a partner's atheism. All this article seems to cite is a study showing that fewer women are active in atheist organizations. While this might mean there are fewer female atheists, it might also be that female atheists are merely less likely to participate in such organizations, or to traffic such websites. In other words, there is no way to know if there are more male atheists than female atheists based on the evidence presented here, and/or whether male atheists experience significant romantic difficulties arising out of or relating to their atheism. When one considers that many religious people experience difficulty relating to finding a mate who shares their specific religious beliefs (consider the Jew living in a predominantly Catholic city, for instance, or an evangelical Christian living in the heavily Mormon Utah...or anyone living in one of the very diverse major cities), it may be that atheists experience no added level of difficulty at all. I do not think that the conclusion this section of the article attempts to draw is truly supported by the evidence cited therein. <br /> <br /> Similarly, have there been any studies showing a correlation between atheism and Asperger's? If so, which way does the correlation run? E.g., are atheists significantly more likely to have Asperger's than the general population, or is it that people with Asperger's are more likely to be atheists? Correlation, after all, does not imply causation. Or is the author (and/or the quoted Vox Day) assuming a link exists because he (she?) personally finds atheists (at least the ones inclined to discuss their atheism in public fora) unpleasant and difficult to deal with? There are different types of socially awkward behavior associated with a variety of psychological profiles. Without further evidence than the author's personal viewpoint (experimental data perhaps), the Vox Day quote is basically just an opinion, with little information about the data from which the opinion was formed. Fine for an editorial page, but is it really appropriate in something purporting to be an encyclopedia, i.e., a repository of factual knowledge? Seems like someone needs to do some actual research.<br /> <br /> I ask all this because I know a number of atheists, and while certainly there are some who are argumentative and challenging to deal with (ones I think of as proselytizing atheists), there are also those who do not feel the need to discuss their beliefs with acquaintances. The conclusions in this article may be accurate for a vocal subset of the total population of atheists, or the conclusions may not be accurate at all, and may merely be the product of wishful thinking or &quot;selection bias&quot; (the tendency to give credence to evidence that supports one's beliefs and to discount evidence that contradicts them) on the part of the author. I certainly wouldn't cite the article in its present form as evidence of anything other than the uneven quality of an encyclopedia produced entirely by its users. [[User:SueDunham|--Sue Dunham]] 01:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::::Of course, there is no necessity to assert that atheists are more likely to have Asperger's Syndrome. The historical militancy of the atheist/[[evolution|evolutionist]] community and the ideas their ideologies have often engendered provides more than enough explanatory power to explain the origin of the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheists/evolutionist population (see: [[militant atheism]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|social effects of the theory of evolution]] ). In fact, it is arguably the best explanation for the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheist/evolutionist community. In addition, ultimately the decision to reject or be reconciled with [[God]] is a matter relating to the [[grace]] of God and [[free will]] and nobody is forced into [[atheism]] due to a physical condition. Please make an equally solid or better counter argument via proof and evidence. Also, please answer [[Shockofgod|&quot;the question&quot;]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:08, 24 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Copy editing request ==<br /> <br /> ''Atheism and rape''<br /> <br /> Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> '''change to'''<br /> Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.<br /> :Honestly, the amount of errors on this wiki; typos, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity and many more are a disgrace. What a truly pathetic effort; and yet when I try to correct it I can't. Dear me. GOD gave your skills, and to not use them is an offence to HIM. [[User:Pdorme|Pdorme]] 17:07, 10 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :I suppose GOD gave you the skill of ''whining'' about others poor typo, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity problems? GOD didn't give you the skill of ''making corrections'' without whining? Just who is ''really'' offending GOD here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:14, 10 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::And to top it off, Pdorme, you have been here since July 6, with barely a dozen edits on your part, none of them making so much as an effort to make the corrections you whine about. I suspect that your attitude has more to do with a defense of atheism than anything even remotely-related to mere spelling corrections; after all, you made your whining complaint on this particular page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:18, 10 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wired saying &quot;atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot; ==<br /> <br /> The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:46, 12 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::Please elaborate. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:55, 12 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Got this information from a certain website: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html Need to read more of article than I read so far. If exact quote cannot be used, will need to make judgment call if entirely of article supports Vox Day's use. From what I read so far, the person at the party (or social gathering) appears to be making the unsupported claim of atheism (there is no God) and relishing proclaiming this unsupported claim to intentionally and boastfully potentially aggravate some people. Plus, the type of person described does seem to like to gratuitously aggravate people in general. That is quarrelsome and socially challenged behavior, isn't it? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:05, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::Here is a quote from the article you listed: &quot;Typical atheists are hardly the rabble-rousing evangelists that Dawkins or Harris might like. They are an older, peaceable, quietly frustrated lot, who meet partly out of idealism and partly out of loneliness.&quot; This doesn't jive with your representation of all atheists as belligerents. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 09:15, 13 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Either the article uses the terms that you ascribe to it, or it does not. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that Vox Day's, whoever the heck that is, interpretation of the article represents what the article actually says, especially given the extract that Sharon provides, which really runs counter to that interpretation. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:19, 13 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservative_Victory_Fund&diff=993168 2012-07-12T23:10:41Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Our Record of Accomplishments */ Remove sloganeering, focus on facts</p> <hr /> <div><br /> '''Conservative Victory Fund''' or '''CVF''' was founded more than 30 years ago by the late [[conservative]] leader, Congressman [[John Ashbrook]]. CVF works to elect a conservative majority to the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] and the [[United States Senate|U.S. Senate]].<br /> Before Conservative Victory Fund supports a [[candidate]] challenging an [[incumbent]] or running for an open seat, they research the race including the candidates who are running. They then send out a questionnaire that must be answered and signed by the candidate before support is considered.<br /> Conservative Victory Fund does get involved in primaries to support the conservative candidate over [[moderates]] or [[liberal|liberals]]. Once a candidate is elected they keep track of what he or she does in Congress and maintain a relationship with the Congressman or Senator to help ensure that he or she remains a conservative.<br /> They only provide financial assistance to incumbents who are conservative and can be shown to be so by their votes in Congress. They also try to help conservative incumbents with donations who are being targeted by the liberals. <br /> In addition to providing direct financial assistance, CVF also provides in-kind assistance that results in multiplying their direct financial help. Additionally, they provide consulting and other help to numerous conservative campaigns.<br /> <br /> == Record of accomplishments ==<br /> <br /> Some conservatives whom CVF has helped elect include:<br /> <br /> *Congresswoman [[Michele Bachmann]] (MN)<br /> *Congressman [[Paul Broun Jr.]] (GA)<br /> *Congressman [[Andy Harris]] (MD)<br /> *Senator [[Jim Inhofe]] (OK)<br /> *Congressman [[Doug Lamborn]] (CO)<br /> *Senator [[Mike Lee]] (UT)<br /> *Senator [[Jim Risch]] (ID)<br /> *Congressman [[Dana Rohrabacher]] (CA)<br /> *Congressman [[Allen West]] (FL)<br /> <br /> == In 2008 ==<br /> Thanks to its supporters, CVF had victories in 2008. In the Senate, Conservative Victory Fund helped elect and re-elect a number of conservatives including: Senators Jim Inhofe (OK), [[John Cornyn]] (TX), [[Roger Wicker]] (MS), [[Jeff Sessions]] (AL), [[Pat Roberts]] (KS), and [[Saxby Chambliss]] (GA) (whom CVF helped in the general election and subsequent runoff) among others. Also, Jim Risch became a new conservative face in the Senate when he won Larry Craig's Senate seat with the help of Conservative Victory Fund.<br /> <br /> During its 40 year history Conservative Victory Fund has always looked to open seats to make sure conservatives fill them whenever possible. 2008 was no different. CVF helped conservative stalwart [[Tom McClintock]] win an open seat in [[California]] though millions were spent on behalf of his opponent. Also in California, CVF helped [[Duncan D. Hunter]] win election (he had recently returned from active duty service in our nation's armed forces). In Colorado, [[Mike Coffman]] won a hard fought contest for [[Tom Tancredo]]'s seat. In [[Florida]], CVF was active helping [[Bill Posey]] win an open seat and [[Tom Rooney]] defeat Democrat incumbent [[Tim Mahoney]]. CVF's efforts in [[Illinois]] helped conservative [[Aaron Schock]] win and become the youngest member elected to Congress. And in [[Utah]], after conservatives showed their lack of faith in incumbent [[Chris Cannon]], [[Jason Chaffetz]] won his seat. And in a special election in [[Louisiana]] CVF helped [[John Fleming]] win his open seat race.<br /> <br /> The liberals and their allies in the media targeted a number of solid conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives for defeat. Conservative Victory Fund helped many who were reelected. These include: <br /> *Congressmen [[Mark Souder]] (IN), <br /> *Michele Bachmann (MN), <br /> *[[Scott Garrett]] (NJ), <br /> *[[John Shadegg]] (AZ), <br /> *Dana Rohrabacher (CA), <br /> *[[Doug Lamborn]] (CO), and <br /> *[[Jean Schmidt]] (OH) -- to mention a few.<br /> <br /> <br /> == More conservatives CVF has helped over the years ==<br /> <br /> Senators<br /> <br /> *Jim Risch and Jim McClure of Idaho<br /> *Mitch McConnell of Kentucky<br /> *Jim Talent of Missouri<br /> *Saxby Chambliss and late Paul Coverdell of Georgia<br /> *The late Chic Hecht and Paul Laxalt of Nevada<br /> *Jim DeMint and the late Strom Thurmond of South Carolina<br /> *Jon Kyl and the late Barry Goldwater of Arizona<br /> *John Barrasso, Craig Thomas, and Mike Enzi of Wyoming<br /> *Conrad Burns of Montana<br /> *Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania<br /> *Michael Crapo and Steve Symms of Idaho<br /> *Johnny Isakson of Georgia<br /> *Jeff Sessions of Alabama<br /> *Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma<br /> *George Allen of Virginia<br /> *David Vitter of Louisiana<br /> *The late Jesse Helms, the late John East and Richard Burr of North Carolina<br /> *Jim Bunning of Kentucky<br /> *Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts of Kansas<br /> *John Thune of South Dakota<br /> *Roger Wicker of Mississippi<br /> <br /> Congressmen<br /> <br /> *Dana Rohrabacher, Chris Cox, Tom McClintock, Elton Gallegly, Duncan D. Hunter, Richard Pombo, and Ed Royce of California<br /> *J.D. Hayworth, Trent Franks, and Jeff Flake of Arizona<br /> *Tom Tancredo, Bob Beauprez, Marilyn Musgrave, Doug Lamborn, and Mike Coffman of Colorado<br /> *Pete Sessions, Jeb Hensarling, Ted Poe, Louie Gohmert, Mike McCaul, Kenny Marchant, Pete Olson, and Ron Paul of Texas<br /> *Chris Chocola, and Mike Pence of Indiana<br /> *Steve Chabot, Bob Latta, Jean Schmidt, and Jim Jordan of Ohio<br /> *Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin<br /> *Gil Gutknecht and Mark Kennedy of Minnesota<br /> *Bob Goodlatte, Jo Ann Davis, Thelma Drake, and Randy Forbes of Virginia<br /> *Robert Aderholt of Alabama<br /> *Adam Putnam, Tom Feeney, Tom Rooney, Katherine Harris, and Ric Keller of Florida<br /> *Don Manzullo, Peter Roskam of Illinois<br /> *Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland<br /> *Ernest Istook, Tom Cole, and John Sullivan of Oklahoma<br /> *Steve King of Iowa<br /> *Jon Porter of Nevada<br /> *Scott Garrett of New Jersey<br /> *Gresham Barrett of South Carolina<br /> *Rob Bishop and Jason Chaffetz of Utah<br /> *Patrick McHenry, Walter Jones, Robin Hayes, and Virginia Foxx of North Carolina<br /> *Geoff Davis of Kentucky<br /> *Lynn Westmoreland, Paul Broun, and Phil Gingrey of Georgia<br /> *Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska.<br /> *Blaine Luetkemeyer, and Sam Graves of Missouri<br /> *John Duncan, Jr. of Tennessee<br /> *John Fleming of Louisiana<br /> <br /> == External links ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.conservativevictoryfund.org Conservative Victory Fund]<br /> <br /> [[Category: Conservatism]]<br /> [[Category:United States Political Organizations]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Joe_Paterno&diff=993167 2012-07-12T23:06:00Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Joe Paterno''' (December 21, 1926 – January 22, 2012) was the head coach of the [[Penn State]] Nittany Lions football team from 1966 to 2011, compiling a 409-136-3 record and winning two national championships. He was the most winningest head coach in Division I college football history. In November 2011 he was fired after he was mentioned in a grand jury report related to the Jerry Sandusky child abuse case. He was not accused of any crime.<br /> <br /> Paterno addressed the 1988 [[Republican Party|Republican]] convention.<br /> <br /> On January 22, 2012, Paterno died of [[lung cancer]].<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Paterno, Joe}}<br /> [[Category:Football]]<br /> [[Category:Sports]]<br /> [[Category:Republican Party]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Atheism_and_women&diff=993160 2012-07-12T22:46:45Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Wired saying &quot;atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot; */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>I think this entire article is analytically questionable. At a minimum, more and better research is necessary to support its thesis with a straight face.<br /> <br /> Have there been any actual peer-reviewed studies looking at whether women find atheism an unappealing characteristic in a man? Certainly many devout women would have a problem with it - I am not questioning that - but there are also female atheists in the world, as well as agnostics who likely wouldn't be too troubled by a partner's atheism. All this article seems to cite is a study showing that fewer women are active in atheist organizations. While this might mean there are fewer female atheists, it might also be that female atheists are merely less likely to participate in such organizations, or to traffic such websites. In other words, there is no way to know if there are more male atheists than female atheists based on the evidence presented here, and/or whether male atheists experience significant romantic difficulties arising out of or relating to their atheism. When one considers that many religious people experience difficulty relating to finding a mate who shares their specific religious beliefs (consider the Jew living in a predominantly Catholic city, for instance, or an evangelical Christian living in the heavily Mormon Utah...or anyone living in one of the very diverse major cities), it may be that atheists experience no added level of difficulty at all. I do not think that the conclusion this section of the article attempts to draw is truly supported by the evidence cited therein. <br /> <br /> Similarly, have there been any studies showing a correlation between atheism and Asperger's? If so, which way does the correlation run? E.g., are atheists significantly more likely to have Asperger's than the general population, or is it that people with Asperger's are more likely to be atheists? Correlation, after all, does not imply causation. Or is the author (and/or the quoted Vox Day) assuming a link exists because he (she?) personally finds atheists (at least the ones inclined to discuss their atheism in public fora) unpleasant and difficult to deal with? There are different types of socially awkward behavior associated with a variety of psychological profiles. Without further evidence than the author's personal viewpoint (experimental data perhaps), the Vox Day quote is basically just an opinion, with little information about the data from which the opinion was formed. Fine for an editorial page, but is it really appropriate in something purporting to be an encyclopedia, i.e., a repository of factual knowledge? Seems like someone needs to do some actual research.<br /> <br /> I ask all this because I know a number of atheists, and while certainly there are some who are argumentative and challenging to deal with (ones I think of as proselytizing atheists), there are also those who do not feel the need to discuss their beliefs with acquaintances. The conclusions in this article may be accurate for a vocal subset of the total population of atheists, or the conclusions may not be accurate at all, and may merely be the product of wishful thinking or &quot;selection bias&quot; (the tendency to give credence to evidence that supports one's beliefs and to discount evidence that contradicts them) on the part of the author. I certainly wouldn't cite the article in its present form as evidence of anything other than the uneven quality of an encyclopedia produced entirely by its users. [[User:SueDunham|--Sue Dunham]] 01:29, 11 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::::Of course, there is no necessity to assert that atheists are more likely to have Asperger's Syndrome. The historical militancy of the atheist/[[evolution|evolutionist]] community and the ideas their ideologies have often engendered provides more than enough explanatory power to explain the origin of the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheists/evolutionist population (see: [[militant atheism]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution|social effects of the theory of evolution]] ). In fact, it is arguably the best explanation for the quarrelsomeness and other social deficiencies of many in the atheist/evolutionist community. In addition, ultimately the decision to reject or be reconciled with [[God]] is a matter relating to the [[grace]] of God and [[free will]] and nobody is forced into [[atheism]] due to a physical condition. Please make an equally solid or better counter argument via proof and evidence. Also, please answer [[Shockofgod|&quot;the question&quot;]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:08, 24 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Copy editing request ==<br /> <br /> ''Atheism and rape''<br /> <br /> Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> '''change to'''<br /> Atheism offers no condemnation of rape and it provides no moral basis for a society to attempt to prevent and deter rape.<br /> :Honestly, the amount of errors on this wiki; typos, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity and many more are a disgrace. What a truly pathetic effort; and yet when I try to correct it I can't. Dear me. GOD gave your skills, and to not use them is an offence to HIM. [[User:Pdorme|Pdorme]] 17:07, 10 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :I suppose GOD gave you the skill of ''whining'' about others poor typo, spelling, grammar, construction and fluidity problems? GOD didn't give you the skill of ''making corrections'' without whining? Just who is ''really'' offending GOD here? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:14, 10 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::And to top it off, Pdorme, you have been here since July 6, with barely a dozen edits on your part, none of them making so much as an effort to make the corrections you whine about. I suspect that your attitude has more to do with a defense of atheism than anything even remotely-related to mere spelling corrections; after all, you made your whining complaint on this particular page. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 17:18, 10 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wired saying &quot;atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot; ==<br /> <br /> The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:46, 12 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Dawkins_and_women&diff=993096 2012-07-12T15:01:35Z

<p>JeffreyB: &quot;the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot; ==<br /> <br /> The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:01, 12 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Liberal&diff=993010 2012-07-11T22:23:52Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* &quot;the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot; */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]<br /> |[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]<br /> &lt;br /&gt;<br /> &lt;!-- =============DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE!============================== --&gt;<br /> <br /> == Differences between liberals and democrats ==<br /> These should not be included because these do not describe liberalism in and of itself, it describes typical opinions of American democrats. Liberalism is the opposite of some of these things because liberalism is a ideology that mean belief in personal liberty and belief in a social market. These are all actually conservative by definition.<br /> <br /> '''Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events''' (liberals believe in the freedom of speech and religion. This confusion is caused by democrats belief in the seperation of church and state clause)<br /> <br /> '''Support for gun control''' (Liberals believe in maximim personal liberty)<br /> <br /> '''Political correctness''' (this is censorship, liberals strongly oppose censorship of the media)<br /> <br /> '''Environmentalism''' (not a belief of liberalism in and of itself)<br /> <br /> '''Disarmament treaties''' (depends on how you look at it, liberals can be either isolationist of involvementist)<br /> <br /> '''In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.''' (doesn't have anything to do with politics)<br /> <br /> '''Calling anyone they agree with a &quot;professor&quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).''' (this one doesn't even need an explanation)<br /> <br /> == This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==<br /> Problems with this page in order and how to fix them: <br /> '''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' &quot;A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.&quot; is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online) <br /> <br /> '''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''<br /> The lists header &quot;A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. &quot; on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals. <br /> <br /> Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men. <br /> <br /> '''3. picture'''<br /> The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries. <br /> <br /> '''4. Liberals in north america today'''<br /> Again, no facts here. <br /> the following claims are made: <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]<br /> <br /> 5. Using the term liberal and conervative is misleading. Conservative thought historically believes that human beings are unable to govern themselves and must have a strong ruler. Liberal thought is responsible for the American State as a whole. Assuming the Bible is concrete fact is a mistake. Since the bible is translated the only way to insure that it has not been corrupted would be to read it in the original language. Most conservatives are also economic liberals making these terms too broad to describe the political thought in this article. <br /> <br /> * Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7] <br /> <br /> * Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt; <br /> <br /> The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless. <br /> <br /> The second is unfactual due to the word &quot;Some&quot;. I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america]) <br /> <br /> The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment. <br /> <br /> to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable. <br /> <br /> This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)<br /> ::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called &quot;liberal media&quot; (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]<br /> <br /> :: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]<br /> <br /> The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.<br /> <br /> Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.<br /> <br /> <br /> My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned): <br /> <br /> &quot;A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing&quot;<br /> <br /> Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: &quot;Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth&quot;. I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Picture ==<br /> <br /> Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be &quot;an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint&quot;, but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)<br /> <br /> : You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not &quot;compassionate&quot;) and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Which doesn't change a thing about the fact that a 'trustworthy encyclopedia' should not let satire dominate such an important article (it's linked on the main page if I remember correctly). After all, this is the first picture people see and is hence in some way a discription or a resume for the whole article. If you want to be taken seriously, better take another picture up first. (You can still have the picture later in the article like you have in the article about atheism.) A picture of your favourite liberal would probably be better. You might even consider to cut the picture altogether. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:04, 8 February 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Odd that a &quot;new&quot; editor here would remember the Main Page linkage so far back, Shakleton. I am happy you so well note and remember our topical and thought-provoking news items! But try to remember that a European Socialist, such as yourself, will have little of value to contribute to our American, conservative encyclopedia project, or agree with much of what we say. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 17:15, 8 February 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::: You may be right in me not agreeing with everything you say but what I can indeed say is something about credibility as this has little to do with political views or country of origin. And what I said was that a picture as provocative as this one somehow ruins your own credibility. This is just some European advice, I know, and you certainly do not have to follow it, I just thought that it could be useful for your encyclopedia. -[[User:Shakleton|Shakleton]] 16:06, 9 February 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> It ruins our credibility (perhaps) with liberals. Who cares? They are full of hate, deceit and vituperation for anyone who dares to disagree with them. Around here, we wear that as a badge of honor. The diagram is far more correct than it is satire, if you ask me. I repositioned it to be more prominent in the article, in light of your thoughts. Godspeed to you. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:34, 9 February 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> Im a liberal, yet i feel like im not full of hate, I could be wrong though. I find this article funny though cause i believe in only like half of this stuff- and that's mostly because the other half is not a political opinion. I have read many articles on your website and it seems like you guys spit a lot of hate. Why? I have read wikipedia- i even edited some articles and yet i have never found it to be liberal- only neutral. Just because it doesn't associate it self with Christianity, nor does it nod its head while you guys talk all the time, is it wrong enough to have to rewrite?. Now back to the topic at hand- It does matter if it makes you guys loose credit. Liberals are not the only political side opposition to yourselves, People look at this. If you look like your only mode of aurguing is name calling- it discredits yourself to the rest of the world. You also make the us all (americans) look really closed minded.<br /> [[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)<br /> :You are close-minded. When you come in here to look and laugh, you reveal that you laugh at anything that doesn't agree with your way of thinking. We continually place news items revealing just how much contempt your side of the fence treats traditional American values, and yet you have the nerve to come here and state you're an American, while laughing at us? I think deep down inside ''you fear us'' by the our attempts to reveal to the rest of the country what your side is actually like. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:35, 11 January 2011 (CST)<br /> <br /> I see.You claim we get in the way of traditional American values- such as the freedom for the pursuit of happiness (example- the right to marry who you wish.) or the right to life (public option maybe?). Why do you insist on such a my side yourside type thinking? Everybody has the ability to think freely and yet you guys treat us all like villains (though in all fairness my &quot;side&quot; hasn't been much better). You guys attack the left like we are looking to hurt the country cause thats what we like to do- I never laughed at you, I'm sure am not scared of you, and i don't (believe it or not) pity you. We are not coveted nor secret. Its not like we have a secret cult or wear special underwear. We have nothing to hide, and we believe non of our leaders have nothing to hide. Meanwhile you have people who you assosiate with running around talking about killing the president- or saying things like Hurricane Katrina was the gays and the jews fault, and then you try to sweep it under the rug like it never happened. <br /> [[User:NebraskaG|NebraskaG]] 13:40, 11 January 2011 (CST)<br /> <br /> == Additional Liberal Organizations ==<br /> Center for Democracy &amp; Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}<br /> <br /> :Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy &amp; Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as &quot;Progressive&quot; organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can &quot;think about&quot; and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Founding Fathers were liberal==<br /> For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. &quot;No taxation without representation.&quot; Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate &quot;liberals&quot; for to begin with.<br /> <br /> Point is, &quot;liberal&quot; is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with &quot;liberal&quot; as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase &quot;pro-life.&quot; Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not &quot;pro-life&quot; must be &quot;pro-death.&quot; And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...<br /> <br /> What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed &quot;conservatives&quot; are as guilty of it as self profesed &quot;liberals.&quot; The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those &quot;liberals&quot; lol...)<br /> <br /> <br /> (Keep in mind this is coming from a liberal) The founding fathers were not liberals (at least what liberalism means today), rather, they were libertarians or conservative communist(It should be worthy to note that democratic-republicans were libertarians and the federalist were conservative(by that I mean that they weren't authoritarians because authoritarians believe in socialism (which the federalist did not( but they did oppose free-enterprise and personal liberties (which in my mind make them communist conservatives). Although some aspects of socialism did exist(such as democratic-republicans opposition of aristocracy and federalist belief that government should be actively involved in the economy), socialism had not developed. Thus the founding fathers weren't liberals.<br /> <br /> :Grounding government on morality made most of the Founding Fathers conservative, not libertarian. But your points are well taken and I hope you can contribute more.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:48, 11 October 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==List at top==<br /> <br /> The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a &quot;liberal platform&quot;, if you will. Why are there &quot;studies&quot; like this: &quot;In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World.&quot; Why can't we just say &quot;secularism and atheism&quot;? <br /> <br /> Or this: &quot;Calling anyone they agree with a &quot;professor&quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).&quot; Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Would like to query the &quot;opposition to the Patriot Act&quot; and being anti-republican while considering the fact that if a democratic president had tried to implement that policy, the screams of Communism and KGB would have raised the roofs. Has anyone considered the fact that invasive policy is invasive based on its content rather than who made it into a bill and passed it? <br /> <br /> Oh and that &quot;call someone a professor whether they are or not&quot; thing? I don't know anyone of either party who does that. If you were building a page meant to alienate Americans from each other you couldn't have done a better job cause I'm walking away from you guys and I won't be back.<br /> <br /> :Obviously I'm not going to bother with your comment if you petulantly declare that you &quot;won't be back.&quot; I do wonder how you'd do on our [[Essay:Quantifying Open-Mindedness|test for open-mindedness]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 07:43, 12 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Clean up article==<br /> Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Recent changes ==<br /> <br /> In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line &quot;A &quot;living Constitution&quot; that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals&quot;. This should be two lines.<br /> <br /> Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? &quot;A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology&quot; - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the &quot;anti-bellum&quot;). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Obama: Professor?==<br /> ''Calling anyone they agree with a &quot;professor&quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' <br /> <br /> *Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;type=politics]&lt;/ref&gt; He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&lt;/ref&gt; He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&lt;/ref&gt; Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;type=politics]&lt;/ref&gt; The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> * ''&quot;I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution,&quot; Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, &quot;Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized.&quot; Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&amp;type=politics] So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.<br /> <br /> * University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]&lt;/ref&gt; states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as &quot;Senior Lecturer.&quot; From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.<br /> <br /> * Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. [http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]<br /> <br /> All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was &quot;only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor&quot;, but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said &quot;Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track&quot;. I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title &quot;professor&quot; to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.<br /> <br /> Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a &quot;professor&quot; regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.<br /> <br /> == Suggestions: ==<br /> The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the &quot;See also&quot; section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> ==Liberal Arts==<br /> I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==<br /> :''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.'' <br /> This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Aren't we breaking the first commandment of Conservapedia, ''&quot;Everything you post must be true and verifiable.&quot;'' Why don't we just use the dictionary definition of liberal, or are we under the impression that the dictionary has a liberal bias here?<br /> ::''liberal: favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.''http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal<br /> <br /> :::I don't use that definition because it is false. Liberals are people who favor taxpayer-funded abortion, censorship of classroom prayer, and just about anything that is anti-Christian.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::Do you have a reliable citation for that? Also, what makes you say that that definition is false?<br /> <br /> ::: Can we really make up a definition like this. I would consider that the definition you are proposing here Mr. Shlafly better describes... anti-Christian which can be part of a liberal position but do not describe the broad concept of what liberals think. I think the intro of the article should be more general instead of going right away to the many flaws of liberals. I feel that the article explains the problems of liberals without identifying them as a group as if those problems were the essence instead of the consequence the liberal way of thinking. I agree that the dictionary doesn't suit what we are talking about but maybe a derivation from the biased Webster and the Oxford American could turn into something like: A liberal is someone who reject traditional and religious values toward a secular and relatively socialist worldview.<br /> ::::You've just described either an anarchist or a communist by your definition. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 02:13, 18 April 2010 (EDT)<br /> :::::Schlafly said that liberals are far more than just anti-Christian. He said that they favor taxpayer-funded abortion as well. In addition, the definition from the top of the article states that liberals don't care about logical standards. That is far beyond merely anti-Christian, and is actually a very good definition of liberal. [[User:SamuelC|SamuelC]] 02:20, 18 April 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::::Hmmm, I think we could profitably incorporate that definition as the way liberals view themselves. How about:<br /> :::: &quot;A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who favors so-called &quot;progress&quot; away from, or &quot;reform&quot; of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberal&lt;/ref&gt;, logical and biblical standards. There are no general liberal standards; often a liberal uses many words to say what is, in essence, nothing. Many liberals become liberals out of a craving for attention or other self-centered reasons.&quot;<br /> :::: I think this is a better definition than either, because it tells what they're (re-)gressing away from, and that they view it as progress. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 14:18, 11 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br /> ::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br /> :::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == The philosophy of Liberalism ==<br /> <br /> We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night<br /> <br /> :Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.<br /> <br /> :No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)<br /> <br /> :: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing &quot;near the center&quot; about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.<br /> <br /> == Free Market ==<br /> <br /> I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ==Suggestion==<br /> The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==<br /> <br /> Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> That's just the thing. The article is written this way (and with the cartoon) because anybody who disagrees with it can be painted as a liberal, and the painting is indeed a portrayal of a rather despicable sort of person (liberal, as per conservapedians' definition of what that is (and most of the bullet points contain a fair degree of truth, with some spin)). The best part is that doing something tantamount on the opposite end of the spectrum will result in a block for [[liberal namecalling]]. I would like to see a couple more citations here and there in the article, like with the criticism of President Obama for being uncharitable (I don't doubt that there has been criticism; I'd just like to know from whom). [[User:DanieleGiusto|DanieleGiusto]] 13:26, 14 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Problems With the Article ==<br /> <br /> ''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''<br /> &lt;br /&gt;Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.<br /> <br /> There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?<br /> :Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.<br /> <br /> : As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?<br /> <br /> Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> : Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Application ==<br /> <br /> The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss<br /> <br /> *No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> If this is true, shouldn't the article be renamed &quot;American Liberalism&quot; or something along those lines. Or has the subject of this article changed since the 4th April 2009? [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 12:33, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Question about the article ==<br /> <br /> In the first line &quot;A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards&quot;, how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to &quot;Turn the other cheek&quot;. {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}<br /> <br /> :Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. &quot;Turning the other cheek&quot; has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]&lt;sub&gt;&lt;small&gt;&lt;small&gt;/Admin&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/small&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it &quot;because he can&quot; doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}<br /> :Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.<br /> <br /> :Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)<br /> <br /> So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> My apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this, but I was reading through this talk page and noticed the topic arise. It is my understanding that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all have the same root. [I may be wrong about this, I am by no means an expert]. So if Christianity is inherently logical, partially due to the method of the creation of the earth described above, are Judaism and Islam logical as well? If not, why not? I am just curious about the differences of views between the three faiths considering they have a common ancestry. A similar question could be asked about the different denominations of the respective faiths.<br /> <br /> == First few sentences ==<br /> I'm not arguing with the political views of Conservapedia at all, but wouldn't it look a little nicer not to have the first few sentences be an editorial against liberals? Wouldn't a dictionary definition or something similar be a better introduction, and then the article can discuss the flaws of liberal views after that? - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:34, 11 November 2009 (EST)<br /> :A definition is included in the first few sentences, &quot;A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.&quot;. It so happens that the definition of a liberal can be used against them. [[User:NP|NP]] 13:32, 13 December 2009 (EST)<br /> ::My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals. I think it needs a more specific definition in its first sentence or two. Also, the second sentence, &quot;There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.&quot; either needs to cite a source showing that many liberals say what they're saying just to get attention, or be removed. Such a sentence, unless sourced, doesn't really set a good tone for an encyclopedia. We can present liberalism as is and use that to show why it's flawed, rather than editorializing at the beginning. - [[User:Trajork|Trajork]] 13:55, 13 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::You write, &quot;My problem with that is that not all people who reject logical and Biblical standards are liberals.&quot; What other label do you have in mind? Such people are not conservatives, and I wouldn't call them &quot;moderates&quot;. Definitions are the rule, and need not (and should not) address every unusual exception.<br /> <br /> :::On your second point, I'll find and add some cites. There are plenty of examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:26, 13 December 2009 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::Webster's dictionary defines a liberal as &quot;1) a person who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways 2) a member or supporter of a liberal political party or c) an advocate or adherent of liberalism especially in individual rights&quot;. Just thought it would be a helpful, unbiased, and credible definition. -- Gtc216<br /> <br /> The following people would appear to fit the definition of 'liberal' as it currently stands: &quot;someone who rejects logical and biblical standards&quot;:<br /> *An Islamic terrorist<br /> *a paranoid schizophrenic (even if they vote Republican)<br /> *A member of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter-Day Saints.<br /> *An Ultra-Orthodox Jew<br /> *J Edgar Hoover<br /> *A member of the Flat Earth Society<br /> *A member of the Ku Klux Klan<br /> *Adolf Hitler<br /> *Robert Mugabe<br /> *General Francisco Franco<br /> <br /> Is that the defintition we want? [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:24, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :First of all, terrorists, the KKK, and Hitler WERE liberal. Second, a paranoid shcizophrenic is incapable of accepting or rejecting anything, so they don't count. Third, Mormons accept the bible, they just ALSO accept an additional book. What you're talking about with J Edgar Hoover, I don't even know, but Flat Earthers certainly are attention seeking and making ludicrous claims - sounds pretty liberal to me. Maybe you should re-think your objection. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:30, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> ::OK, if you think Islamic terrorists and Hitler are liberal, then I guess the definition stands. Can I go and add Hitler's liberalism to his article? The Fundamentalist LDS are the polygamous ones, by the way. Is polygamy a Biblical standard? How about the Ultra-Orthodox Jew? But maybe we should see what Mr Schlafly thinks about this. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:36, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> I don't think anybody denies that Hitler was an evolutionist and an anti-capitalist, so yeah, he was very liberal. Liberal doesn't just mean &quot;universal healthcare,&quot; it refers to a whole network of beliefs. Hitler certainly differed in some important ways from modern American liberals, but the underlying philosophies are surprisingly similar. <br /> While Mormons and Jews do not believe exactly what we believe, they are, for the most part, undoubtedly conservative. I don't think anybody is calling Mitt Romney liberal - that would be silly and wouldn't make any sense. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:40, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> :My challenge to you is to go to the articles [[Adolf Hitler]], [[Ku Klux Klan]] and [[terrorist]] and add the fact that they are liberal. Let's see what happens. [[User:Cantaloupe|Cantaloupe]] 19:47, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> ::I'm not going be goaded into action by a liberal user. This conversation is over. Go make substantive edits.[[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 19:50, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Liberals don't have the market cornered on evil, but they are a major political focus of evil. We can help our readers by distinguishing between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils. <br /> <br /> :::Taking potshots at us while we're trying to do this, won't help, so stop or I'll have to ban the lot of you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:01, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::As a totally sincere question: What is the difference &quot;between the evils of liberalism and some of the world's other evils&quot;? Right now, the article defines a liberal as &quot;someone who rejects logical and biblical standards&quot;; wouldn't pretty much every evil or misguided person (except for heretics who think they are following Biblical standards) fit that definition? Thanks. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 20:06, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::That doesn't sound like a good definition, although it does provide a partial description. I'll see what I can dig up. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:15, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> We welcome concise improvements, but not dilutions. The five-word definition quoted by Evan seems to be generally true, but we would certainly welcome non-dilutive, concise suggestions. Evan, did you have something in mind? And no, not everyone who is evil or misguided rejects logical and biblical standards as liberals do.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:26, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I don't have anything definite in mind yet; right now I'm trying to figure out what it means. Andy, are you saying that (1) other evil or misguided people reject logical and Biblical standards ''in a different way than'' liberals, or (2) that other evil or misguided people do ''not'' reject logical and Biblical standards, but only liberals do? If (1), then it would seem the current definition of &quot;liberal&quot; needs to be made more precise. If (2), then I'd appreciate if you could explain to me how people become evil or misguided without rejecting logical and Biblical standards.<br /> :Just off the top of my head, I'd favor option (1) and define &quot;liberal&quot; more precisely as (something like) someone who rejects logical and Biblical standards in favor of greater liberty/licentiousness - there are plenty of other ways to reject them. However, I haven't really thought about this; I'd appreciate your comments. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 22:10, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Most people recognize evil and even repent after doing evil deeds. [[Liberals]], in contrast, really do reject logical and Biblical standards and refuse to repent. Liberals are also unique in trying to keep others away from the Bible.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:42, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::I just found [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm an interesting article] about theological liberalism which defines it as &quot;partial or total emancipation of man from the supernatural, moral, and Divine order.&quot; I think this changes my viewpoint tremendously: theological liberalism ''is'' a much broader term than political liberalism: only people like this would want to keep others away from the Bible. Is this the sort of liberalism you're talking about? If so, I think we should expand the article to talk about things like the condemnation of liberalism by the Roman Catholic Church and show how political liberalism follows from theological liberalism; if not, I think we should distinguish the two sorts. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:01, 4 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> Here's my favorite website, distinguishing between liberals and conservatives. [http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/other/conservative-vs-liberal-beliefs/] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 20:16, 3 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :Let's not get bogged down by one of the liberals' favorite tactics: exploiting the ambiguity of terminology. Recall that the Soviets and their [[fellow travelers]] said they were for &quot;peace&quot;, while the [[peace movement]] of the 1960s was devoted mostly to unilateral [[nuclear disarmament]] and getting the US out of [[Vietnam]]. The latter move caused over two million civilian deaths and extended North Vietnam's anti-religious tyranny to the South. The former would have been an even greater disaster.<br /> <br /> :We are talking here about a particular kind of evil: American political liberalism. US liberals will not give up an argument if one of their premises is proved false (even to their own satisfaction!) because they simply want what they want - it is not related to reality; that's why they won't budge on [[global warming]]; they don't care about [[science]] but have an ulterior motive. They reject faith in God and compliance with Biblical moral standards, because they want to keep engaging in premarital sex; they only way they can justify that is to give approval to [[homosexuality|deviant sexual practices]] as well. (They do use logic, when it furthers their cause.) <br /> <br /> :You can help us, Evan, by exploring the borders of US liberalism. Not everyone who commits adultery is a liberal; not everyone who wants to end third world poverty is a Communist. Just be careful as you &quot;expand&quot; that you do not dilute. At some point, you will be talking about a distinct topic. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:23, 4 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::That's what I was thinking originally. I agree with everything you just said. The problem I think I'm seeing is that the article's current definition appears to lump a number of things together with American political liberalism. Actually, it seems to be a pretty good definition of theological liberalism. If it's this hard to define political liberalism - I can't think of a single good definition, just some &quot;tendencies&quot; - maybe we shouldn't offer it as a definition at all and just start the article out with, &quot;A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone on the left of the [[political spectrum]]. While there are no clear liberal standards, liberals unite in rejecting logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons.&quot; --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 11:33, 4 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> :::Your suggestion is a dilution, in addition to being a circular definition. Here we strive to be clear, direct and concise. Also, there's nothing special or different about &quot;American liberalism.&quot;--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:58, 4 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::::I know it's circular; I know it's less specific. What I'm trying to say is that there seems to be a disconnect between the definition, which seems to define [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09212a.htm theological liberalism]; and the rest of the article, which seems to talk about political liberalism. You said above that the distinct thing about liberals is that they refuse to repent after sinning - well, I can name any number of medieval monarchs who refused to repent of adultery, tyranny, et cetera; while they were definitely theological liberals, they weren't political liberals in that they opposed virtually all of the liberal political positions you name! So, the article's current definition lumps theological liberalism together with political liberalism. If you want to talk about both concepts here, I'm certainly fine with that, but we'll have to expand the article. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 10:31, 5 January 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> == First few sentences (Edit Break) ==<br /> <br /> I admit that I have my own bias, but we all do; it is almost impossible to be completely unbiased. But never in my life have I seen a site that is a trusted site for information as ridiculous as this one. You obviously do not know who I am, considering we have never met before, and I'm sure we never will but you take a few things I believe and assume these things about me: <br /> <br /> &quot;Tools:<br /> Censorship • Hate speech • Lies • Liberal logic • Mainstream Media • Myths • Network abuse • Obfuscation • Redefinition • Biased grading • Traps • Tricks • Vandalism<br /> Traits:<br /> Bias • Bigotry • Bullying • Deceit • Denial • Hypocrisy • Style • Uncharitableness • Whining&quot;<br /> <br /> You describe liberals as &quot;uncharitable&quot; but when I personally believe that it is our duty to help those in need around us, I get called a socialist. So who really is the uncharitable one? The one wanting to help or calling the other one things they aren't? Jesus himself wanted people to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, is that not socialistic also? Contrary to what you may believe I do not bully, I do not whine. And I am completely against censorship, which most liberals are in fact. Banning books? Does that not count as censorship?<br /> <br /> Also I suggest finding a correct definition of liberal.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The problem with the current definition of liberal is that it encompasses viewpoints that are completely at odds. One can't say that Hitler or Islamic Terrorists are liberal because these groups tend toward right wing policies (I don't mean that they were conservative, but that they were right wing). You can tell in the case of Hitler, because Hitler vehemently opposed communism; in fact he hated communism. Hitler believed in patriotism to a fault, which puts him at odds with most liberals (who have globalist tendencies). Both fascists and islamist terrorists tend to support their own national, moral, or religious traditions before individual rights, which puts them in the right wing, like (but not identical to) conservatives who support patriotism, enforced moral standards, prayer in schools, ect....<br /> It's incorrect to say that liberals have no coherent philosophy. The article itself states that liberalism began as a philosophy of protecting individual rights, which provides it with a coherent background. Clearly it has degenerated for the worse, but it still maintains a coherent ideology (not that everyone follows it perfectly, that would be nearly impossible). The philosophy is that of fairness, because you can link almost every liberal policy decision to the pursuit of fairness. John Rawls' philosophy of justice as fairness represents a coherent ideology behind liberal positions and policy decisions. If liberalism is truly incoherent, give reasons why their positions contradict each other.<br /> On the subject of ulterior motive, what ulterior motive is there? None that I can see. The only reason why many people would favor liberalism is for ideological reasons, which implies that they do in fact believe in what they preach. On the subject of biblical standards, many liberals would see biblical standards as the reason why they act. A misinterpretation perhaps, but at least this proves that they're philosophy is not imply based on rejecting biblical standards. For example, Steven Colbert in his book, writes that the bible is the foundation of moral belief, meaning that he bases his philosophy on what he reads in the bible.<br /> --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:43, 31 May 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> On a final note, the citation for the existing definition is hardly credible (it comes from a liberal website) and completely non-topical (it talks about Barack Obama, not about liberal philosophy or even liberals in general).<br /> --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 16:54, 31 May 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : This entry defines a liberal '''''today'''''. Hitler rose to power more than 70 years ago, and his beliefs (if he had any) are not as relevant to this entry as the views of pro-[[abortion]] liberals now. Note that a good, concise definition does not focus on the exceptions at the margin, but on the general rule. <br /> <br /> : Liberals support [[Barack Obama]], so &quot;harping&quot; on his views (which are designed to maximize liberal support) is an appropriate starting point.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:02, 3 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Still, if it's about Obama, then it should be on the Obama page. It's true that liberals supported Obama, but this is a page about liberalism, not Obama. Rejection of biblical standards does not make sense as a concise definition of liberalism. Saying that they reject biblical standards could mean they're serial killers or facist dictators. You must then explain, which biblical standards do they reject? And why do they reject them? <br /> You have to admit that most liberal positions, can be linked to a moral need for fairness. Few other definitions for the ideology are as concise as fairness.<br /> --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 21:32, 3 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> :Fair? What's fair about forcing people to buy healthcare they don't want or need? What's fair about holding a pregnant womans whim over the life of an infant? What's fair about condemning the men who risk their lives for our safety? What's fair about forbidding a man to have a gun, but going easy on the criminal who kills that now-defenseless man? What's fair about collecting money from citizens, and distributing it to illegal immigrants who come here and need foodstamps or healthcare? What's fair about giving a job to a black man, when a more qualified white man applies for the same job? <br /> :The mere fact that you think &quot;liberal=fair&quot; pretty much gives you away as a liberal. After all, everybody likes to think they're fair, so if you think &quot;liberal=fair,&quot; then for you to say you're not a liberal would be the same as you saying you don't like fairness. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]]&lt;sub&gt;(admin)&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JacobB|Shout out!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:39, 3 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> :: Double Edge, like a typical liberal you'll write a lot but say very little. You are deep in [[Liberal denial]]. Liberalism has nothing to do with fairness. It's about denying the Bible, getting girls to have abortions and keeping prayers from public schools. That's practically a definition. Obama is currently the most powerful liberal, so it makes sense to focus on him. You really should open your mind. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:04, 3 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: The &quot;fair&quot; approach would be for an abortion clinic to show a pregnant woman her ultrasound and only afterward ask her if she still wants to have an abortion. 80% of women decide against having an abortion after viewing their ultrasound. But liberals are certainly not &quot;fair&quot; in this situation, because they try to conceal that ultrasound and even seek legislation prohibiting crisis pregnancy centers from providing ultrasounds! Alternatively, the fair approach to a class that wants to begin with a prayer would be to allow it. Yet liberals insist on censoring that prayer even if everyone in the class favors it. How can that be considered fair?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:11, 3 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> By fairness I mean the motto of the french revolution that all people are equal. My claim is that most (not all) liberal positions can be linked to the pursuit of equality. Abortion has been advocated as a means of equalizing men and women, affirmative action is designed to promote equality among the races (that much is obvious), universal healthcare is intended to ensure that all people can access to healthcare, whether they work for it or not. Political correctness is obviously designed to protect equality. Globalism wants to treat everyone from every nation as if they're same. Restriction on prayer in schools is designed to promote equality of religions. You say that it's based on rejection of biblical standards, but which biblical standards and why? Don't be so quick to assume that an ideology can just pop up out of nothing. An ideology as successful as liberalism could only be maintained if it had some degree of coherency. I feel quite insulted that you think I'm a liberal. When have I ever advocated liberal beliefs? Liberal denial? If I'm a liberal then explain how I support the liberal agenda. I'm simply purposing a definition, no need to get heated.<br /> --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 09:30, 4 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : You make good points, and your view is one that is often taught in defense of liberals. But I don't think it describes the evidence. Sure, liberals will try to portray their anti-Christian and anti-freedom ideology in a deceptive way. &quot;Equality&quot; is often their [[liberal trick]] of choice. But it does not explain how liberals insist on censoring conservative and Christian statements. The more liberal a group is (e.g., college campuses), the more suffocating the censorship of conservative and Christian truths. That's not equality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:42, 4 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Double Edge, you exhibit many characteristics of [http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Liberal_Traits Liberal traits] and [[Liberal style]]. You trying to equate fairness with liberalism is classic [[Liberal deceit]]. Liberals are about fairness only in rhetoric. In practice it's anything but. Just look at the examples you gave: abortion, healthcare, and political correctness. What's fair about murdering babies, the gov't telling you what you can do with your body or censoring? How can you look at the country under Obama and call liberalism &quot;succesful&quot;? You're either a liberal or a someone tricked by them into believing lies. Please read the article on so-called [[Liberal fairness]]. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 12:02, 4 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::That implies that censorship and interfering with individuals is solely a liberal act. The page here for conservatives say they support the banning of pornography and same-sex marriage, which seem to be pretty solid example of censorship and government interference in people's personal lives. As in all my posts here, I shall do my best to avoid any bias, and right now I am not attempting to attack conservatism or defend liberalism, just applying logic. I have read a great deal of support for logic from everyone on this talk page, which is great. Logic is one of our most important traits as humans.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]<br /> <br /> ::::Are you on record as implying that we should not censor anything in this website? Or that we shouldn't support the banning of porn and same-sex marriage because doing so is &quot;interference&quot; in other people's lives? And the censorship that the liberal side of the fence carries out against us doesn't count, why? And their interference into our lives by the pushing and shoving of their thoughts and beliefs doesn't count, why? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:14, 18 July 2010 (EDT) <br /> <br /> :::::Neither. I expressed no opinion on either position, though I would say that it would be more level headed to not censor things on this website, assuming they are in blatant disregard of the rules or decency. Also, I never suggested that anyone was free from blame. As I said, I was not trying to argue for either side, just pointing out that just actions are not a clear cut case of one side does them and the other doesn't. Apologies for the confusing it may have caused--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]<br /> ::::::No need for apologies; I saw what you implied when you answered TK, and what I asked could very well be a new debate page - or several - regarding the hatred liberals have for society in general. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:34, 18 July 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Depends on at what level of government we are talking about, Manhattan. Lack of such rules is more libertarian than liberal, IMO. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 01:01, 18 July 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Ah yes good point. Well in this case I was talking about the federal government, since that what I assumed the previous poster had been referring to.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]<br /> <br /> :::Double Edge, the problem I have with this argument is that by defining &quot;fair&quot; as &quot;liberal,&quot; you imply that conservatives are not interested in fairness. In fact, you suggest that conservatives are opposed to fairness, which is very unfair. Conservatives just have a different concept of fairness. I don't think there is anything &quot;fair&quot; about affirmative action or abortion, but that is just a difference of opinion. --[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:46, 4 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I find that liberals spend an inordinate amount of time parsing meanings. On wiki's this is called &quot;wiki-lawyering&quot;. Double Edge, that might be clever, but it is hardly ''intellectual'' or honest. Of course the classic example is Bill Clinton trying to parse what the word &quot;is&quot; was! Perhaps you don't yet understand that CP isn't interested in NPOV? We proudly proclaim the conservative/Christian POV, and can back it up with facts. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:20, 4 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> First, when I say fairness, the best way to describe it would be the ideals of the French Revolution. Some people may be misinterpreting my definition. Second, it's true the pursuit of equality ends of being impossible, so it does end up being more of a show then anything. This just shows how liberalism is utterly out of touch with reality. Third, conservatives do oppose fairness when it comes in the form of welfare, wealth redistribution, and political correctness. Fourth, TK, I don't see that I've done anything terribly bad, so why are you taking this so seriously? The purpose of this site is to give concise, clear, reliable definitions, so I don't see how my complaint about a definition is illegitimate. The existing definition of liberal is not clear because &quot;rejecting biblical standards&quot; could apply to serial killers and orthodox jews (and clearly we're not specifically referring to these groups). Furthermore, it's not concise because the only way you can understand the actual meaning is to read through all the things that &quot;liberals generally support&quot;. The definition becomes even less concise when you take into account &quot;liberal deceit&quot;, &quot;liberal style&quot;, ect... Any one of which can get you accused of being a liberal.<br /> --[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 20:04, 4 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Double Edge, your comments are well taken, and welcome. After reading your postings, I went back to read our definition again. Maybe it can be improved. But I don't specifically see how. Today most liberals do reject logical and biblical standards; and most appear to me to be self-centered. There are studies that confirm this. Liberals are less charitable than conservatives are. There is a high correlation between atheism and liberals. I wouldn't expect liberals today to be anything like liberals in the time of the French Revolution, because political views and strategies rapidly change. But our definition does include even a bit of your history also.<br /> <br /> : Would you like to suggest specific wording that we could test against the views and conduct of today's liberals?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 5 June 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well, I would have to ask what are you calling liberals? Because if everyone who the democrats said conservative was conservative, and vise versa, then there would not be anyone in this country who was not one or the other. But this isn't the case. I hope to make a comment on something which has been talked about a few times on this page; the current definition of liberal vs the original definition. Definitions are fairly solid. Yes, they can change meaning slightly over time, but in the case of what both people on this page and many democrats claim to be liberal, it is incompatible. It is too far gone to be considered a transformation. Quite simply, liberal means the same thing today as it did 300 years ago. The fact that many democrats may claim to be liberal does not change this, just the definition of a minivan would not change if a group of people started referring to themselves as minivans. Democrats and Republicans can switch platforms(and have before), but that is because they are political parties, not philosophies. Liberalism and conservatism will always mean the same thing. Liberalism always has and always will mean a support of individual rights and often a support for a larger government, but only to the end that it protects their liberties. They are greatly opposed to government interference in business, the press, etc. In many ways, many Republicans unknowingly share these values. So, while it makes perfect sense for the members of conservapedia to oppose Democrats seeking to advance legislation that conflict with their philosophy, it doesn't make sense to focus all that hate or anger or distrust onto a word. After all, a word holds no beliefs, and can't choose who decides to affiliate themselves with it. I guess my point would be that it would be more accurate to define(and condemn) the actions listed on this page as Democrats, or however you seek to word it. But the things listed here surely do not apply to those who are actually liberals. I understand this is contrary to what many have said here, but as I said in a previous post, I am a big fan of logic, and part of that is that I like to keep my definitions separate from politics.--[[User:Manhattan|Manhattan]]<br /> <br /> ==Reversion==<br /> <br /> Why was my contribution removed? It was a fact and a great contribution I dont see any reason for it to be removed? (Unless it was edited by a liberal fool)<br /> <br /> :I undid your contribution because I could not find one shred of evidence that '''anybody''', including liberals, support lesser jail sentences for rapists and child molestors. Also, please sign your posts with &lt;nowiki&gt;~~~~&lt;/nowiki&gt; - [[User:JLauttamus|Jeff W. Lauttamus]][[User_talk:JLauttamus|&lt;sub&gt;Discussion&lt;/sub&gt;]] 13:02, 6 March 2010 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Small change to reflect trends in American liberalism? ==<br /> <br /> At the end of the first paragraph, the article states &quot;and in Europe even socialistic.&quot; While I don't believe that [[America]] is as close to a socialistic perversion as Europe, I think our ''liberals'' are. Does anyone object if I add this or make this sentence emphasize that? I don't want to remove &quot;in Europe&quot; because I feel that makes it too general; any suggestions on how we could make this reflect that American liberals are increasingly socialistic as well? Thank you! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:57, 12 April 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :How is that, Tyler? That what you had in mind? --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:04, 12 April 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::That looks great! (Well, I added a comma, but still great). Sorry about the duplicate edit too; I'm trying to work on one of my routers so my internet has been a bit flaky recently. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tzoran]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:07, 12 April 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Is not a liberal someone that is not a conservative? ==<br /> Sorry if I made this &quot;thing&quot; wrong, I'm new to editing. But this page seems to infer that a liberal is someone that is not a conservative. That makes no sense at all. If liberalism is a form of politcal philosophy, and conservatism is also a form a political philosophy, then it would stand to reason that you would be by default in neither catagory. Sorry if I'm touching on a sensitive issue. I can tell by the name of the site :P --[[User:Houshalter|Houshalter]] 10:45, 2 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Could you clarify your point? The principles or a conservative are clear and well-defined. Liberals could include everyone else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:58, 2 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I am also slightly unclear on this. Are there only two types of political philosophy? Conservatives and Liberals? Or does a third (or more) type exist that is neither Conservative or Liberal? If only two types exist then a Liberal by definition can be someone who is not a Conservative, as the definition of a Conservative could be someone who is not a Liberal. In that case only one needs to be well defined and the other can occupy the vacuum. However if there are other possible options those definitions can not stand and both would need to be well defined [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:03, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Narrowly US-Oriented Article ==<br /> <br /> As a European, I find this article to be very narrowly focussed on a particular use of the word Liberal. It just launches into an attack on 'Liberals' as currently defined by the right wing in America. Other historical and international definitions of liberal and liberalism are given a brief and simplistic definition. Well, the whole article is a simplistic, disjointed, and full of opinion, IMHO.<br /> <br /> :No need to be ashamed of being a European, and not signing your name. Buck up! --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:57, 3 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't we an ''American'' encyclopedia as well, with that as our main focus? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:53, 3 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Introductory remarks ==<br /> <br /> Let me begin by admitting that I am not a conservative (nor, I think, a liberal), and so I'm not part of the intended users of this site.<br /> <br /> That said, I find it hard to believe that any reasonable person, conservative or otherwise, believes that a reference work should begin to define liberals as follows:<br /> :::A '''liberal''' (also '''leftist''') is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing.<br /> This is a caricature of political criticism, not an honest attempt at defining one's opposition. Imagine, for a moment, that you are a teacher grading an essay on political differences in the United States. An essay which begins to define the distinction between right and left wing with the above is worse than useless. It is mere propaganda, with no factual content at all.<br /> <br /> It is, of course, your &quot;encyclopedia&quot;, not mine, and you're welcome to include whatever definition you prefer, but you do yourselves no favors in this article. On the contrary, you lose considerable credibility with this introduction to the opposing political view. (Similar comments apply to other articles, but I must admit that this introduction surprised me with its immaturity. The first step in political debates should be to understand the difference in opinion, not to ridicule it.) <br /> <br /> With due respect, [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 14:38, 17 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Child porn? ==<br /> <br /> Is there any justification for the claim that Liberals (some? most?) support child pornography? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 11:41, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> :Yes. Look at the news related to Wikipedia of several months ago. Jimmy Wales made an effort to remove pornographic material from the site; he was ousted from control, and the material was put right back. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 11:46, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::Also, the [[ACLU]] has a long reputation for defending child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:01, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::: I guess I just don't get what counts as evidence around here. Perhaps each of you could show me some sort of reference to what you mean? (Note: ''even if'' I take Wikipedia as good evidence of how liberals behave and ''even if'' what Karajou reports is accurate, pornography and child porn are two different things. Tzoran's claim comes without any reference or details at all and so I can't begin to evaluate it.)<br /> ::: Much thanks. [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 12:43, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::::We have to prove it for you, based on what you want? You've been told...now Google it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:59, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::::: No, you don't have to prove it for me, but claiming that liberals support child pornography without any citations in the article (or here) is not only unconvincing &amp;mdash; it violates the first two Conservapedia Commandments. (I found some discussion of the Wales incident, but it hardly seems relevant to a claim about Liberals to me. Are the entire class of WP editors representative of liberals?) [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 15:58, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> ::::::&quot;Pornography and child porn are two different things&quot; ... both are examples of pornography, and at least to me, supporting the former inevitably leads to the latter. Some people are flawed like that. I looked at the ACLU article, and I found references for it at the bottom. That's as good a starting point as any. Keep in mind that supporting the removal of restrictions on pornographic content only ''benefits'' people seeking to deal in child pornography. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:44, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> :::::::Look up the Child Online Protection Act and the [[ACLU]]'s treatment of it. I know it's in the [[Pornography|pornography]] article because I added it personally a few months ago, as seen [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pornography&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=771716 here]. Does that make more sense? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:48, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> :::::::: Thanks, Tzoran, for the clear reference, but with due respect, it does not support the claim that the ACLU (or Liberals generally) &quot;support&quot; child porn. Rather, the issue (as I understand it) was whether the law could or should place restrictions on pornography accessibility in order to prevent children from being exposed to porn. Maybe the ACLU was wrong in their position or maybe not, but in either case it does not suggest that the ACLU is supporting (or &quot;defending&quot;) child porn.<br /> :::::::: But regardless of whether you've convinced me or not, surely the entry (along with others in the same list) should be cited, don't you agree? [[User:Phiwum|Phiwum]] 17:51, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Typical of most liberals,Phiwum, you would demand a citation that the Sun is indeed in the sky! Try trolling elsewhere. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:57, 19 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Child pornography is an incredibly sensitive and inflammatory subject, so perhaps a citation in this case would be a good idea. And while the sun being in the sky is obvious and everyone reading the article could be expected to know that, a link between child pornography and liberalism may not be as well known. I certainly did not know one existed, and would be extraordinarily interested in the data for such a link. So a citation or a link for reference so that a reader could look into the subject further if requires. As mentioned I intend to google the subject and will provide a citation myself if I find a reputable source with the information. however if someone already has one to hand it would be useful. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:10, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == A few minor things ==<br /> <br /> The first citation does not contain the information suggested in the first paragraph. In fact it does not even contain the word &quot;liberal&quot;. Is the link correct? I suspect an incorrect link has been posted.<br /> <br /> Also the final bullet point of the Liberal list should perhaps be moved. As at the moment it reads:<br /> <br /> A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: &quot;The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ....&quot; <br /> <br /> And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge. Perhaps there should be a criticism of liberals section?<br /> <br /> Can I also applaud the work done further down the article on the different international definitions. I did not expect it to be there and was planning to write it myself.[[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 13:16, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '':A liberal generally supports many of the following political positions and practices: &quot;The long romance of Western leftists with some of the bloodiest regimes and political movements in history is a story not told often enough ....&quot; <br /> <br /> '':And while this may be accurate it is not a view liberals would support, it is more a criticism of either of their actions or perhaps an ignorance or lack of knowledge.''''<br /> <br /> :The statement seems perfectly acceptable to me: look at the slavering over Stalin by many British 'intellectuals' in the 1930s. And surely whether or not liberals support the statement is immaterial here. I should imagine liberals would dispute it - as indeed they would dispute most of the information in this encyclopaedia. More fool them! [[User:TrevS|TrevS]] 13:27, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::At this time I am not disputing the statement or point. I am simply disputing the wording or the placement in the article. I agree that they probably dispute it. Look at the title of the list it is in. A liberal would not support that quote. So perhaps it would be better to be reworded or moved to a different better titled section. In it's current form it is a criticism. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 14:22, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''Please remember that Conservapedia doesn't believe in NPOV. We are conservative and Christian.''' --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:55, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :NPOV = ? I am a supporter of the Conservative Party. <br /> <br /> :I am not arguing with the statement at this time. I am just arguing for it's movement or rewording, as at the moment its placement with its current wording does not make sense. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:08, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Re-wording and placement are subjective, right? Since Conservapedia is an ''American'' encyclopedia, by necessity parts of its content will need to be U.S.-centric. What is or is not a liberal certainly is included in that, as the meanings and values differ greatly in other parts of the world, especially the U.K. That is why Churchill noted we are divided by a common language. I have lived in the U.K., and in other parts of the world, so please be certain that I am not fighting with you over intentions, just pointing out the obvious....that some political terms are unique to the U.S., and one cannot adapt them to make sense in a U.K. perspective. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:23, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::My apologies, but I think you are misunderstanding my point. I am simply saying the bullet point in question is not something a (n American) Liberal supports, but is more a criticism of (American) Liberalism. It just doesn't flow right, or fit in with the rest of the list. I may write up a proposed change tomorrow and see what people think. I will also have a look at the UK based pages see if I can make any additions. [[User:JoshJGordon|JoshJGordon]] 15:44, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::That would be super, Josh! <br /> <br /> ::::I see those of limited intellect and who have ideological blinders on once again show their limited abilities by thinking there is some dichotomy between not subscribing to NPOV and our at least giving diverging POV's their due. Fair minded people can indeed give other points of view an airing without subscribing to them, is what most (except those so far left or right they cannot see) people understand. Conservapedia doesn't attack people personally, call them drunks or child molesters, to make our point, as some liberal websites do. Nor do we encourage our editors to vandalize and disrupt the websites of those we disagree with. Perhaps once they purge their websites of such vile personal attacks, people of real intellect and good intentions will begin to take them seriously. --&lt;big&gt;[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]&lt;/big&gt;&lt;sub&gt;/Admin&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:13, 21 August 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==[[Classical liberalism]]==<br /> <br /> Can we say something about the &quot;good&quot; kind of liberalism, i.e., the kind I was studying at Tufts College of Liberal Arts? I mean the kind of liberalism that wants to make change when warranted, and when &quot;conservative&quot; foot-dragging tries to keep us from making good improvements. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:07, 2 November 2010 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Liberal corporations section proposal ==<br /> <br /> I propose that we add a section for famous (or infamous) companies/corporations that have supported liberal policies, including support for homosexuals, socialist government, and other activities and actions related to liberal mentality. My thinking on this is that by doing this, we can inform our users on which companies we should avoid.<br /> <br /> :That's fine, but I wouldn't start with Apple and Microsoft. Microsoft has a strong pro-adoption policy for workers, and Apple's Steven Jobs has not been particularly liberal. Many other, far more liberal, companies should be considered before them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:20, 26 February 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> ::Right. I'll look into it. One note on prior edits; My apologies for addition of Microsoft and Apple to the page; I was only looking at their pro-homosexual donations at the time, and did not consider that they had more respectable policies than not. Like you said, there are companies that are far more detrimental/liberal in their actions and conduct.<br /> <br /> :::It would be helpful to post companies whose liberal policies go beyond their own workers, and affect the public also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 18:32, 26 February 2011 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Why is rejecting the bible bad for the country? ==<br /> <br /> If this country was not founded on christianity? --[[User:MahmoudAlzwarii|MahmoudAlzwarii]] 23:16, 26 March 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==[[Liberals in Europe]]==<br /> <br /> Well, only in the USA are Liberals considered als leftist, in Europe the liberals ARE some kind of conservatives.<br /> <br /> == this article has been a mess since april 10, 2011 ==<br /> <br /> Here is a former sentence which I altered which is the beginning of the article: For example, FDR, '''one of the few great democratic Presidents''', firmly believed in private sector unions, but vehemently opposed and condemned public sector unions, stating that the idea of collective bargaining can't be transferred to the public sector, as that would result in the government being unable to carry out its duties. <br /> <br /> Yes, he did carry out WWII well, but economically he was a disaster and he stacked the Supreme Court with liberal judges. Plus, FDR instituted social security with no foresight to consider rising longevity plus with no opt out. Plus, he practiced [[Keynesian economics]] and prolonged the Great Depression. <br /> <br /> I think the person who added this sentence had good intentions, but I don't think the person was educated about some of the poor decisions FDR made. <br /> <br /> Since liberal is a key article, I think it is a bad mistake to not exercise increased vigilance in watching the content. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:11, 29 June 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I have often heard &quot;FDR prolonged the Depression&quot; stated as a fact, but have never seen the evidence for this. Do you have any? [[User:JacobD|JacobD]] 09:09, 29 June 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::Look how fast the ex-President and businessman [[Calvin Coolidge]] licked the economic depression under his administration. Look at the results of Obama's stimulus and the Japanese multiple stimulus packages. While I do believe in the Glass–Steagall Act, anti-monopoly legislation and convicting businessman of fraud and other laws the general citizenry is under, the free enterprise system is more efficient and dynamic than state controlled economies. Although I am an ideological mix of conservatism/libertarianism and do not agree with everything that the Ludwig von Mises Institute advocates, I would suggest reading their website's material: http://mises.org/ [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:35, 29 June 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Nazis and pedarists==<br /> <br /> Conservapedia aims to have concise artiles that are not &quot;verbose&quot; but this article had descended into adolescent diatribe. The fact that any liberal is a pedarist is irrelevant to this article. There are sadly those in all political persuasions. Liberals may be more tolerant to certain peversions but discussing that enters into too much subjectivity -when presented in this way it degenerates into &quot;throwing ones toys&quot; at the oponent. Also, the Nazis are not liberal by either the standrds of classical liberalism (obviously not) nor modern liberalism. They may have had many socialist policies at an economic level but they were not liberals in terms of social policy. They were authoritarian. If a comparison needs tyo be made reagarding liberalism, communism and national socialism, it is best in its own article . It is totally unhelpful. oose comparison to the &quot;Nazis&quot; has long been identified as a point at which the accuser is starting to lose sight of credible arguments for their case. [[User:DavidMilton]]<br /> <br /> == headline reversion ==<br /> <br /> [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liberal&amp;curid=3039&amp;diff=909680&amp;oldid=908925 Re: this edit] I don't think its fair to say '''all''' liberals reject biblical standards because some liberals are really quite religious. Wouldn't it be fair to say some do conform to some biblical standard even if it is their own interpretation? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:47, 4 September 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Political Correctness is not the opposite of free speech. ==<br /> <br /> While it could be argued that political correctness is a form of censorship it is not the opposite of free speech. Political Correctness is a limitation placed on free speech but it is not the opposite. Nobody is forced to be political correct though societal/political pressure may be high. It just doesn't work out. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo]] 18:32, 5 October 2011 (EDT)<br /> : And of couse 'Political Correctness' is only visible if you disagree with it. The sort of censorship that conservative commentators deride as 'Political correctness' has always been with us; it's just that for most of our history, it's been a conservative viewpoint that has been regarded as correct by definition and unable to be questioned. Since the victory of liberal democracy during the 20th century, and the unleashing of people from repressive and restrictive autocracies of various kinds (in no small part due to the radically liberal foundational ideas of the great US democratic system), different political ideas have come to be regarded by thoughtful people as axiomatic, and the less flexibly minded among us have suddenly noticed the phenomenon, and christened it 'Political Correctness.' <br /> : But of course what really puzzles me about this talk page is that some people actually seem to take it seriously, whereas the article is actually just a joke - some playground-level name-calling tricked up as an encyclopedia article. And i'm also genuinely puzzled why anyone who contributes to this nonsense would think it likely to convince anyone who didn't already agree with it - why do you waste your time?. Or is that not the point - is it just here to preach to the choir - to encourage the troops, rather than convince anyone else? [[User:MachinaSapiens|MachinaSapiens]] 08:07, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br /> :::The abolition of slavery was done by religious conservatives. Mass murdering communism and genocidal master race evolutionism was the work of the left. In addition, even though MLK tilted left, he still was a black minister with many conservative ideas. So your victories seem rather shallow at best. By the way, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is going to do some serious damage to the specious liberal ideology of evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 09:36, 4 November 2011 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Disarmament treaties ==<br /> <br /> I've removed the sentence on disarmament treaties because it doesn't fit. What liberals like is unilateral disarmament. A treaty reduces weapons on both sides and maintains balance. Reagan's arms reduction treaties with the USSR were negotiated from a position of strength and were a great achievement, which wouldn't have been possible with liberal policies. --[[User:GeorgeLi|GeorgeLi]] 13:09, 1 February 2012 (EST)<br /> <br /> == &quot;the observation that atheists tend to be quarrelsome, socially challenged men...&quot; ==<br /> <br /> The reference supporting that quote goes to a blg post which does not itself support the quote with evidence. It needs a citation to the appearance of the phrase in Wired magazine. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 18:23, 11 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:%27s-Hertogenbosch&diff=992819 2012-07-11T00:58:12Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* &quot;leading grammatical bit ('s-) can be distracting to the reader...&quot; */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>Should be merged into some other article, such as [[The Netherlands]]. Appears to have been created only because of it's odd spelling: it begins with a punctuation mark. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:37, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :''kind of weird to start an article with a punctuation mark'' well, it's a quirk of the Dutch language: look at [[The Hague]] a.k.a. '' 's Gravenshage'', or the '' 't Hooft operator'' in theoretical physics. But while ''Den Haag'' is the official name of '' 's Gravenshage'', with ''Den Bosch'' and '' 's Hertogenbosch'' it is the other way around.<br /> <br /> :So the move is akin to redirecting ''New York'' to ''The Big Apple.<br /> <br /> :And ''Den Bosch'' just means ''The Forest'', not ''The Duke's Forest'' - ''Hertog'' / ''Herzog'' is duke. The '' 's'' is the relict of the article indicating the genitive: ''Des Hertogens Bosch'' <br /> <br /> :On the web-site of 's Hertogenbosch, you won't find the informal name ''Den Bosch'' prominently on display: http://www.s-hertogenbosch.nl/ <br /> <br /> :[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 14:58, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::You want to take charge of our Dutch geography articles? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:21, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::That's too big a task (and too desolate a field, I'm afraid). I'm just correcting errors where I find them. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:25, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :*the capital of the province of Noord-Brabant is usually called &quot;Den Bosch,&quot; but the full, official name is &quot; 's-Hertogenbosch &quot; (The Duke's Forest.) [http://www.heardutchhere.net/NLPresent.html]<br /> :So if you want to mention the official name, go ahead. (Also, it's more like calling the army's main training college &quot;[[West Point]]&quot;, when it has a longer and more official name that is hardly ever used. It's not like calling New York the Big Apple. I live in New York and hardly ever hear that. Why would you say such and odd and untrue thing? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:30, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :*The city's official name is a contraction of the Dutch des Hertogen bosch—&quot;the Duke's forest&quot; (Wikipedia) {{unsigned|Ed Poor}}<br /> ::Indeed, 's-Hertogenbosch is a contraction of ''des Hertogen bosch''. I mentioned that above. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:53, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ::When someone talks about the ''Big Apple'', everyone knows that ''New York'' is meant. That's neither ''odd'' nor ''untrue''. But this moniker is not the official name of the city, or a generally accepted abbreviation.<br /> ::Take a look at the official home-page of 's Hertogenbosch: you won't find ''Den Bosch'' mentioned. Take a look at the Dutch wikipage of [http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27s-Hertogenbosch 's Hertogenbosch]: the first section is about the name...<br /> :::''De naam Den Haag is officieel toegestaan. Men ziet die naam op wegwijzers en bij de spoorwegen. Voor Den Bosch ligt dat anders: de enige officiële naam is 's-Hertogenbosch. Ook in andere talen wordt 's-Hertogenbosch met de lange naam aangeduid: Bois-le-Duc in het Frans, Boscoducale in het Italiaans, Bolduque in het Spaans en Herzogenbusch in het Duits. De Latijnse naam is Silva Ducis of Buscum Ducis.''<br /> ::That means something like<br /> :::''The name ''Den Haag'' is officially accepted. You find this name on road signs and at railways. This is different for ''Den Bosch'': the only official name is 's-Hertogenbosch. In other languages the long name is also used: Bois-le-Duc in French, Boscoducale in Italian, Bolduque in Spanish en Herzogenbusch in German. The Latin name is Silva Ducis or Buscum Ducis.''<br /> ::BTW, the existence of so many translations of the name are an indicator of the historical importance of the city.<br /> ::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:51, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Supporting AugustO. 's Hertogenbosch is used almost everywhere the official is required, e.g. railway timetables and road signs. But Den Bosch is usually used in informal conversation. [[User:PenelopeP|PenelopeP]] 17:29, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::[[St Petersburg]] might be a good parallel. The Russians who live there generally just refer to it as &quot;Peter&quot;, or sometimes &quot;Petersburg&quot;. But the official name is Saint Petersburg and indeed the Conservapedia article is under that name. It would be confusing to list the article under &quot;Peter&quot;!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:22, 13 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::On the other hand, maybe it's more like [[Hull]]. In full, the town is Kingston upon Hull, but that is rarely used and even [http://www.hullcc.gov.uk the local council's website] just uses Hull. The Conservapedia page is actually entitled [[Kingston upon Hull]], but I think there would be a ''reasonably'' strong case for just using Hull, especially if Den Bosch is kept here.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 05:28, 13 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Conversation in Edit Comments==<br /> ''error? what error? This is like moving ''The United States'' to ''United States''''<br /> <br /> Moving '' 's Hertogenbosch'' to ''Hertogenbosch'' is akin to moving ''The United States of America'' to ''The United States America'' - you are losing the genitive. Moving '' 's Hertogenbosch'' to ''Den Bosch'' is like moving ''''The United States of America'' to ''States''. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:57, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :LOL, touché. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:38, 9 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Did you mean this: [[touché]]? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:24, 16 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Article move ==<br /> <br /> ... could you move this article back to [['s-Hertogenbosch]]? I would have asked you at [[User talk:Ed Poor]], but unfortunately, that page is protected.<br /> <br /> [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:26, 10 May 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Didn't you read my objections above? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:23, 9 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I read your objections. Frankly, I took your last comment (''touché'') as a concession to my objections. Nevertheless, I left the decision to move the article to you, but you really should to it: it's the right thing.<br /> <br /> <br /> I actually currently live in `s-Hertogenbosch. Both names are commonly used (in writing the Den Bosch variant is more often used because it's just easier to type), but the official name is `s-Hertogenbosch. A lot of people don't care that much either way, but some take it very seriously indeed. There's a whole committee to promote the proper use of the official name. This is why you won't find the informal name listed on any official sources. --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 11:15, 14 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Graag bedankt! What are the odds... [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:18, 14 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::Well, there are more than 140k people living here, so the odds aren't infinitesimal :-). --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 11:37, 14 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Please write about the campaign to promote the official name. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 12:48, 14 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> :What do you want to know about them? They're called the ''Genootschap ter bevordering van het gebruik van de naam 's-Hertogenbosch'' (the society for the promotion of the name 's-Hertogenbosch) and their mission is to promote the proper use of the official name for clarity and for historical reasons. They have [https://www.facebook.com/pages/Genootschap-ter-bevordering-van-het-gebruik-van-de-naam-s-Hertogenbosch/159558774142645 a facebook] and [http://www.s-hertogenboschalstublieft.nl/ a website]. They seem to be a bunch of local guys (big surprise), so not sure what you want to know about them. I don't think they're important enough to put in an article, though they're a good indication on how people are very serious about the proper use and spelling of official names. <br /> :So let me know if you have any more questions or need anything else translated here. To be honest I don't really understand what the problem is here in the first case. It's an obvious fact that the official name is 's-Hertogenbosch, so why not change the article's name? --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 13:45, 14 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::If the society isn't worth writing about, then I don't suppose their cause is worth bothering with; so we should keep using the page title that's easiest for us Americans. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:06, 14 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Hahaha, but that doesn't make any sense. You're going to use the wrong, unofficial name because it's not interesting to write an entire article about a society which promotes the official name? So what if that society '''''didn't exist at all''''', would that mean you'd automatically go for the incorrect names for articles? Maybe you should rename [[United_States_of_America|this article]] to just USA, it's a lot easier to type! Also, as it was set up before the name Den Bosch would redirect to the 's-Hertogenbosch page, so that wouldn't really be too hard to use for Americans. Ed Poor, is there some kind of reason you keep fighting to use the incorrect name? AugustO showed you that the official correct naming is 's-Hertogenbosch, I've confirmed it as a local, I've shown you that there are even people working to promote use of the official proper name, yet you refuse to change it for no other apparent reason than seeming pure stubbornness, which I don't really get.. It's not like this is a debatable issue anywhere else. --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 02:13, 15 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::As an American (although I've been living in Europe for several years now), I do not find the official name confusing at all. Out of respect (a conservative value) for other people, other cultures and other languages, I also support moving the article back to 's-Hertogenbosch. Having &quot;Den Bosch&quot; redirect to &quot;'s-Hertogenbosch&quot; is fine and surely required, but also sufficient given that it just an inofficial name. --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 12:08, 15 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> [[User:Ed Poor]], you have read [[User:GTac]]'s comment - as you object to his use of ''stubbornness'' on his [[User talk:GTac|talk page]]. Why not addressing the substance of his comment - and just move [[Den Bosch]] to [['s-Hertogenbosch]] via redirect? Give your American compatriots some credit (''&quot;we should keep using the page title that's easiest for us Americans&quot;''), some may even enjoy the leading apostrophe! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:52, 16 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> :I didn't call anyone ''stubborn'', I called the behavior of refusing to change the article and refusing to address our arguments without apparent reason to be &quot;seemingly stubborn&quot;. Apologies if I had phrased that incorrectly to cause a misunderstanding before. But like AugustO said, let's try and focus on the substance of this issue here and take some action. All this talk is getting rather one-sided. --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 02:49, 17 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == West Point==<br /> Ed Poor, above you wrote:<br /> :''So if you want to mention the official name, go ahead. (Also, it's more like calling the army's main training college &quot;[[West Point]]&quot;, when it has a longer and more official name that is hardly ever used.''<br /> But here at Conservapedia [[West Point]] redirects to [[United States Military Academy]]. And though their web-site uses the name ''West Point'', the web-site's address is ''www.usma.edu'' (and not www.wp.edu).<br /> <br /> The same should happen with Den Bosch/'s-Hertogenbosch: the unofficial name (Den Bosch) should redirect to the official name ('s-Hertogenbosch). And it's easy to find out the official name: the city has the web-site ''www.s-hertogenbosch.nl'', while ''www.denbosch.nl'' doesn't exist. It's the other way round with [[The Hague]]: www.denhaag.nl exists, while www.s-gravenhage.nl doesn't.<br /> <br /> And please keep in mind that - other than for [[The Hague]] there is no traditional English transliteration which would be quite acceptable as an article's title.<br /> <br /> Ed Poor, you stated on your talk page: ''But I also believe in correcting my mistakes. '' Please correct this mistake of yours and move this article to [['s-Gravenshage]]. You are now informed about the arguments and it shouldn't be necessary to involve other editors with the right to move pages.<br /> <br /> BTW: calling your position mistaken is just a factual assessment of the whole situation, not an attack on your person.<br /> <br /> [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 05:43, 17 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Sooo, since there apparently are no more objections, shall we just move this? --[[User:GTac|GTac]] 02:12, 21 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'm for moving, but it should be done the right way: using the command &lt;code&gt;move via redirect&lt;/code&gt; which only sysops have. That way, the edit history of the article is preserved - which get muddled if we just copy the article from one place to the other.<br /> ::I thought to wait that [[User:Ed Poor]] (who is a sysop) sees that his position is untenable and moves the article.<br /> ::If this doesn't happen, I'm all for asking another sysop to review the case - perhaps one week after [[User:Ed Poor]]'s last edit on this subject...<br /> ::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:23, 21 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Request for move ==<br /> <br /> The article should be moved to [['s-Hertogenbosch]]. The reason for this move are stated above, and no valid counterargument has been made. Indeed, [[User:Ed Poor]], the only advocate for keeping the article at [[Den Bosch]] seemed to have conceded (''touché'') - until he didn't.<br /> <br /> For me the whole thing has becoming at litmus-test for Conservapedia: I was ''put on probation'' over this non-issue, at least on other editor was blocked indefinitely. And this over a point which isn't debatable, '' 's-Hertogenbosch'' is the official name of the city, ''Den Bosch'' isn't. There is no conservative or liberal interpretation of this point (as it is the other way round for [[The Hague]]). Is [[User:Ed Poor]] not able to correct his mistake - or at least allow his mistake to be corrected? It's a week since his last edit to this talk-page, so I now ask other sysops to move the article.<br /> <br /> [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 02:54, 22 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> :It's been moved by Aschafly. Thanks Aschafly! -[[User:GTac|GTac]] 10:18, 24 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == merge ==<br /> A merge seems to be unusual and impractical:<br /> *Conservapedia has many articles on cities, towns and even villages in various countries. Are they all to be merged?<br /> *Ending up with a list of merged towns and some stand-alones ([[Amsterdam]], etc.) looks untidy<br /> *Who decides when an article on a town gets important enough to be recreated? To merge some of the towns into the article of the country is a step which has to be undone later again when the sections grow. <br /> *Editing the article on your home-town is often a starting-point for contributing to an online encyclopedia. <br /> I don't see any compelling official reason for a merge. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 01:31, 26 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> :It just seems like a reaction to that whole name discussion debacle, really. -[[User:GTac|GTac]] 01:48, 26 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::The proposal to merge this article (and [[Arnhem]], [[Delft]], [[South Holland]] and [[North Brabant]]) with [[Netherlands]] was made on Jun 26, 2012. I'll wait until Jul 3, 2012: a week should be ample time to state a reason for such a merge. If no reason is given, I'll delete the merge-templates on Jul 3, 2012. &amp;mdash;[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 04:17, 28 June 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;leading grammatical bit ('s-) can be distracting to the reader...&quot; ==<br /> <br /> I'm a reader, I don't find it distracting at all. It's how the name of the town is spelled, right? Why spell it incorrectly for the benefit of people who can't focus enough to read? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 20:58, 10 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Higgs_boson&diff=992724 2012-07-10T21:01:30Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Somebody needs to figure out where, if anywhere, the capital letters go. */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>because of the recent announcement, I deleted the &quot;scientists may announce as early as july 2012&quot; bit and replaced it with what I hope is a relatively clear, concise update on the status of the research.--[[User:Guitarsniper|Guitarsniper]] 18:46, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Somebody needs to figure out where, if anywhere, the capital letters go. ==<br /> <br /> Higgs Boson? Higgs boson? Boson? bosun? You guys are all over the place on this one. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 17:01, 10 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Nicknames_for_the_President_of_the_United_States&diff=992666 2012-07-10T03:24:43Z

<p>JeffreyB: That's not a &quot;nickname,&quot; that's a &quot;real name,&quot; or a &quot;full name.&quot; Would you include &quot;Ronald Wilson Reagan&quot; on the list?</p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Chester arthur.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[Chester Arthur]], 21st President of the United States, and called &quot;Walrus&quot; by children who were fascinated by his whiskers]]<br /> [[File:Ulysses grant.jpg|right|150px|thumb|He was born Hyram Ulysses Grant, but a misspelling of his name at West Point gave him the name [[Ulysses S. Grant]]; his &quot;government-issued&quot; initials would cause his new friends at the academy to call him &quot;Sam&quot;.]]<br /> [[File:Theodore roosevelt.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[Theodore Roosevelt]] lived in the Badlands of [[North Dakota]] when a cattleman made the mistake of calling him &quot;four eyes&quot;; the physically-powerful Roosevelt would immediately teach him not to do it again.]]<br /> [[File:Reagan graduation.jpg|right|150px|thumb|A few years after he graduated from Eureka College, [[Ronald Reagan]] would land a role in the film ''Knute Rockne All American''; his portrayal of George Gipp earned him the monicker &quot;Gipper&quot;]]<br /> Nicknames for Presidents of the United States have been bestowed on these men since [[George Washington]]. Some are childhood nicknames - such as &quot;Dutch&quot; for [[Ronald Reagan]] - while others are political or military names given prior to reaching the presidency. Others are rather disparaging, and meant to insult the person in some degree by critics and detractors.<br /> [[File:President Barack Obama.jpg|right|150px|thumb|[[Michael Savage]] created the &quot;Lord of the Fries&quot; moniker for [[Barack Obama]], due to himself and his wife, Michelle partaking of fast food as often as they tell the American people that they must eat healthier meals.]]<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Name<br /> !Nickname<br /> |-<br /> |[[George Washington]]<br /> |The Father of His Country; American Cincinnatus <br /> |-<br /> |[[John Adams]]<br /> |Atlas of Independence; The Duke of Braintree; His Rotundity &lt;ref&gt;http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/artifact/Sculpture_22_00001.htm&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |[[Thomas Jefferson]]<br /> |Sage of Monticello; Mad Tom; The Apostle of Democracy <br /> |-<br /> |[[James Madison]]<br /> |Sage of Montpelier<br /> |-<br /> |[[James Monroe]]<br /> |The Era of Good Feelings President<br /> |-<br /> |[[John Quincy Adams]]<br /> |Old Man Eloquent<br /> |-<br /> |[[Andrew Jackson]]<br /> |Old Hickory; King Andrew; The Hero of New Orleans<br /> |-<br /> |[[Martin Van Buren]]<br /> |Old Kinderhook; The American Talleyrand; The Careful Dutchman<br /> |-<br /> |[[William Henry Harrison]]<br /> |Tippecanoe<br /> |-<br /> |[[John Tyler]]<br /> |His Accidency<br /> |-<br /> |[[James Knox Polk]]<br /> |Young Hickory; Napoleon of the Stump<br /> |-<br /> |[[Zachary Taylor]]<br /> |Old Rough and Ready<br /> |-<br /> |[[Millard Filmore]]<br /> |The American Louis Philippe<br /> |-<br /> |[[Franklin Pierce]]<br /> |Handsome Frank; Young Hickory of the Granite Hills<br /> |-<br /> |[[James Buchanan]]<br /> |The Bachelor President; Old Buck; Ten-Cent Jimmy<br /> |-<br /> |[[Abraham Lincoln]]<br /> |The Rail-Splitter; The Great Emancipator; Honest Abe<br /> |-<br /> |[[Andrew Johnson]]<br /> |The Tennessee Tailor<br /> |-<br /> |[[Ulysses S. Grant]]<br /> |Unconditional Surrender Grant; Hero of Appomattox; Sam<br /> |-<br /> |[[Rutherford B. Hayes]]<br /> |Granny Hayes; His Fraudulency; Old 8 to 7<br /> |-<br /> |[[James A. Garfield]]<br /> |Boatman Jim<br /> |-<br /> |[[Chester A. Arthur]]<br /> |Prince Arthur; Gentleman Boss; Walrus<br /> |-<br /> |[[Grover Cleveland]]<br /> |The Beast of Buffalo; His Obstinacy<br /> |-<br /> |[[Benjamin Harrison]]<br /> |Kid Gloves Harrison; The Human Iceberg<br /> |-<br /> |[[William McKinley]]<br /> |Idol of Ohio; The Major<br /> |-<br /> |[[Theodore Roosevelt]]<br /> |The Rough Rider; Trust Buster; The Lion; Old Four Eyes; Teddy; TR<br /> |-<br /> |[[William Taft]]<br /> |Big Chief; Old Bill<br /> |-<br /> |[[Woodrow Wilson]]<br /> |The Schoolmaster<br /> |-<br /> |[[Warren G. Harding]]<br /> |Wobbly Warren<br /> |-<br /> |[[Calvin Coolidge]]<br /> |Silent Cal; Sphinx of the Potomac<br /> |-<br /> |[[Herbert Hoover]]<br /> |The Chief; The Great Engineer<br /> |-<br /> |[[Franklin Roosevelt]]<br /> |The New Dealer; FDR<br /> |-<br /> |[[Harry S. Truman]]<br /> |Give 'Em Hell Harry; the haberdasher<br /> |-<br /> |[[Dwight D. Eisenhower]]<br /> |Ike<br /> |-<br /> |[[John F. Kennedy]]<br /> |Jack; JFK; King of Camelot<br /> |-<br /> |[[Lyndon B. Johnson]]<br /> |LBJ; Landslide Lyndon; Uncle Cornpone<br /> |-<br /> |[[Richard Nixon]]<br /> |Tricky Dick; Gloomy Gus; <br /> |-<br /> |[[Gerald R. Ford]]<br /> |Jerry<br /> |-<br /> |[[Jimmy Carter|James E. Carter]]<br /> |Jimmy; President Malaise<br /> |-<br /> |[[Ronald Reagan]]<br /> |The Gipper; The Great Communicator; Dutch<br /> |-<br /> |[[George H. W. Bush]]<br /> |Bush 41; Papa Bush; Poppy; Bush the Elder<br /> |-<br /> |[[Bill Clinton]]<br /> |Slick Willie; Bubba; The First Black President; Comeback Kid<br /> |-<br /> |[[George W. Bush]]<br /> |Dubya; Bush 43; Bush II<br /> |-<br /> |[[Barack Obama]]<br /> |The Affirmative Action President; Narcissist-in-chief&lt;ref&gt;<br /> *[http://www.redstate.com/aglanon/2012/05/15/narcissist-in-chief-adds-himself-to-every-presidential-biography-except-ford/ Narcissist in Chief Adds Himself to Every Presidential Biography (Except Ford)]<br /> *[http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/george-marlin-federalist-pataki/2011/09/14/id/411018 George Marlin: Obama Is ‘Narcissist, Classic Elitist’]<br /> *[http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/11/barack-obama-narcissist-in-chief/ Barack Obama: Narcissist in Chief]<br /> *[http://www.wnd.com/2009/05/97201/ Narcissist-in-Chief]<br /> *[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/narcissist_in_chief.html Narcissist in Chief?]<br /> *[http://www.rightwingnews.com/democrats/narcissist-in-chief-obamas-look-at-me-photo/ Narcissist in Chief - Obama's look at me photo]<br /> *[http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=1353502 Obama appeases radical Islam over Israel's future]<br /> *As of June 25, 2012, Google estimates that there are over 500,000 search results for the search Narcissist in chief - previously this moniker was not commonly applied to U.S. Presidents&lt;/ref&gt;; The Food Stamp President&lt;ref&gt;Food Stamp President - Coined by Newt Gingrich. As of June 25, 2012, Google estimates about 350,000 search results for this term&lt;/ref&gt;; Teleprompter-in-chief and TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States)&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/teleprompter-in-chief/ Teleprompter-in-chief]&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;As of June 25, 2012, Google estimates that the Google search Teleprompter in chief and Obama has over 860,000 search results&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;Google estimates that the search TOTUS and Obama has over 880,000 search results&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Category:Presidents of the United States]]<br /> [[Category:United States Elected Officials]]<br /> [[Category:United States History]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Brian_Terry&diff=992625 2012-07-10T00:02:16Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:1389631 orig.jpg|right|150px]]<br /> <br /> <br /> '''Brian Terry''' was a Border Patrol agent killed in the line of duty near Rio Rico, [[Arizona]]. His death and the subsequent cover-up by federal officials led to Attorney General [[Eric Holder]] being found in contempt of Congress. He was killed by [[Mexican]] drug gangs with weapons received from the U.S. government in the botched [[Fast and Furious]] operation. <br /> <br /> Terry was a former [[U.S. Marine]] and former Lincoln Park, [[Michigan]], police officer. Terry is buried in Michigan Memorial Park.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Obama Presidency]]<br /> [[Category:Crimes]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991967 2012-07-06T13:03:42Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts */</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Also, if Spain and Italy are both &quot;very liberal&quot;, that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be &quot;very liberal!&quot; [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.<br /> Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia. <br /> As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist. <br /> Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==<br /> <br /> Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=econ_honproj&amp;sei-redir=1&amp;referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]<br /> <br /> Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]<br /> <br /> In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&amp;ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]<br /> <br /> Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]<br /> <br /> Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have &quot;fat and sassy&quot; atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism<br /> <br /> I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term. <br /> <br /> Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not. <br /> <br /> Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again! <br /> <br /> Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == One fair way to analyze ==<br /> <br /> In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==<br /> <br /> Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball being removed from list ==<br /> <br /> Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] &quot;They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016&quot; AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==<br /> <br /> While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and &quot;Nancy boys&quot; lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well. <br /> :::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.<br /> ::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and &quot;nancy boys&quot; is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984. <br /> ::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::There's a legal precedent - &quot;He Who Asserts Must Prove&quot;... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual &quot;marriages&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::Birth rates, already covered above: &quot;A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't.&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> :::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre. <br /> :::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> [[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no &quot;Nancy boy&quot; and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]<br /> {{clear}}<br /> :::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===<br /> <br /> We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates. <br /> <br /> We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality have more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality. <br /> <br /> Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html &quot;Adversity quotient&quot;] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. My guess is that perhaps EQ is only somewhat popular in the USA and Spain perhaps.[http://danielgoleman.info/2008/can-there-be-an-emotionally-intelligent-society/] With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::Anecdotal and too tied to them hosting the Olympics and starting a drive to win more gold. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:58, 6 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::They didn't host the Olympics in 2008, and anyways, the medal drive was focused on the winter games, not the summer games. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 09:03, 6 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Math'd -- Gay marriage ==<br /> <br /> A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.<br /> <br /> For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a &quot;Pro-Gay&quot; state. No marriage or civil unions, an &quot;Anti-Gay&quot; state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! State Type<br /> ! Expected Medals<br /> ! Actual Medals<br /> ! Over/Under<br /> |-<br /> | Pro-Gay<br /> | 29.8<br /> | 45<br /> | 15.2<br /> |-<br /> | Anti-Gay<br /> | 42.2<br /> | 27<br /> | -15.2<br /> |-<br /> | Total<br /> | 72.0<br /> | 72<br /> | 0<br /> |}<br /> <br /> If we look just at Gold Medals...<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! State Type<br /> ! Expected Golds<br /> ! Actual Golds<br /> ! Over/Under<br /> |-<br /> | Pro-Gay<br /> | 8.3<br /> | 14<br /> | 5.7<br /> |-<br /> | Anti-Gay<br /> | 11.7<br /> | 6<br /> | -5.7<br /> |-<br /> | Total<br /> | 20.0<br /> | 20<br /> | 0<br /> |}<br /> (Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)<br /> <br /> <br /> As you can see, &quot;Pro-Gay&quot; states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, &quot;Anti-Gay&quot; states underperform by 36%.<br /> <br /> The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - &quot;Pro-Gay&quot; outperformes %69%, while &quot;Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.<br /> <br /> In conclusion, do I think &quot;imposing&quot; gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.<br /> [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.<br /> <br /> 2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.<br /> <br /> 3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.<br /> [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Expected Medals ==<br /> <br /> Hello all,<br /> I think it would be fun to track &quot;expected vs actuals&quot; with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a &quot;per capita&quot; basis, or a &quot;per GDP&quot; basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I think ranking on a &quot;per GDP&quot; basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Added info re same-sex marriage ==<br /> <br /> I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as &quot;Independent Olympic Participants&quot; under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Joke sports ==<br /> <br /> I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are &quot;sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals&quot;. The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I realize that the U.S. wins many of these &quot;joke&quot; medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.<br /> :::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a &quot;joke&quot;. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==<br /> <br /> Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?<br /> <br /> Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278<br /> <br /> Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: &quot;&quot;Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now.&quot;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]<br /> <br /> == Move page ==<br /> <br /> Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name &quot;Games of the XXX Olympiad&quot;. (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Tables for medals ==<br /> <br /> I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991964 2012-07-06T12:54:47Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts */</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Also, if Spain and Italy are both &quot;very liberal&quot;, that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be &quot;very liberal!&quot; [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::: Meh.... In the first Euro championship (1960), the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia finished 1-2-3 respectively. All were communist. At least two communist nations made the semifinals for each of the next 3 Euros. In 1980, the Czechoslovakians finished third. In 1984, no Communist nations finished in the Top 4, but that was the only time that happened. The Soviets came in second in 1988, and then the communists fell. Since then (6 Euros), the Czechs have two Top 4 apppearances, the Russians have one, and other communist nations or their successor states have none. Of course, this is misleading because a combined Yugoslavia team consisting of the Serbian, Montenegrin, Croatian, etc. teams might have done well, and of those nations, only Croatia qualified and they did fairly well considering they were in a group with Italy and Spain. Most of the Yugoslavian players were Serbian, and most of the Soviet players were Russian. So it appears Serbia and Russia suffered. But Croatia and Montenegro have done well since independence (and a unified Serbia and Montenegro team qualified for the World Cup in 2006, but was placed in the group of death and eliminated in the first round. It also didn't help that the World Cup was held after the two nations separated). Also, Bosnia and Herzigovina has improved, coming within a playoff against Portugal of qualifying for both the World Cup and Euro, but they lost both.<br /> Additionally, Ukraine has improved significantly since the USSR breakup. Although they only qualified this year because they were hosts, they qualified for the World Cup in 2006 and almost again in 2010. Latvia qualified for Euro 2004, even though there were pretty much no Latvian Soviet soccer players. Estonia also came within a playoff of qualifying for Euro this year, a marked improvement over their Soviet days, but lost. Same with Bosnia-Herzigovinia and Montenegro. Additionally, either Slovakia or the Czech Republic has qualified almost always for the World Cup and Euro, and a combined team would likely have done better. In team sports, it is hard to compare stats from before and after, because while the USSR may have done better than any of the new nations, we don't know how the new nations would do if they competed together as they did when they were the USSR. Andre Szevchenko is one of the best players in Europe for Ukraine, but he doesn't have much support. If he had the support of Russian players, Estonian players, and Latvian players on his team, then that team would probably have done better. The same could be said of a combined team for Czech Republic and Slovakia. <br /> As an example of the opposite, the new German team has done far better than the old East German team, including some players from Berlin who would have competed for East Gemrany 25 years ago. Their performance is slightly better than the West German performance, although this is probably just because they have more people now, since they were both capitalist. <br /> Also, Germany is the only country in the Netherlands' group that does not have same-sex marriage (Portugal and Denmark also do). At least one of them by rule HAD to advance (Portugal did), but it was the Germans who won the group with a perfect record. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 05:20, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==<br /> <br /> Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=econ_honproj&amp;sei-redir=1&amp;referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]<br /> <br /> Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]<br /> <br /> In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&amp;ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]<br /> <br /> Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]<br /> <br /> Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have &quot;fat and sassy&quot; atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism<br /> <br /> I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term. <br /> <br /> Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not. <br /> <br /> Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again! <br /> <br /> Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == One fair way to analyze ==<br /> <br /> In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==<br /> <br /> Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball being removed from list ==<br /> <br /> Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] &quot;They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016&quot; AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==<br /> <br /> While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and &quot;Nancy boys&quot; lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well. <br /> :::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.<br /> ::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and &quot;nancy boys&quot; is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984. <br /> ::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::There's a legal precedent - &quot;He Who Asserts Must Prove&quot;... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual &quot;marriages&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::Birth rates, already covered above: &quot;A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't.&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]<br /> :::Nope. Still has absolutely no relevance to the performance of individual athletes at the Games. In fact, on rereading your reasons, you seem to be stuck on the thought that countries that allow same-sex marriage would only send gay athletes to the Games. That is bizarre. <br /> :::Just how many people of the same gender do you think are going to be married? To say it'll affect a country's population growth is double bizarre. Japan's population growth is going backwards and they don't have same-sex marriage. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Your [[last wordism]] isn't impressing anyone - especially since you conveniently ignored the [[Homosexuality and health]] issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:08, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> [[File:Chuck norris.jpg|thumbnail|200px|right|It is no coincidence that the fit and healthy Bible believing martial artist [[Chuck Norris]] lives in the state of [[Texas]] and not the city of San Francisco! Chuck Norris is no &quot;Nancy boy&quot; and he is the embodiment of mental toughness. ]]<br /> {{clear}}<br /> :::: Wouldn't there be just as many homosexuals whether same-sex marriage is legal or not? Legalizing same-sex marriage wouldn't turn the existing athletes into homosexuals. So we're barking up the wrong tree here. Even if there were a correlation between homosexuality and athletic performance, it would have nothing to do with the legal status of same-sex marriage. Tim Tebow will be playing his home games in New York next year (ok, fine, New Jersey, but I'm a Jets fan and I consider them to be from New York). Same-sex marriage is legal in New York. It was not legal in Colorado or Florida. It is ridiculous to suggest that this would somehow hurt Tebow's performance. He will be just as faithful, Christian, and heterosexual as he ever was. Even if the NFL adds a franchise in atheistic London (as they are foolishly considering) and Tebow winds up there, nothing will change. Even if the Bills move to Toronto and Tebow plays for them, nothing will change. So supposing there is a correlation, we're looking for it in the wrong place, in my opinion. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::To be fair, legalization of homosexual relationships may be a proxy for a jurisdiction's attitudes for homosexuality. I don't think it's a very good proxy; it would probably be a better idea to examine sexual orientations of athletes themselves rather than attitudes about homosexuality held by residents the places they represent. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::: But it's not the ''attitudes'' of the athletes that [[User:Conservative]] says are relevant. It's the actual ''orientation'' of the athletes. He posted a number of references to homosexuality and health problems. Without commenting one way or the other on their merits, they only apply if the athlete himself is a homosexual. So I'm inclined to agree with GregG here. Perhaps Conservative's theory is right, but if it is, he's going about proving it the wrong way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:08, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> === Evidence pointing to same sex marriage acceptance negatively affecting Olympic medal counts ===<br /> <br /> We know that bigger populations tend to gain more Olympic medals.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf] Show me that societies which accept homosexuality tend to have higher birth rates. <br /> <br /> We know that atheists are more accepting of homosexuality and also more liberal (see: [[Atheism and morality]]). We know that liberals are more accepting of homosexuality. See: [[Views on Homosexuality]]. We also know atheists tend to have lower birth rates. See: [[Decline of atheism]]. My educated guess is that liberal countries have lower birth rates (abortion, birth control, etc.). [http://erlc.com/article/death-of-liberalism/] There is also evidence pointing to societies which accept homosexuality have more of it. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). My educated guess therefore is that societies accepting of same sex marriage have lower birth rates and achieve less medals as a result. I do understand that societies which have more material wealth can grow morally lax and thus more accepting of homosexuality and those societies tend to be more prone to falling (Roman Empire for example). Therefore, we should not confuse higher GDP per capita and achieving more medals and a societies acceptance of homosexuality. <br /> <br /> Athletes with higher degrees of mental toughness achieve more. I would think that societies with higher degrees of mental toughness would have lower suicide rates. We know that atheists tend to be more accepting of homosexuality (plus more liberal) and they have higher suicide rates than the general population. See: [[Atheism and morality]] and [[Atheism and suicide]]. Also, compare the suicide rates of countries and their acceptance of homosexuality as a possible benchmark for the mental toughness of the societies. <br /> <br /> Alternatively, show me societies accepting of homosexuality tend to score high on mental toughness tests such as Peter Cough's test. Also, [http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl_eq_quiz.htm Emotional intelligence (EQ) test] score and a person's [http://www.winstonbrill.com/bril001/html/article_index/articles/501-550/article517_body.html &quot;Adversity quotient&quot;] test score would be possible benchmarks as far as measuring mental toughness, but obviously the latter would be better. EQ is popular in management circles and perhaps different societies have been measured in terms of their EQ test scores. With that being said, I think there is far more detailed information on suicide rates of countries and that is probably a better benchmark of mental toughness. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:13, 6 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Canada's medal haul went UP by 50% after they allowed same-sex marriage. (12 in 2004, 18 in 2008) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 08:54, 6 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Math'd -- Gay marriage ==<br /> <br /> A subject about quantifying something?? I accept your challenge.<br /> <br /> For the following, I am trying to determine the effect of pro-gay legislation on Olympic Medals. Since different countries have hugely different factors, I thought we could use the states of the USA to observe any effects (being labs of democracy, and all). What I did was find a list of all 2008 Olympic Medalists. Then, I got rid of any groups, leaving only individual medalists. Then, I mapped these medalists to their home state. Then, I figured out, based on population, how many medals each state should win out of the total USA medals. Then, I matched states with their same-sex marriage legislation (I assumed if same-sex couples could marry or engage in civil unions, this was a &quot;Pro-Gay&quot; state. No marriage or civil unions, an &quot;Anti-Gay&quot; state.) Then I summed up expected and actuals by these two categories. Here's what I got....<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! State Type<br /> ! Expected Medals<br /> ! Actual Medals<br /> ! Over/Under<br /> |-<br /> | Pro-Gay<br /> | 29.8<br /> | 45<br /> | 15.2<br /> |-<br /> | Anti-Gay<br /> | 42.2<br /> | 27<br /> | -15.2<br /> |-<br /> | Total<br /> | 72.0<br /> | 72<br /> | 0<br /> |}<br /> <br /> If we look just at Gold Medals...<br /> <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! State Type<br /> ! Expected Golds<br /> ! Actual Golds<br /> ! Over/Under<br /> |-<br /> | Pro-Gay<br /> | 8.3<br /> | 14<br /> | 5.7<br /> |-<br /> | Anti-Gay<br /> | 11.7<br /> | 6<br /> | -5.7<br /> |-<br /> | Total<br /> | 20.0<br /> | 20<br /> | 0<br /> |}<br /> (Please note that if a medalist is from another country, they were excluded. Same with two obscure athletes I couldn't find information on)<br /> <br /> <br /> As you can see, &quot;Pro-Gay&quot; states outperform their expected total medal results by over 50%. Conversely, &quot;Anti-Gay&quot; states underperform by 36%.<br /> <br /> The picture is more extreme only looking at Gold medals - &quot;Pro-Gay&quot; outperformes %69%, while &quot;Anti-Gay' under perform by almost half.<br /> <br /> In conclusion, do I think &quot;imposing&quot; gay marriage has anything to do with Olympic results? Probably not, since states, along any group of people in the Olympics, have a huge number of factors affecting their outcomes. But, to say that gay marriage destroys Olypmic results...well, that just goes against the data.<br /> [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 15:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::I think you are going to have to do regression analysis to isolate the homosexuality issue. It seems as if the wealth and population size are important variables to winning medals as noted above. Cultures which have significant wealth often get morally complacent history shows. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:00, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> 1) This is a regression based on population size. But I don't think a regression could be done on wealth, since it's hard to track the socio-economic movements of dozens of medalists, many of whom are relatively unknown. Also, if you want me to regress based on a group of large, poor states that allow gay marriage...my sample size isn't going to be even close to credible. I agree though, it would be very interesting.<br /> <br /> 2) You didn't provide isolation of the homosexuality issue in your hypothesis, so that's what I based my refutation on.. You said countries with gay marriage would underperform. Not that a country with gay marriage would underperform an identical country without gay marriage.<br /> <br /> 3) Most importantly, why should ''I'' isolate the homosexuality issue? ''You'' should be the one supporting your premise, or at least refuting my data. I spent the time showing why your idea was wrong, now it's your turn to either show where I am wrong, or adjust or reject your hypothesis.<br /> [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:13, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::The liberals are not being realistic and fighting an uphill battle here. You are never going to have people associate homosexuality with athleticism/health. This is a Pickett's charge to say the least - especially at Conservapedia (see: [[Homosexuality and health]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::So...nothing about the Olympics then? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 16:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Expected Medals ==<br /> <br /> Hello all,<br /> I think it would be fun to track &quot;expected vs actuals&quot; with regards to medals. I was thinking of adding a table giving each partipating country an expected value. However, I'm having trouble deciding it it would be better to do it on a &quot;per capita&quot; basis, or a &quot;per GDP&quot; basis. Any thoughts? [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 17:09, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I think ranking on a &quot;per GDP&quot; basis would be fairer. Competitive sports is an activity of affluent nations. Any thoughts on this by others?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:14, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I added a table, proportioning medals by nominal GDP. I notice that I'm predicting 200 medals for America, which seems high. I wonder why that could be? My thought is that there are a ton of countries with less than 1 medal expected, but a lot of them will probably get one. I'll leave the table, but please let me know if you have any thoughts on modifications. It's a least something to get us thinking! [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 13:43, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Added info re same-sex marriage ==<br /> <br /> I added more info on same-sex marriage being allowed in certain political subdivisions of a country. I clarified that there are two US States that have legalized same sex marriage but there is a citizen's referendum about it, but that one of them (Washington) already had civil unions. I also noted that in Mexico, same-sex marriage is legal in Mexico City, a Federal District similar to Washington, DC. Also, I noted that several overseas territories of the Netherlands will compete separately and also have different laws regarding same-sex marriage. Aruba does not perform them, but per the Kingdom's requirements must recognize those performed elsewhere. Same with Curacao and Sint Maarten, who will compete as &quot;Independent Olympic Participants&quot; under the Olympic flag after the dissolution of the Netherlands Antilles and the loss of recognition for their Olympic committee. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 19:29, 3 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Joke sports ==<br /> <br /> I'm going to remove beach volleyball from the list, as it's a very physically demanding sport. Also, while I agree that synchronised swimming is a bit of a joke, I disagree with the description that these are &quot;sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals&quot;. The USA has won (usually multiple) medals in beach volleyball every year it has been included in the Olympics, synchronised swimming medals ''most'' times and half of all the BMX medals ever awarded! In fact, the only weak nation that has ever won a medal in any of these events (ever) was a Latvian who won the first BMX gold. [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:00, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I realize that the U.S. wins many of these &quot;joke&quot; medals. I was being objective and fair to other nations in criticizing these medals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Ok fair enough. So what are your thoughts on beach volleyball? What makes it joke...ish? [[User:WilcoxD|WilcoxD]] 00:19, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I think it's mainly because it's a relatively recent creation, arrived at by taking an existing sport and just playing it on a beach. (I know that teams are smaller and the rules are a bit different etc, but that's basically it.) Why not have beach tennis, beach archery, beach baseball and beach cricket as well??? That and the requirements by the sport's governing body specifying the skimpiness of female competitors' attire.<br /> :::This isn't to say that it's not demanding to play at the top level, but do the Olympics really need to have two different kinds of volleyball? Regular volleyball is hardly a blue riband event as it is!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 08:33, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::: Beach volleyball and regular volleyball have different rules. The idea is the same, but the rules are pretty different. A similar situation would be rugby. Starting in 2016 rugby sevens will be in the Olympics. If they also added rugby league (which is fairly similar to rugby sevens, but has a lot of differences too) as well, then that would be too similar. But it just makes them redundant, it doesn't make one of them a &quot;joke&quot;. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian? ==<br /> <br /> Are the nations of Japan increasingly atheistic or increasingly theistic and/or christian?<br /> <br /> Gallup poll: Christianity growing in Japan: http://www.breakingchristiannews.com/articles/display_art.html?ID=2278<br /> <br /> Pastor Lee in Korea, 2007 - BBC: &quot;&quot;Our church is still growing, so sooner or later Christianity will be the major religion in Korea. All Christians are praying for that right now.&quot;[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8322072.stm]<br /> <br /> == Move page ==<br /> <br /> Can we move this page to [[2012 Olympics]]? That's a more natural title. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 07:16, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :How bout a redirect?[[User:Brenden|brenden]] 11:13, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The redirect works. It's a close call which title is better, but to me starting an entry with a number seems less efficient in conveying meaning.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:24, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::You have to have something indicating summer. I retitled the article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:04, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::I agree. Even though Summer and Winter Olympics never occur in the same year anymore, they historically were both held in the same year. Having this naming convention will ensure consistency with other Olympics articles we may create. [[User:GregG|GregG]] 12:11, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::: I agree. 2012 Olympics may not be ambiguous but [[1984 Olympics]] would be. (Los Angeles Summer Games or Sarajevo Winter Games). Also, with regards to Andy's concern, virtually all press releases refer to these as the 2012 (Summer) Olympics, and/or use the official name &quot;Games of the XXX Olympiad&quot;. (XXX is Roman Numeral 30, not a placeholder) However, since the official Olympiad name is never used except in official releases, and it is commonly referred to as 2012 Summer Olympics everywhere else, I say keep it this way. [[User:Gregkochuconn|Gregkochuconn]] 14:01, 4 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Tables for medals ==<br /> <br /> I'm going to add tables showing medals won, and indicate in the table when same-sex marriage was recognized, for each country listed. This will make it easier to identify trends from before and after legalization. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:54, 5 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991199 2012-07-02T19:49:15Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Baseball being removed from list */ BASEBALL not conservative, because Cuba is good at it.</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Also, if Spain and Italy are both &quot;very liberal&quot;, that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be &quot;very liberal!&quot; [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> == Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==<br /> <br /> Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=econ_honproj&amp;sei-redir=1&amp;referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]<br /> <br /> Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]<br /> <br /> In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&amp;ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]<br /> <br /> Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]<br /> <br /> Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have &quot;fat and sassy&quot; atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism<br /> <br /> I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term. <br /> <br /> Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not. <br /> <br /> Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again! <br /> <br /> Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == One fair way to analyze ==<br /> <br /> In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==<br /> <br /> Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball being removed from list ==<br /> <br /> Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] &quot;They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016&quot; AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] (And the most medals overall?) [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==<br /> <br /> While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and &quot;Nancy boys&quot; lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well. <br /> :::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.<br /> ::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and &quot;nancy boys&quot; is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984. <br /> ::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::There's a legal precedent - &quot;He Who Asserts Must Prove&quot;... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual &quot;marriages&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::Birth rates, already covered above: &quot;A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't.&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991196 2012-07-02T19:47:11Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Baseball being removed from list */ BASEBALL not conservative, because Cuba is good at it.</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Also, if Spain and Italy are both &quot;very liberal&quot;, that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be &quot;very liberal!&quot; [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> == Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==<br /> <br /> Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=econ_honproj&amp;sei-redir=1&amp;referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]<br /> <br /> Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]<br /> <br /> In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&amp;ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]<br /> <br /> Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]<br /> <br /> Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have &quot;fat and sassy&quot; atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism<br /> <br /> I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term. <br /> <br /> Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not. <br /> <br /> Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again! <br /> <br /> Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == One fair way to analyze ==<br /> <br /> In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==<br /> <br /> Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball being removed from list ==<br /> <br /> Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] &quot;They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016&quot; AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :[[Baseball]] was dropped from the 2012 Olympics??? That's a disappointment! Is the sport considered too [[conservative]]?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::If it is, why did [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_at_the_Summer_Olympics#Medal_table Cuba win most of the gold medals?] [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:47, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==<br /> <br /> While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. Also, Olympic athletes have to be in top physical condition. See: [[Homosexuality and health]]. In addition, mental toughness is important in sports and &quot;Nancy boys&quot; lack this characteristic! Also, there is the issue of [[Homosexuality and obesity]]. If you could show us that the town of Ereses on the Greek Island of [[Lesbos]] has produced an inordinate amount of Olympic women gymnasts instead of higher incidence of obese lesbians, it would be greatly appreciated (See: [[Lesbianism and obesity]]).[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:16, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::I think the town is called Eresos (Greek: Ερεσός), no? --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 15:21, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Thanks! Corrected. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This isn't a good argument against same-sex marriage, you know. It's just not logical. If a marriage is for population growth, then why are marriages that can't/won't produce children permitted? My dad's on his second marriage since my mother passed away - no half-siblings yet. You need to think through your arguments. If these non-productive marriages ''are'' permitted, under what reason? Companionship? That can be applied to same-sex couples as well. Tax benefits? Ditto. The argument doesn't stand up very well. <br /> :::Oh, and there you go - you just can't get away from negatively portraying fat people. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 15:24, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::Why an ancient Greek myth should be applicable to today is something only you would know.<br /> ::::As for homosexuals at the Olympics - and &quot;nancy boys&quot; is a very derogatory term, much like using the n-word. One would think a site like this would be above that sort of thing, but obviously not - how about Mark Spitz (7 gold) and Greg Louganis (4 gold), who was also the the most outstanding amateur athlete in the United States in 1984. <br /> ::::Once again, your tired old arguments don't hold any water - obese people - gay or straight are hardly likely to be participating at the games, so trying to make a correlation between a country's political decisions and the performance of individual athletes is - quite frankly - stupid. But I have a feeling that you still can't grasp the idea. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:26, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::There's a legal precedent - &quot;He Who Asserts Must Prove&quot;... so, let's see your proof that a government passing same-sex marriage laws affects individual sportsmens' performance. Hint: the drivel you wrote above is not proof. [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:34, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::Homosexuality related tourism occurs in this town today. Second, re: lower amount of mental toughness issue: [[Mental Health and Homosexuality]] Third, the birth rate of heterosexual marriages will always exceed homosexual &quot;marriages&quot; [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:37, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Your first point - totally not relevant. What the hell does tourism have to do with athletes at the Olympic Games? Second people - people who are not mentally tough - gay or straight wouldn't last at any level of competitive sport and thus wouldn't appear at the Games, so your point is invalid. Third point is equally invalid - birth rates have nothing to do with how individuals perform at the Games. Care to try again? [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 15:40, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> It is relevant: Homosexuality related tourism occurs in the Greek town today. In 1976, Gwen J. Proude and Sarah J. Green published a study in the journal Ethnology which showed a positive correlation between cultures which accepted or ignored homosexuality in their cultures and cultures which were more likely to have homosexuality be more common. (see: [[Homosexuality]]). [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::Birth rates, already covered: A factor in winning gold medals is the population size of a country. How does same sex marriage help increase the population size of a country? The Russians seem to think that it doesn't. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991140 2012-07-02T16:25:51Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Same sex marriage and underachievement. */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Also, if Spain and Italy are both &quot;very liberal&quot;, that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be &quot;very liberal!&quot; [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> == Evidence that Christianity increases a countries Olympic medals while atheism and liberalism reduce gold medals won ==<br /> <br /> Andy, although it is true that Communist/authoritarian countries have gone out of their way in the past to pour money in the Olympic gold winning efforts (Soviet Union)[http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&amp;context=econ_honproj&amp;sei-redir=1&amp;referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dgdp%2520population%2520freedom%2520and%2520olympic%2520medals%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CEoQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fdigitalcommons.iwu.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1004%2526context%253Decon_honproj%26ei%3DbsLwT5fpO-Hq0gHpidj6Ag%26usg%3DAFQjCNGA2tePIDTqdOmM8p42uwGhpzkVhA#search=%22gdp%20population%20freedom%20olympic%20medals%22], it is also true that a higher population size and a higher GDP positively affect the number of gold medals that a country wins.[http://mba.tuck.dartmouth.edu/pages/faculty/andrew.bernard/olymp60restat_finaljournalversion.pdf]<br /> <br /> Atheism reduces a countries population size while religiosity increases a countries birth rate: http://conservapedia.com/Decline_of_atheism#Decline_of_atheism_in_terms_of_global_adherents_is_expected_to_accelerate See also: [[Decline of atheism]]<br /> <br /> In the journal article ''Religion, self-regulation, and self-control: Associations, explanations, and implications'' psychologists McCullough and Willoughby theorize that many of the positive links of religiousness with health and social behavior may be caused by religion's beneficial influences on self-control/self-regulation.[http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/mmccullough/Papers/Relig_self_control_bulletin.pdf][http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19210054] Athletes with more self-control have more mental toughness.[http://www.nmnathletics.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=8800&amp;ATCLID=926652] Athletes with more mental toughness tend to perform at higher levels.[http://vimeo.com/23328555] See also: [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]]<br /> <br /> Also, all other things remaining equal, religion in the Western world tends to promote more self-discipline and healthier behaviors when it comes to mental and physical health: See: [[Atheism and health]] and [[Psychology, obesity, religiosity and atheism]] and [[Atheism and obesity]]<br /> <br /> Also, while it is true that a country that is doing well can have &quot;fat and sassy&quot; atheists as a result. On the other hand, if there is religious freedom in a country a country can have high levels of religiosity even with high incomes such as the United States. See effects of prosperity on rates of atheism: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:Conservative/atheism-research#Effect_of_prosperity_on_rate_of_atheism<br /> <br /> I am sure you can find data to support that capitalism causes a country to have higher incomes than socialism/liberalism over the long term. <br /> <br /> Next, liberalism promotes abortion and small family sizes where conservative religion does not. <br /> <br /> Summary: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPLEAWsX0qk Jesus is the winnamon and Christians are on the winning side!] Christians are winners and atheists tend to lose again! <br /> <br /> Go for the gold America! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! (where atheists are the least trusted group of individuals. See: [[Views on atheists]]) :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:07, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == One fair way to analyze ==<br /> <br /> In order to give a fair analysis, information needs to be compiled before the Games for the countries/sports listed for both pre/post same-sex marriage/girls playing sports and then add this year's results. As far as I can see, that would be the only way to objectively assess any trend regarding medals/performance. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 10:14, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball not an Olympic sport in 2012 ==<br /> <br /> Baseball is removed from the list, because both baseball and softball have been dropped for the program for the 2012 Olympics. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/sports/08iht-oly.html?_r=1 [[User:MaartenG|MaartenG]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Baseball being removed from list ==<br /> <br /> Maybe baseball (and softball) have been removed because they are not included in the 2012 Olympics. [http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/8504326/] &quot;They'rrre out! Olympics drop baseball, softball: Sports eliminated for 2012 Games, but could win way back in 2016&quot; AP, nbcsports.com, July 9, 2005, retrieved July 2, 2012. [[User:SharonW|SharonW]] 11:43, 2 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Same sex marriage and underachievement. ==<br /> <br /> While a rationale is given for the relationship between atheism and underperformance, none is given for the relationship between same sex marriage and underperformance. Can somebody who understands the relationship please provide a rationale in the relevant section? Thanks. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:25, 2 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991139 2012-07-02T16:23:38Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Nations that impose same-sex marriage */</p> <hr /> <div>The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948. The Olympic Games have pagan origins, the torch relay was first used for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin<br /> <br /> Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.<br /> <br /> [[Conservapedia]] predicts and analyzes underachievement by nations, or particular sports fielded by a nation, due to:<br /> <br /> == Nations that impose [[same-sex marriage]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[Argentina]]<br /> *[[Belgium]]<br /> *[[Canada]]<br /> *[[Iceland]]<br /> *[[Netherlands]]<br /> *[[Norway]]<br /> *[[Portugal]]<br /> *[[South Africa]]<br /> *[[Spain]]<br /> *[[Sweden]]<br /> *[[United States]]<br /> <br /> Underachievement by nations allowing same sex marriage will be particularly evident.<br /> <br /> == Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==<br /> <br /> *[[Britain]]<br /> <br /> Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.<br /> <br /> == Sports ravaged by [[feminist]] [[proportionality test|Title IX quotas]] in the [[U.S.]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[gymnastics]]<br /> *[[track and field]]<br /> *[[wrestling]]<br /> <br /> == Winners ==<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Athlete<br /> !Achievement<br /> !Religion, or Atheist?<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> == Joke sports ==<br /> <br /> These are sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals, while the common man is surprised that they would even be considered an Olympic sport at all (compare with [[Worst College Majors]]):<br /> <br /> *beach volleyball<br /> *synchronized swimming<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]<br /> <br /> [[category:Sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991138 2012-07-02T16:23:08Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Nations that impose same-sex marriage */ edit for uniformity with the following section. Perhaps someone can beef this up with the rationale.</p> <hr /> <div>The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948. The Olympic Games have pagan origins, the torch relay was first used for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin<br /> <br /> Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.<br /> <br /> [[Conservapedia]] predicts and analyzes underachievement by nations, or particular sports fielded by a nation, due to:<br /> <br /> == Nations that impose [[same-sex marriage]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[Argentina]]<br /> *[[Belgium]]<br /> *[[Canada]]<br /> *[[Iceland]]<br /> *[[Netherlands]]<br /> *[[Norway]]<br /> *[[Portugal]]<br /> *[[South Africa]]<br /> *[[Spain]]<br /> *[[Sweden]]<br /> *[[United States]]<br /> <br /> Underachievement by allowing same sex marriage nations will be particularly evident.<br /> <br /> == Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==<br /> <br /> *[[Britain]]<br /> <br /> Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.<br /> <br /> == Sports ravaged by [[feminist]] [[proportionality test|Title IX quotas]] in the [[U.S.]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[gymnastics]]<br /> *[[track and field]]<br /> *[[wrestling]]<br /> <br /> == Winners ==<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Athlete<br /> !Achievement<br /> !Religion, or Atheist?<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> == Joke sports ==<br /> <br /> These are sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals, while the common man is surprised that they would even be considered an Olympic sport at all (compare with [[Worst College Majors]]):<br /> <br /> *beach volleyball<br /> *synchronized swimming<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]<br /> <br /> [[category:Sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991137 2012-07-02T16:21:32Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Nations that impose same-sex marriage */ ...perhaps someone can tell us what that correlation is.</p> <hr /> <div>The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948. The Olympic Games have pagan origins, the torch relay was first used for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin<br /> <br /> Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.<br /> <br /> [[Conservapedia]] predicts and analyzes underachievement by nations, or particular sports fielded by a nation, due to:<br /> <br /> == Nations that impose [[same-sex marriage]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[Argentina]]<br /> *[[Belgium]]<br /> *[[Canada]]<br /> *[[Iceland]]<br /> *[[Netherlands]]<br /> *[[Norway]]<br /> *[[Portugal]]<br /> *[[South Africa]]<br /> *[[Spain]]<br /> *[[Sweden]]<br /> *[[United States]]<br /> <br /> There is an obvious correlation between same-sex marriage and the outcome of athletic events.<br /> <br /> == Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==<br /> <br /> *[[Britain]]<br /> <br /> Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.<br /> <br /> == Sports ravaged by [[feminist]] [[proportionality test|Title IX quotas]] in the [[U.S.]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[gymnastics]]<br /> *[[track and field]]<br /> *[[wrestling]]<br /> <br /> == Winners ==<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Athlete<br /> !Achievement<br /> !Religion, or Atheist?<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> == Joke sports ==<br /> <br /> These are sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals, while the common man is surprised that they would even be considered an Olympic sport at all (compare with [[Worst College Majors]]):<br /> <br /> *beach volleyball<br /> *synchronized swimming<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]<br /> <br /> [[category:Sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991088 2012-07-02T13:17:46Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Nations that impose Same-sex marriage */</p> <hr /> <div>The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948. The Olympic Games have pagan origins, the torch relay was first used for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin<br /> <br /> Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.<br /> <br /> [[Conservapedia]] predicts and analyzes underachievement by nations, or particular sports fielded by a nation, due to:<br /> <br /> == Nations that impose [[same-sex marriage]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[Argentina]]<br /> *[[Belgium]]<br /> *[[Canada]]<br /> *[[Iceland]]<br /> *[[Netherlands]]<br /> *[[Norway]]<br /> *[[Portugal]]<br /> *[[South Africa]]<br /> *[[Spain]]<br /> *[[Sweden]]<br /> <br /> == Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==<br /> <br /> *[[Britain]]<br /> <br /> Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.<br /> <br /> == Sports ravaged by [[feminist]] [[proportionality test|Title IX quotas]] in the [[U.S.]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[gymnastics]]<br /> *[[track and field]]<br /> *[[wrestling]]<br /> <br /> == Winners ==<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Athlete<br /> !Achievement<br /> !Religion, or Atheist?<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> == Joke sports ==<br /> <br /> These are sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals, while the common man is surprised that they would even be considered an Olympic sport at all (compare with [[Worst College Majors]]):<br /> <br /> *beach volleyball<br /> *synchronized swimming<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]<br /> <br /> [[category:Sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=991087 2012-07-02T13:17:36Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage */</p> <hr /> <div>The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948. The Olympic Games have pagan origins, the torch relay was first used for the 1936 Summer Olympic Games in Nazi Berlin<br /> <br /> Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.<br /> <br /> [[Conservapedia]] predicts and analyzes underachievement by nations, or particular sports fielded by a nation, due to:<br /> <br /> == Nations that impose [[Same-sex marriage]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[Argentina]]<br /> *[[Belgium]]<br /> *[[Canada]]<br /> *[[Iceland]]<br /> *[[Netherlands]]<br /> *[[Norway]]<br /> *[[Portugal]]<br /> *[[South Africa]]<br /> *[[Spain]]<br /> *[[Sweden]]<br /> <br /> == Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==<br /> <br /> *[[Britain]]<br /> <br /> Underachievement by atheistic nations will be particularly evident in the '''''team''''' sports, where spiritual motivation is non-existent. Expect the atheistic nations to underachieve most notably in soccer, where teamwork is paramount.<br /> <br /> == Sports ravaged by [[feminist]] [[proportionality test|Title IX quotas]] in the [[U.S.]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[gymnastics]]<br /> *[[track and field]]<br /> *[[wrestling]]<br /> <br /> == Winners ==<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable sortable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> !Athlete<br /> !Achievement<br /> !Religion, or Atheist?<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> <br /> == Joke sports ==<br /> <br /> These are sports that allow underachieving nations to pad their medal totals, while the common man is surprised that they would even be considered an Olympic sport at all (compare with [[Worst College Majors]]):<br /> <br /> *beach volleyball<br /> *synchronized swimming<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]<br /> <br /> [[category:Sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tiger_Woods&diff=991043 2012-07-02T04:51:25Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Eldrick Tont Woods''' (born 1975), who goes by his nickname, Tiger, is a professional [[golf | golfer]]. In 2006, he was #2 on Forbes's &quot;Celebrity 100&quot; of the biggest celebrity names, trailing only [[Oprah Winfrey]]. [http://www.forbes.com/lists/2007/53/07celebrities_The-Celebrity-100_Rank.html] He earned about $100,000,000 in 2006 from endorsements and tournament winnings. He is a [[Buddhism|Buddhist]].<br /> <br /> Despite showing promise of becoming the greatest golfer ever, Woods's career and athletic achievement collapsed amid reports of adultery. His wife subsequently obtained a divorce.&lt;ref&gt;http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100219/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_tiger_woods&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Liberals]] frequently over-promote Woods in the media, to the point of declaring him to be a favorite to win the 2012 [[Masters]]. In fact, he turned in his worst performance there in 17 years, and his swearing and kicking of a club were captured by a camera. After he learned that people did not appreciate that, he declared:&lt;ref&gt;http://www.augusta.com/masters/story/news/latest-news/woods-offers-apology-masters-behavior&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> {{cquote|I certainly heard that people didn’t like me kicking the club. I didn’t like it either. I hit it in the bunker, and it didn’t feel good on my toe, either.}}<br /> <br /> He has had three knee operations, including the removal of a benign tumor and also a cyst.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351418,00.html&lt;/ref&gt;&lt;ref&gt;http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartodate/news02/woods51.html&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Woods has the most wins of anyone on the PGA Tour this year, and his winning performance the 2012 AT&amp;T National at Congressional Country Club in Bethesda, Maryland moved him past Jack Nicklaus into second place on the tour list, eight short of the record set by Sam Snead.<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See Also==<br /> *[[Deceit]]<br /> *[[Sexual immorality]]<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Woods, Tiger}}<br /> <br /> [[Category: Athletes]]<br /> [[Category: Buddhists]]<br /> [[Category: Golfers]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990940 2012-07-01T19:30:28Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Euro 2012 */ Guess it pays to be &quot;very liberal!&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> Also, if Spain and Italy are both &quot;very liberal&quot;, that means a liberal team is guaranteed to win the championship. Guess it pays to be &quot;very liberal!&quot; [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:30, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990939 2012-07-01T19:26:44Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Euro 2012 */</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Deny it all you like, but ideologies do have consequences. Show me a sports team of atheists and I'll show you a team that's not going to win the championship.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 15:20, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::So all of those Soviet medal wins in the Olympics, or in international hockey, all of the medal wins by Chinese teams--they were all believers of one sort or another? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:26, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990937 2012-07-01T19:06:41Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Euro 2012 */</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::::::Your objection reminds me of the editor who thought it significant that [[Tim Tebow]], after winning a spectacular upset in the first game of last year's [[NFL]] playoffs, then lost in the second round to a much stronger team. My response then is similar to now: people usually don't look for a miracle to occur ever single time.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Euro 2012 ==<br /> Slightly off-topic, I admit, but I was wondering, whether Andy had any comments on the final of the European Cup final (soccer) that takes place tonight between Spain and Italy? Maybe even a prediction who might win? If you haven't followed the tournament so far, atheistic England went out in the quarter finals, while the liberal Netherlands didn't make it past the first round (same as catholic, pro-life Poland, incidentally). --[[User:FrederickT3|FrederickT3]] 13:31, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The [[Netherlands]] is a big [[same-sex marriage]] country, so no surprise there. Both [[Spain]] and [[Italy]] are very [[liberal]], so that's a tough choice. Poland was under communist martial law until about 20-25 years ago, so I don't think it's far to expect it to do as well.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:34, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::So gay marriage, political culture, and form of government matter more that the relative skill of the players, their histories in recent match-ups, their style of play, the depth of their squads, coaching, or any other soccer-related questions? So when you sit down to watch a given sports contest, you analyze the game through the lens of politics and religion, and not through the lenses of ability, strategy, or any other sports-related concept. Amazing. Absolutely amazing. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 15:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990920 2012-07-01T16:52:49Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::I'm fine with focusing on the winners - a entire entry called [[Greatest Conesrvative Sports Stars]] has been doing that for months. If you'd like to add a section to [[Olympics 2012]] that focuses on winners, that would be welcome. In fact, I'll start it for you now.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:46, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::Again, a great rhetorical move on your part--what about the non-conservative winners? If they're not conservative, they can't be winners. If they're winners, they must be conservative. If Tim Thomas doesn't lead the Boston Bruins to another Stanley Cup, hockey falls off the front page of the website; if the Miami Heat win, it's because they were somehow &quot;taught a lesson&quot; by a team they went on to beat soundly. Well played, sir. Well played. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990906 2012-07-01T16:29:44Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::There is nothing &quot;rhetorical&quot; about this. Ideologies obviously have consequences, and this is a prediction of those consequences beforehand, with an evaluation as the results occur. Surely we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, and every ideology is a winner too? (Except, of course, [[Christianity]], which [[liberals]] never want to credit).--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:22, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> ::::::Of course it's a rhetorical move--you are narrowing your analysis to focus on the political points that you are most interested in. Of course we shouldn't pretend that every contestant is a winner, so why not focus on reasons why people win, as opposed to why they lose--and surely Christianity is not the only reason, otherwise Jews, Muslims, atheists, Shintoists, Mormons, Moonies, Buddhists etc would never win any medals. It would be worthwhile to account for non-divine, or at least non-Christian reasons for success. Your focus on failure is really disheartening. Do you enjoy pointing out other's shortcomings, or are you projecting? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:29, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990900 2012-07-01T16:15:46Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* See also */</p> <hr /> <div>The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948.<br /> <br /> Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.<br /> <br /> [[Conservapedia]] predicts and analyzes underachievement by nations, or particular sports fielded by a nation, due to:<br /> <br /> == Nations That Impose [[Same-sex marriage]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[Argentina]]<br /> *[[Belgium]]<br /> *[[Canada]]<br /> *[[Iceland]]<br /> *[[Netherlands]]<br /> *[[Norway]]<br /> *[[Portugal]]<br /> *[[South Africa]]<br /> *[[Spain]]<br /> *[[Sweden]]<br /> <br /> == Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==<br /> <br /> *[[Britain]]<br /> <br /> == Sports that have been ravaged by [[feminist]] [[proportionality test|Title IX quotas]] in the [[U.S.]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[baseball]]<br /> *[[gymnastics]]<br /> *[[track and field]]<br /> *[[wrestling]]<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]<br /> <br /> [[category:Sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990899 2012-07-01T16:15:11Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Category 3 is sports-specific in the [[U.S.]], so there is no contradiction with categories 1 and 2, which are nation-specific.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:54, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :::Which is exactly why your matrix allows you to frame both US victories and US defeats in terms of your political agenda. It's an awesome rhetorical move. But I'm still curious as to why you are more focused on reasons for failure than on reasons for success. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 12:15, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990885 2012-07-01T15:06:48Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;? [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 11:06, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990884 2012-07-01T15:04:43Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)<br /> :Also, it's curious that you are focused on reasons for failure, not reasons for success. Why not divide up the matrix by, say, &quot;Countries with a record of supporting young athletes&quot;/&quot;Countries with a strong cultural tradition of teamwork&quot; or &quot;Countries with a strong tradition of individual accomplishment&quot;/&quot;Countries where fitness is held as an important value&quot;?</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990883 2012-07-01T14:53:32Z

<p>JeffreyB: /* Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S. */ Russia is communist? Set the wayback machine for 1991, Sherman!</p> <hr /> <div>The '''2012 Summer Olympic Games''', officially known as the '''Games of the XXX Olympiad''' and informally as '''London 2012''', will be held in [[London]] from July 15 through August 12. This makes London the first city to host the Games three times - the previous occasions being in 1908 and 1948.<br /> <br /> Athletes from 204 National Olympic Committees will be participating.<br /> <br /> [[Conservapedia]] will be focussing on the countries that perform badly, due to:<br /> <br /> == Nations That Impose [[Same-sex marriage]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[Canada]]<br /> *[[Netherlands]]<br /> <br /> == Nations that are increasingly [[atheist]]ic ==<br /> <br /> *[[Britain]]<br /> <br /> == Sports that have been ravaged by [[feminist]] [[Title IX]] in the [[U.S.]] ==<br /> <br /> *[[gymnastics]]<br /> *[[track and field]]<br /> *[[wrestling]]<br /> <br /> == See also ==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.london2012.com/schedule-and-results/ Schedule and Results]<br /> <br /> [[category:Sport]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Summer_Olympics&diff=990882 2012-07-01T14:52:26Z

<p>JeffreyB: &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>== &quot;1 Nations That Impose Same-sex marriage/ 2 Nations that are increasingly atheistic/ 3 Sports that have been ravaged by feminist Title IX in the U.S.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> Nice. Great way to cover all your bases. When the US does well, you can crow about the same-sex marriage and the atheism. When the US doesn't do well, you can pile on Title IX and the feminists. Win-Win. [[User:JeffreyB|JeffreyB]] 10:52, 1 July 2012 (EDT)</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=989773 2012-06-26T13:36:03Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):<br /> <br /> #[[Andre Agassi]] &amp;mdash; [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.<br /> #[[David Beckham]] &amp;mdash; far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?<br /> #[[Kobe Bryant]] &amp;mdash; not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];&lt;ref&gt;[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company (&quot;Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.&quot;)]&lt;/ref&gt; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.<br /> #[[Sol Campbell]] &amp;mdash; Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.<br /> #[[Wayne Gretzky]]&amp;mdash; Was only able to win a Stanley Cup in one of the four cities in which he played; never won an Olympic medal, a World Championship, a World Junior Championship or a World Cup; inflated his points total with assists, relying on other players to actually score goals. Missed the playoffs each year he served as coach of the Phoenix Coyotes.<br /> #[[LeBron James]] &amp;mdash; 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant<br /> #[[Magic Johnson]] &amp;mdash; lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.<br /> #*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]<br /> #[[Peyton Manning]] &amp;mdash; a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<br /> #[[Steve Nash]] &amp;mdash; an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals<br /> #[[Mark Sanchez]] &amp;mdash; the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.<br /> #[[Tiger Woods]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.&lt;ref&gt;Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Michael Schumacher &amp;mdash; has failed to perform after his return to [[Formula One]] racing and has been consistently outperformed by his teammate. His first podium finish since 2006 came only after many drivers in front of him retired from the race. Schumacher still receives generous media attention.<br /> <br /> <br /> (please revise or add to list)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=989771 2012-06-26T13:34:45Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):<br /> <br /> #[[Andre Agassi]] &amp;mdash; [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.<br /> #[[David Beckham]] &amp;mdash; far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?<br /> #[[Kobe Bryant]] &amp;mdash; not as valuable to the game as [[Jeremy Lin]]; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];&lt;ref&gt;[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company (&quot;Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.&quot;)]&lt;/ref&gt; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.<br /> #[[Sol Campbell]] &amp;mdash; Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.<br /> #[[Wayne Gretzky]]&amp;mdash; Was only able to win a Stanley Cup in one of the four cities in which he played; never won an Olympic medal, a World Championship, a World Junior Championship or a World Cup; inflated his points total with assists, relying on other players to actually score goals. Missed the playoffs each year he served as coach of the Phoenix Coyotes.<br /> #[[LeBron James]] &amp;mdash; 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant<br /> #[[Magic Johnson]] &amp;mdash; lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.<br /> #*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]<br /> #[[Peyton Manning]] &amp;mdash; a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<br /> #[[Steve Nash]] &amp;mdash; an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals<br /> #[[Mark Sanchez]] &amp;mdash; the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.<br /> #[[Tiger Woods]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.&lt;ref&gt;Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> #Michael Schumacher &amp;mdash; has failed to perform after his return to formula 1 and has been consistently outperformed by his teammate. His first podium finish since 2006 came only after many drivers in front of him retired from the race. Schumacher still receives generous media attention<br /> <br /> <br /> (please revise or add to list)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=989764 2012-06-26T13:12:29Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):<br /> <br /> #[[Andre Agassi]] &amp;mdash; [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.<br /> #[[David Beckham]] &amp;mdash; far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?<br /> #[[Kobe Bryant]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];&lt;ref&gt;[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company (&quot;Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.&quot;)]&lt;/ref&gt; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.<br /> #[[Sol Campbell]] &amp;mdash; Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.<br /> #[[Wayne Gretzky]]&amp;mdash; Was only able to win a Stanley Cup in one of the four cities in which he played; never won an Olympic medal, a World Championship, a World Junior Championship or a World Cup; inflated his points total with assists, relying on other players to actually score goals. Missed the playoffs each year he served as coach of the Phoenix Coyotes.<br /> #[[LeBron James]] &amp;mdash; 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant<br /> #[[Magic Johnson]] &amp;mdash; lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.<br /> #*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]<br /> #[[Peyton Manning]] &amp;mdash; a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<br /> #[[Steve Nash]] &amp;mdash; an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals<br /> #[[Mark Sanchez]] &amp;mdash; the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.<br /> #[[Tiger Woods]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.&lt;ref&gt;Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> (please revise or add to list)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=989763 2012-06-26T13:10:49Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):<br /> <br /> #[[Andre Agassi]] &amp;mdash; [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.<br /> #[[David Beckham]] &amp;mdash; far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?<br /> #[[Kobe Bryant]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];&lt;ref&gt;[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company (&quot;Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.&quot;)]&lt;/ref&gt; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.<br /> #[[Sol Campbell]] &amp;mdash; Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.<br /> #[[Wayne Gretzky]]&amp;mdash; Was only able to win a Stanley Cup in one of the four cities in which he played; never won an Olympic medal, a World Championship, a World Junior Championship or a World Cup; inflated his points total with assists, relying on other players to actually score goals.<br /> #[[LeBron James]] &amp;mdash; 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant<br /> #[[Magic Johnson]] &amp;mdash; lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.<br /> #*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]<br /> #[[Peyton Manning]] &amp;mdash; a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<br /> #[[Steve Nash]] &amp;mdash; an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals<br /> #[[Mark Sanchez]] &amp;mdash; the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.<br /> #[[Tiger Woods]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.&lt;ref&gt;Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> (please revise or add to list)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Overrated_Sports_Stars&diff=989762 2012-06-26T13:09:33Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>The [[lamestream media]] like to promote athletes based not on skill, but for other reasons. Here's a growing list of the most overrated sports stars (notice how none are on the list of [[Essay:Greatest Conservative Sports Stars|Greatest Conservative Sports Stars]]):<br /> <br /> #[[Andre Agassi]] &amp;mdash; [[Pete Sampras]] was far better, but Sampras is [[conservative]]. Agassi is a big donor to [[Democrat]] politicians.<br /> #[[David Beckham]] &amp;mdash; far from the best, but promoted like he's [[Pele]]. Is Beckham socially [[liberal]] like some of the others on this list?<br /> #[[Kobe Bryant]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a title without super-coaching by Phil Jackson, who observes that Kobe is not on the high level of [[Michael Jordan]];&lt;ref&gt;[http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2011-03-14/phil-jackson-says-kobe-bryant-not-in-michael-jordans-company (&quot;Stop comparing anyone to Michael Jordan. It's just not fair. He was remarkable.... (Kobe) doesn't shoot the same percentage (.455) as Michael (.497). He has the same characteristics as Michael, but he's not the same player. It takes nothing away from him — he's a great player in his own right.&quot;)]&lt;/ref&gt; Kobe makes only 46% of his shots, and scores lots of points because he hogs the ball.<br /> #[[Sol Campbell]] &amp;mdash; Is known to be sympathetic towards [[homosexual]] rights campaigners. During his England career they failed to win a single major tournament. While at Arsenal he failed to win the champions League, only ever making the final once and only won the Premier League a measly two times.<br /> #[[Wayne Gretzky]]&amp;mdash; Was only able to win a Stanley Cup in one of the four cities in which he played; never won an Olympic medal or a World Cup; inflated his points total with assists, relying on other players to actually score goals.<br /> #[[LeBron James]] &amp;mdash; 2012's NBA Finals MVP is far from the best player in the [[NBA]], he is way overrated by the liberal ESPN compared to Christian Kevin Durant<br /> #[[Magic Johnson]] &amp;mdash; lucky enough to play on [[Kareem Abdul-Jabbar]]'s Lakers to win some titles, but was crushed by [[Michael Jordan]] and the Bulls; no problem, Magic was a critic of President [[George H.W. Bush]], which thrilled liberals.<br /> #*People look at him (a heterosexual male who had unprotected sex with numerous women), and say, 'Hey, it's OK to get HIV because I'm living with it.' That is the wrong message. [http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500202_162-57319698/20-years-since-magic-johnsons-hiv-stunner/]<br /> #[[Peyton Manning]] &amp;mdash; a [[quarterback]] who won only one [[NFL]] championship, despite being voted by the media and others to be NFL MVP 4 times, AFC Player of the Year 6 times, and Pro Bowler 11 times. The [[liberal media]] treated him like the Second Coming of [[Christ]] in order to oust [[conservative]] [[Tim Tebow]] from his leadership position in the [[swing state]] of [[Colorado]] prior to the [[Presidential Election 2012]].<br /> #[[Steve Nash]] &amp;mdash; an [http://www.brightsideofthesun.com/2009/3/25/809516/steve-nash-on-media-bias-t outspoken liberal who supported Obama], Nash was chosen ''twice'' by the [[lamestream media]] as the [[NBA]] MVP despite never leading his team to even an NBA Finals<br /> #[[Mark Sanchez]] &amp;mdash; the [[New York Jets]] [[quarterback]] is being touted as the team's best QB over [[conservative]] [[Christian]] [[Tim Tebow]] despite falling apart at the end of the 2011–12 season. Now that Tebow's on-board, [[liberals]] are championing the former [[USC]] star as the superior player despite his recently poor play.<br /> #[[Tiger Woods]] &amp;mdash; hasn't won a major golf tournament in four years, and yet he's still the only one liberals want to talk about while reporting on tournaments.&lt;ref&gt;Years ago Woods, amid media hoopla, won the PGA Player of the Year a record ten times; Byron Nelson Award for lowest adjusted scoring average a record eight times; holds the record for leading the money list in nine different seasons; won 14 professional major golf championships, the second highest of any player, and 73 PGA Tour events, tied for 2nd all time; has more career major wins and career PGA Tour wins than any other active golfer; is the youngest player to achieve the career Grand Slam, and the youngest and fastest to win 50 tournaments; is only the second golfer to have achieved a career Grand Slam three times.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> <br /> (please revise or add to list)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category:sports]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Jonah_Goldberg&diff=989711 2012-06-26T03:58:08Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Goldberg jonah.jpg|right|thumb]]<br /> '''Jonah Jacob Goldberg''' (born March 21, 1969) is a [[popular]] [[conservative]] author and journalist. He serves as the editor of [[National Review]] Online and writes a thrice-weekly column &quot;The Goldberg File.&quot;<br /> <br /> Goldberg was formerly a researcher at the [[American Enterprise Institute]] in [[Washington DC]]. His writing has appeared in ''The New Yorker'', ''Worth'', the ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', ''[[Commentary]]'', ''The Public Interest'', ''The Wilson Quarterly'', ''[[The Weekly Standard]]'', the ''New York Post'', ''Reason'', ''The Women's Quarterly'', ''The New Criterion'', ''Food and Wine'', ''The Street.com'', and ''Slate''. [http://www.nationalreview.com/masthead/masthead-goldberg.asp] He is the author of [[Liberal Fascism]].<br /> <br /> He is the son of media personality [[Lucianne Goldberg]], a figure in the investigation in the 1990s of [[U.S. President]] [[Bill Clinton]].<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Goldberg, Jonah}}<br /> <br /> [[category:Journalists]]<br /> [[Category:Conservatives]]<br /> [[Category:The 100 Americans The Left Hates Most]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Tyranny_of_Cliches&diff=989710 2012-06-26T03:56:39Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>'''''The Tyranny of Cliches''''' is a book by [[Jonah Goldberg]] explaining how [[liberal]]s &quot;peddle some of the most radical arguments by hiding them in homespun aphorisms&quot;. [http://www.amazon.com/The-Tyranny-Cliches-Liberals-Cheat/dp/1595230866/ref=pd_sim_b_5]<br /> <br /> [[category: books]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Howard_Fast&diff=989709 2012-06-26T03:55:39Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Howard Fast''' (1914 - 2003) was a pro-[[Communist]] writer who was cited for [[contempt of Congress]] in 1946 for refusing to produce records of the Communist-dominated front organization cited on the [[Attorney General's list]] of [[subversive]] organizations known as the [[Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee]]. He was convicted in Federal Court on July 16, 1947, and jailed following a [[Supreme Court]] decision upholding his conviction. <br /> <br /> During [[World War II]] Fast worked in the [[Office of War Information]]. Fast was a reciepient of the [[Stalin Peace Prize]] in 1953.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.trussel.com/hf/plots/t590.htm&lt;/ref&gt; Howard Fast was a member of the [[Communist Party]].&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.nndb.com/org/715/000041592/ Communist Party USA]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[Daily Worker]]<br /> *[[Chicago Star]]<br /> *[[Paul Robeson]]<br /> *[[William Howard Melish]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist}}<br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Fast, Howard}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:communists]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contempt_of_Congress&diff=989708 2012-06-26T03:49:34Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>&quot;Contempt of [[Congress]] is defined in statute, 2 U.S.C.A. § 192, enacted in 1938, which states that any person who is summoned before Congress who &quot;willfully makes default, or who, having appeared, refuses to answer any question pertinent to the question under inquiry&quot; shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum $1,000 fine and 12 month imprisonment.&quot; [http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contempt_of_Congress]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Peer-reviewed_ID_literature&diff=989707 2012-06-26T03:47:56Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>Whether or not any scientific papers have been published about [[intelligent design]] is a bone of contention among those debating whether ID should be studied in government-financed schools.<br /> * Minnich testified that he believed that about 10 peer-reviewed papers had been published which were by ID proponents and supported ID arguments. Minnich specifically mentioned papers by Axe, Behe, and Meyer. Harvey tried to take apart the papers by Axe and Behe by noting that they didn't specifically mention ID. But Minnich explained that the point of these papers is to find specified complexity in sequence space--a prediction of ID. [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/11/minnich_vs_harvey_the_witness001301.html#more]<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> * [[Peer review]]<br /> * [[Critics of intelligent design]] <br /> <br /> [[category: Intelligent Design]]</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mohamed_Morsi&diff=989706 2012-06-26T03:46:51Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>Mohamed Morsi is the current president of [[Egypt]]. The head of the Freedom and Justice party, the [[Muslim Brotherhood]]'s political wing, Morsi is Egypt's first democratically-elected civilian president.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/mohamed-morsi-victory-landmark?intcmp=239&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Morsi was born in 1951, and studied engineering at Cairo University, before receiving his Ph.D. from the [[University of Southern California]] in 1982.&lt;ref&gt;[[http://www.aljazeera.net/home/print/0353e88a-286d-4266-82c6-6094179ea26d/ec1af614-ab8b-4f33-9e16-b7969e03e175]]&lt;/ref&gt;. He then went on to teach at [[California State University]], Northridge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/profile-mohamed-morsi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487&lt;/ref&gt; After teaching there for some years he returned to Egypt, and was an MP from 2000 - 2005.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/profile-mohamed-morsi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mohamed_Morsi&diff=989705 2012-06-26T03:46:37Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>Mohamed Morsi is the current president of [[Egypt]]. The head of the Freedom and Justice party, the [[Muslim Brotherhood]]'s political wing, Morsi is Egypt's first democratically-elected civilian president.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/mohamed-morsi-victory-landmark?intcmp=239&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Morsi was born in 1951, and studied engineering at Cairo University, before receiving his Ph.D. from the [[University of South California]] in 1982.&lt;ref&gt;[[http://www.aljazeera.net/home/print/0353e88a-286d-4266-82c6-6094179ea26d/ec1af614-ab8b-4f33-9e16-b7969e03e175]]&lt;/ref&gt;. He then went on to teach at [[California State University]], Northridge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/profile-mohamed-morsi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487&lt;/ref&gt; After teaching there for some years he returned to Egypt, and was an MP from 2000 - 2005.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/profile-mohamed-morsi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

JeffreyB https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Mohamed_Morsi&diff=989704 2012-06-26T03:46:08Z

<p>JeffreyB: </p> <hr /> <div>Mohamed Morsi is the current president of [[Egypt]]. The head of the Freedom and Justice party, the [[Muslim Brotherhood]]'s political wing, Morsi is Egypt's first democratically-elected civilian president.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/mohamed-morsi-victory-landmark?intcmp=239&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Morsi was born in 1951, and studied engineering at Cairo University, before receiving his Ph.D. from the [[University of South California]] in 1982.&lt;ref&gt;[[http://www.aljazeera.net/home/print/0353e88a-286d-4266-82c6-6094179ea26d/ec1af614-ab8b-4f33-9e16-b7969e03e175]]. He then went on to teach at [[California State University]], Northridge.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/profile-mohamed-morsi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487&lt;/ref&gt; After teaching there for some years he returned to Egypt, and was an MP from 2000 - 2005.&lt;ref&gt;http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/24/profile-mohamed-morsi?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> ==References==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

JeffreyB